It’s All About Texas

Posted: June 10, 2010 in Big East, Big Ten, Sports
Tags: , , ,

Here’s the latest of what I know from the Big Ten side of the ledger (not the maybe Texas/maybe Pac-10 perspective that is found elsewhere):

The Big Ten is focused on Texas and Notre Dame.  I don’t mean that in a “Duh, of course they want them!” way.  I mean in a serious/this may happen by this weekend way.  There are 3 scenarios for the Big Ten (please note that these additions are on top of Nebraska):

(1) Add Texas and Notre Dame alone – If Texas A&M goes to the SEC (and it appears that the Aggies are hot and heavy with that conference with Oklahoma possibly behind them), then the Big Ten would stop at 14.  This is actually the optimal situation for the Big Ten.

(2) Add Texas, Notre Dame, Texas A&M and a team to be determined – If Texas A&M decides to join, there’s going to be a rigorous internal debate about who is school #16.  Missouri, Rutgers and Syracuse, not surprisingly, are named as the most likely contenders for that last spot.

(3) Add no one else – Same debate regarding Missouri, Rutgers and Syracuse (and maybe others) applies here, where the disagreement about who else could be added may result in the Big Ten only adding Nebraska and stopping at 12.

My understanding is that Texas DOES want to join the Big Ten despite public posturing.  I might have been throwing crap against the wall a few months ago about that, but I’m NOT now.  Texas and the Big Ten have been dancing for a VERY long time in this process.

Also note that there are reasons why Notre Dame might be “forced” to join a conference that are different than the overall “seismic” shift that Jack Sarbrick has talked about.  Namely, a Big East message board obsession has apparently come true.  Read into that what you will.

That’s what I know.  Here’s what I think:

Texas A&M entertaining an offer from the SEC is the best thing that could happen to the Big Ten.  The way to remove the “Tech problem” politically is to expose just how much more money Texas and Texas A&M are leaving on the table by having to drag its in-state cousins to the Pac-10 (or with the addition of Colorado today, the Pac Televen).  Indeed, check out the message being set forth by A&M tonight:

Former Texas A&M football coach R.C. Slocum, who now works as a special adviser to [Texas A&M President Bowen] Loftin, said football programs are carrying an increased financial burden to support other sports, so they’re drawn to potentially massive TV contracts for more revenue.

“You look at the level of funding that all programs need to have, and it’s a business decision that universities now have to make,” Slocum said.

Slocum said any decision A&M makes will be based purely on its financial impact, and not on more intangible elements, like preserving traditions and rivalries.

The Texas A&M athletic department has around $16 million in debt, so if/when it gets an invite to SEC, it’s on the record that it’s not going to take a haircut in order to be in the same conference as Texas Tech and Baylor.  So, if A&M asserts that it can control its own destiny, Texas has the moral/political authority to do whatever it wants.  As I’ve argued from the beginning, the Big Ten makes the most financial and academic sense for Texas and my understanding is that the powers that be in Austin (the campus as opposed to the capitol) agree.  Texas wouldn’t be publicly calling for the saving of the Big XII in order to start a Longhorn Sports Network only to head to the Pac Televen, where the projected TV revenue from the proposed 16-team league doesn’t even match what the Big Ten (and for that matter, the SEC) provides to each member today.  Something is amiss there and I hope some journalists put aside their personal assumptions about what “should” happen and attack that angle seriously over the next few days.  Whoever does is going to end up with the scoop of the year.

In the meantime, as JB Kirby that runs the506.com (of NFL TV Distribution Maps fame) said today, this a special moment in history where the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Big 12 all have 11 members.  Enjoy it because it’s not going to last for long.

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)

(Image from Kaboodle)

About these ads
Comments
  1. Kyle2MSU says:

    Add us some Horns!

  2. K says:

    Love my full inbox

  3. Kyle says:

    So Marinatto has got off his ass and made the ultimatum to Swarbrick? wow, I didn’t think he had it in him.

    • PensfaninLAexile says:

      Once that fails — he’s going to McDonald’s and deliver the three happy meals ultimatum. Which one do you think will be successful?

    • GOPWolv says:

      makes good strategic sense. why not throw ND under the bus to save the Big East.

    • Scott C says:

      It’s surprising. I wonder if the Big East plan to make a run at KU/K-State. They might even be able to pick up Missouri. All for pennies on the dollar. :)

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      um, so maybe answering my own question below, the “big east message board obsession” is BE commis Marinatto’s ultimatum to ND to either join fully or get out of the BE for the other sports?

      do we have any confirmation on that?

      as I asked many times concerning the TX/BXII ultimatum to NEB and Mizzu: What’s the punishment? what can Marinatto do? Are there enough votes to toss ND from the BE? I’d seriously doubt it.

      Sounds like an empty ultimatum to me.

  4. Ryan says:

    Of the three 11 team conferences (Pac 10, Big 12, Big 10), who do you feel is the strongest football conference right now? Obviously this current situation won’t last, but it’s interesting to look at.

    I’d say….

    1) Big 12
    2) Pac 10
    3) Big 10

    • Phizzy says:

      Pac-10 stronger than the Big Ten?

      • Ryan says:

        I guess it depends on the USC situation. These sanctions could seriously damage their program for years to come. If that’s the case I’d give a slight edge to the Big 10.

    • Pezlion says:

      :roll:

      I’ll take some email.

    • M says:

      I’m obviously a homer here, but what 5 teams in the current Big 12 do you put up against Ohio State, Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin and Nebraska?

      If we go straight from last year’s final AP poll, there are only 2 current Big 12 in the top 25 (#2 Texas, #21 Texas Tech) and 2 from the Pac-10 (#11 Oregon, #22 the smoking husk of USC’s football programs). Those 5 Big Ten teams are #5, #7, #9, #14, and #16. In other words, the second highest rated team in either of the other two conferences would be 6th in the Big Ten.

      Not trying to start a pissing war, just wondering the reasoning.

      • Gopher86 says:

        Nebraska isn’t officially in the Big Ten yet– hence 11 teams.

      • Rod M says:

        I’m a homer also and support your argument completely, except I might toss Northwestern into that mix considering it’s stability, beating Iowa and WI and playing a killer bowlgame. Besides that, your argument rocks.

    • Bamatab says:

      I think the Big 10 by far (and this is coming from an SEC guy). The Big 10 has OSU, Michigan, PSU, and Neb as top tradition teams. When you factor in Iowa and Wisc (which have been top 15 teams the past few years), in my eyes that equals a line up that exceeds both the Big 12 and Pac 10. Plus the rivalries are better and the fans actually care about college football. JMHO

  5. PensfaninLAexile says:

    Mizzou, get your head out of the oven — it’s an electric you fool.

  6. Playoffs Now! says:

    The P16 is still in play because TX has no intentions of sharing revenue equally at the $20 million figure. Now that they’ve got it out there that the SEC would allow TX to keep its LSN, that’s the new threshold, at least for the P16. How bad do they want TX?

    So what’s the sticking point with TX and the B10+? LSN or waiting on ND to decide?

    And what’s the BEast board obsession? I don’t speak double chess #.

    You can pretty much write off aTm heading north. They’re delusional with SEC fevor the way those prissied up plantation boys had war fever in Gone With the Wind. And in a few years will reap about the same results.

    • Phizzy says:

      “And what’s the BEast board obsession?”

      See Kyle’s post above…

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Thanks. Though I’m a bit skeptical of that.

        One thing about the B10+ adding NE-TX-ND and stopping at 14, that’s a number the P11 could reach. Add Utah-KS-MO, no academic compromise. Might not be a big winner financially, but if we move to a playoff based on 5 or 6 14-school conferences it could payoff.

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Playoffs – I don’t see how the Pac 11 can have a 14 team league, unless they do a zipper division model. A zipper works for 12, but I just can’t see it for 14. 16 takes them to a geographic division model, which probably works best for the old bulls in the Pac-8.

          • Stopping By says:

            Zipper is only way to do any division set up in the Pac till you get to 16 due to the geographical pairs of the current 10

          • Playoffs Now! says:

            Lots of ways to set it up without a zipper. Set up 3 annual rivalry games for each school, then play the other 10 every other year. 8 game schedule, no big deal. Done if no divisions, or can simply flip divisions every year back and forth. Conceptually similar to a zipper but without the rigid geographic factor. Set up the natural rivalries, then let the computers sort the rest out.

    • Kyle says:

      The big eat board are constantly talking about a get in or out ultimatum to Notre Dame as well as the benefits and logistics of a catholic/football split. The ultimatum would finally make sense if they can get a guarantee from Delaney to leave the Big East alone.

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Thanks.

      • Sportsman24 says:

        I wonder if the FB schools in the BE said they would split from the BB schools, if they didn’t “expel” ND. The only problem w/ that is… Why would they do that, if they were hoping for a BT invite themselves?

        • Phizzy says:

          Probably because only a few (or perhaps only one – Rutgers) have a realistic shot at a Big Ten invite.
          Rutgers – possible
          Syracuse – possible, but not likely
          Pittsburgh – possible, but not likely
          Cincinnati – no
          West Virginia – no
          Louisville – no
          South Florida – no
          Connecticut – no

          • Sportsman24 says:

            @Phizzy,

            While I agree w/ your premise, I disagree w/ your breakdown…
            * Possible: Pitt, SU & RU
            * Unlikely: UConn (under the right circumstances)
            * No: UCin, UL, USF & WVU

            @Kyle,

            I believe the BE would need a unanimous vote from all members (both FB & BB) for a member to be expelled (excluding the expelled institution). I don’t believe a conference commissioner has that authority.

          • Kyle says:

            @ Sportsman

            You’re absolutely right, but there are ways around that for negotiations. Marinatto wouldn’t really be expelling Notre Dame, just giving a somewhat empty ultimatum (just like the commitment deadline Dan Beebe sent to Mizzou and Nebraska). Maybe Swarbrick hinted at such an ultimatum as a viable excuse he could give the angry alumni (“we didn’t want to, but the Big East left us no choice…”) Or perhaps Delaney called the Big East offices and promised “if you give Notre Dame this little nudge out the door, you have my word that syracuse, rutgers, and pitt will not receive invitations.”

        • Kyle says:

          It may not be individual schools issuing the ultimatum. In the interest in keeping his conference/job, Marinatto may have contacted or been contact by Delaney in order to hammer out some sort of deal.

        • thesieve says:

          If the BE did that, ND would leave and the football schools could add ECU, Memphis or UCF to get to 10 and have a voting advantage over the BBall schools.

          • Phil says:

            The ultimatum idea makes no sense because some time soon the Big East football and non-football groups are going to split. How they are going to get the Catholic non-football schools to vote to kick out ND when those schools all want ND in their conference after the football schools leave? Notre Dame has to know that any threat from Marinotto is a hollow one.

          • @Phil – I have long believed the same thing and even wrote about it in a post not long ago. However, my understanding is that things have changed. BE football schools that were holding out hoping that the Big Ten might annex them all en masse are starting to realize that maybe only one of them gets invited (if any). The football schools need the Catholic schools because the major market basketball package is leveraged for more football exposure on ESPN. (This isn’t the case for any other conference, but it’s the situation that the BE will always find themselves in). As I’ve said, the Catholic schools don’t believe that ND will stay with them in a split, so their interest in keeping ND around is much lower compared to preserving a league that still has Syracuse, UConn and Pitt for basketball.

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            @ Frank:

            does anyone know how many votes are needed to expel ND? someone above said 100%; even if it is 51%, are the votes there?

      • Mark says:

        I went to the “Big Eats” board by mistake. Now I’m hungry.

    • djinndjinn says:

      PN: I’m a bit of a computer Luddite, it’s true, but how do you imbed a video like that?

  7. greg says:

    Keep up the awesome work. Honestly, I’m slightly embarassed to admit how much I checked your twitter account today for news on Texas.

  8. Brent says:

    Can someone clarify the Big East message board obsession?

    • Phizzy says:

      Booting Notre Dame. See Kyle’s posts above for more info.

    • PBC Fan Club says:

      I’m pretty sure Frank is directly quoting Purple Book Cat from the Northwestern Rivals Board here. Not a big east rivals board, but was the first to mention the big east pressuring ND out of the conference about a month ago.

      PURPLE BOOK CAT AT WILDCAT REPORT HAS BEEN ALL OVER THIS AND IS DEAD ON.

  9. jcfreder says:

    adding

  10. Todd says:

    Um, must be SEC math there? Pac 10 has 11 yes. But Big 10 has 12, and Big 12 is now 10. Just pointing that out.

  11. m (Ag) says:

    Well, I’m hoping for the Big 10.

    But the SEC would still be a boost up from where we’ve been the last 14 years (since I don’t really see the Big 12 as having any kind of academic rating itself).

    If we must go to the SEC I hope they get Virginia Tech or Florida State to pair up with us in a 14 team conference and stop there. Either one would be a great cross-divisional rival.

    • Bamatab says:

      @m(Ag), would you prefer a team from the east, or would you prefer OU to come along with you to the SEC?

      • m (Ag) says:

        Oklahoma would certainly be a good addition. We’ve had many good games and they certainly have a national name. I wouldn’t campaign against them unless OSU would have to come along.

        That said, they still feel to me like a second hand rival. UT had been playing them forever when the Big 12 started, and I think it’s kept me from ever feeling passionate about playing them. The fact that I watch the Red River Rivalry on TV each year and the announcers talk about how historic that rivalry is doesn’t help. It just reinforces the idea that it’s UT’s non-conference rival that got thrown into my conference.

        When one or both of us is highly ranked I get excited the week of our game, but I don’t get excited thinking about it when I look at a schedule in August. It’s quite possible current students, who grew up with the Big 12, feel differently. The fact that I’m not a Texan, and didn’t grow up with Oklahoma as a next-door state, also might be part of why they don’t evoke strong passion from me.

        Objectively, I think Virginia Tech or Florida State, if available, would be somewhat better adds for the SEC. Virginia Tech expands into a whole new state that is large and growing; I believe Florida State would probably add more fans in Florida than Oklahoma would in Oklahoma & Texas, though I admit I could be wrong.

        Either of those schools would also make natural ‘cross-divisional’ rivals for Texas A&M if the SEC continues its current setup. Both are somewhat stigmatized as the ‘other school’ in their state. Virginia Tech is also the only other major football school that has a Corps of Cadets (other than the military academies, of course).

        So while other Aggies might feel differently, I’d first want one of those schools as a 14 school, but I wouldn’t be disappointed with Oklahoma.

        • JohnB says:

          I agree that OU-A&M doesn’t have a big rivalry feel – there isn’t much history between the schools before the advent of the Big12. That’s partly due to the OU-Texas game being in-conference, and the way OU’s and A&M’s ups and downs have worked out, Tech has ended up being a bigger game for us (OU) a number of years.

          Without my lobbying hat on, I think OU would be a better add for the SEC than would Florida State, which brings no new markets. VaTech would be close, as I see the benefits to the SEC of expanding northward up the populous east coast. OTOH, while VaTech fans seem pretty intense, my experience in VA leads me to think they won’t bring the sort of statewide fanaticism that OU would.

          • yatesc says:

            VaTech would be a great fit in terms of their football prowess, but not a great match in terms of football passion. Not that they don’t love their team dearly, I just don’t think their football lunacy is at a level to really mesh with the SEC.
            As long as UF has any clout at all, there’s no chance of FSU joining the SEC. None.
            The SEC would be better off adding Oklahoma or TAMU.

    • twk says:

      I agree that I hope that A&M goes to the SEC, and that they take 1 team to make it 14. It’s not really our place to tell the SEC who to take, but looking at it objectively, I think that Virginia Tech would be the best choice. An Eastern team would probably be best in the first place, since that would allow the existing divisions to simply add one team each but otherwise remain intact, but the trick is to find one that adds a new market. Virginia Tech is the best combination of new market, and willingness to come (I think you can rule out schools like UNC).

      I’d be OK with OU coming along, but it’s probably better for A&M if they are in the Pac 10 with Texas. Frankly, I don’t think OU could afford to be in a different conference than Texas, unless A&M is in the same conference with Texas. If forced to choose betweeen OU and A&M for an OOC rivalry game (Horsn wouldn’t play both), OU probably gets the nod, but the Sooners can’t setlle for probably. They need that game in Dallas.

      • SH says:

        OU and VTech would both be good choices. I don’t have the vested interest in SEC expansion as I do in B10 expansion. OU brings the national brand. VTech brings a growing state, and a good football team as well. I doubt the VA legislature would care about VTech going to SEC.

        But looking at it from SEC’s perspective, I’d want to increase my SEC brand as the top college football conference. Who does that? OU. From that perspective OU is a better fit than A&M. Just that A&M (like UT) brings along such a huge market – it can’t be ignored.

        Here’s a question for HH and other UT fans: if OU and A&M were to end up in SEC and UT in B10, would you want to continue to play both schools as OOC rivals? UT could have an extremely tough schedule – but that can be a blessing. I say you do, but want to know your thoughts as fans of UT.

  12. GopherKH says:

    Add

  13. M says:

    What will Texas do? How much egg will Missouri get on its face? Will the Big 12 see another sunset? Stay tuned (as if you could pull yourself away).

  14. M says:

    IMO, Scenario 2 is the best case, with Rutgers, Virginia or Maryland as the extra school.

    Also, subscribe fail.

    • Sportsman24 says:

      If the BE issued an ultimatum to ND in exchange for a promise from the BT that they won’t take any other BE institutions, then RU is off the table.

      If true, then I’d prefer MD to join.

      Also, if ND is forced out of the BE and into the BT, can you imagine the animosity from already irate Domers?

      • Vincent says:

        If it came down to Maryland vs. Missouri for spot #16 alongside Nebraska, A&M, Texas and Notre Dame, I have no doubt the Big Ten presidents would want Maryland over Mizzou. And Maryland would jump at the opportunity, no matter what Deborah Yow may say publicly. That’s elevated company to be in.

  15. tophawk1983 says:

    I hope you get Texas. I hope they take over your league. I hope you’re all crying in your beers for the next 50 years. You’re about to all see how delusional you’ve been that Ohio State is better than Texas. Don’t think a Texan is going to replace Delany eventually. Just watch.

    • Phizzy says:

      How would Texas take over the Big Ten?

    • Hodgepodge says:

      Maybe if Kansas and the other schools didn’t continually vote on the side of Texas, Texas wouldn’t have “taken over” in the first place.

    • 84Lion says:

      I would agree but I doubt that Texas alone could “take over” the Big Ten. Even with A&M, I doubt they would have the horsepower to influence anything of major substance. OTOH, I could see them doing things like getting a CCG at Jerry’s World, only to see tOSU vs. Wisconsin for the Big Ten title. What I could see is, some years down the road, Texas being unhappy in the Big Ten not having control, being a geographic outlier, etc.

      Teams like Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers…I could see them staying in the Big Ten forever. Texas…I can’t see it. Give it a few years and the marriage will turn sour. As we are already seeing, they have many options and will take advantage of all of those options.

  16. [...] Iowa St to the Big East? Twitter post that Jon re-tweeted. Wordmandc I can confirm that Kansas, Kansas State, MO. and Iowa State are starting talks with The Big East.A 12 team FB Conf & a 20 BB cinf. Also another blogger saying Texas wants to join the Big Ten. It’s All About Texas FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT [...]

  17. IrishTexan says:

    If Texas joins the Big Ten, I would love Notre Dame to join as well. I was born and raised in Texas and graduated from Notre Dame, so this would make for even more fun on Saturdays.

    I fully understand that my desire to join a conference places me in the minority of Notre Dame alumni. I’m fine with that. I would love to stay independent as long as possible, but I don’t think ND can do that in tomorrow’s college football.

    Athletics played a huge part in improving the university. Don’t let athletics take away from potential all-around academic improvement. You can have both national athletics AND strong academics with this choice, Irish.

    • djinndjinn says:

      IT: I’m curious about your take on something.

      From what I am able to discern, pretty well all the Irish (except you) are completely (and irrationally, imo) dead-set against joining the Big Ten.

      But for the sake of discussion, let’s say they do join for whatever reason. How do you feel the institution would be as a partner to the Big Ten?

      And second, how do you think the 90+% of domers (those completely anti-Big Ten) are going to feel about things over the next few years? Can you see them “coming around” to the idea of belonging to a community? Or do you foresee never-ending problems?

      Because while I can see the appeal of playing the Irish now and again, and the appeal of the increase in eyeballs watching on the BTN, I just don’t see them ever fitting in.

      • IrishTexan says:

        I concede that there are differences and Notre Dame might not fit in (or, at the very least, fit in early on). You can look at a variety of angles: Catholic, undergrad-focus, small student body, less research than Big Ten peers, desire to play a national schedule, etc.

        If Notre Dame were to join the Big Ten, I think a healthy chunk of alumni would be difficult (but not impossible) to win over. I think the older crowd will take anti-Big Ten sentiments to their graves. However, I think middle-aged and younger alumni can be swayed IF, over time, they see that Big Ten membership has not changed the university they know and love. And if Notre Dame is at least able to make its trips across the country (east, west, southwest, and I don’t see why they can’t), you can maintain a national audience.

        However, if you are interested in the academic benefits of the Big Ten (as I am), I think you would be much easier to win over. Let’s not forget Notre Dame has a school to run.

        Make no mistake about it, athletics gave Notre Dame the visibility and name to improve itself academically. Football is THE thing at Notre Dame, and independence is all ND football has known, and I think fans/alumni view it as one of the constants that link the Notre Dame of old to the Notre Dame of today. It’s a very romantic concept- a pack of blue-collar, hard-working, tough underdogs barnstorming across the nation and taking on all comers. To join a conference would mean killing the Notre Dame of old (well, to some people).

        I don’t view it that way. I think joining a conference will eventually be a necessary step in order to continue to compete at the highest level of football. The game is changing, and many people are reluctant to change. Notre Dame needs to ask itself what it wants more: compete at the highest level, or maintain independence. We can do both now, but I don’t know for how much longer.

        Further, joining the Big Ten brings great academic perks. The Big Ten WANTS Notre Dame, despite the enrollment, despite an undergrad focus, despite being a religious school. I know it’s because Notre Dame sells. But why not take advantage of that characteristic? Why not make a move for the betterment of the university, on and off the playing field? This is about all-around excellence. Isn’t that what the story of Notre Dame is all about? Why back down now and prevent growth?

        I’m sure the faculty is more than willing to go along with the Big Ten. I’m sure non-football sports are more than willing to go along with the Big Ten. I think the people that would actually participate in the Big Ten would be more than willing to be part of the Big Ten.

        I think football can eventually come around, but you will always have griping and teeth-gnashing from old-school ND alumni/fans. I’m interested to hear how many people will ACTUALLY stop cheering for the Irish/ burn diplomas/ withhold money.

        • djinndjinn says:

          Thanks for the perspective.

          Question for anyone who knows–those making decision for Notre Dame, are they Notre Dame lifers (schooled there and employed there forever) who understand the perspective of the Richs and FLPs. Or are they academic “outsiders” who may have a very different perspective?

    • Rich2 says:

      IrishTexan,

      I can’t believe you are an alum. Let’s see if you can provide some evidence that you are a domer because your arguments are so weak it seems implausible to believe that you are a domer. To paraphrase “some day in the future it will be difficult to be remain an independent so let’s volunteer today to join the Big Ten.” Really? That is your best shot.

      Which dorm hosts the first football pep rally of the year? Which dorm host a spring talent show and what is the show called? Name the top three bars where seniors go?

      • Kyle says:

        aw shit: he’s calling you out.

        It’s on now.

        • PensfaninLAexile says:

          1) The Rudy Dorm
          2) The Gipper Dorm; Queer Eye for the Irish Guy.
          3) “Flinger’s,” “Chotchkie’s,” and “It’s a Blog So Who Gives a Damn.”

          • SH says:

            Awesome.

          • mushroomgod says:

            Just guessing:

            1. The “Obnoxious Jock” Dorm;

            2. The “Proud to be Gay” Dorm (where Rox lived); and

            3. Not sure on this one, but I think one is called the “Fielding Yost”.

            3.

      • djinndjinn says:

        See, this is the sort of thing I’m talking about. There are tens and tens of thousands of Irish alumni out there, but it’s actually impossible for Rich to conceive of any one of them having an independent point of view. It’s difficult to imagine a university that fosters such closed-mindedness.

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          It’s Notre Dame.

          Football is the main shared experience.

        • Sportsman24 says:

          @Djinn Djinn,
          Agreed. R2 questions IT’s “Domer-Hood” b/c of a differing outlook. When IT defends himself, R2 is nowhere to be found. FLP very nicely stepped up where R2 should have.

          IT,
          I very much appreciate your insights. While it appears that one must actually go to ND to truly understand it, your post gives me a clearer understanding of what it is to be ND.

        • mushroomgod says:

          very cult-like

          • rich2 says:

            When you admit 1800 – 2000 students a year (not 10,000), when 96% of the students who enter as freshmen then graduate with you four years later (not 50%), rarely accept transfers (instead of signing articulation agreements with the local community college to encourage juniors to transfer in) this is what happens. It is a different mind-set and a different culture — and it is worth preserving.

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        I’m not sure about that third question. I think it’s changed since I was there…

        Damn I miss Senior Bar.

      • sfbadger says:

        “Name the top three bars where seniors go?”

        I don’t know where they are but I know they’re not in Pasadena, Phoenix, New Orleans or Miami.

      • IrishTexan says:

        Rich2, how do I know you are an alum? Why are you so amazed that there exists, on this blue Earth, a group of people who believes Notre Dame needs to act in its best interests while it still has the power to do so?

        I think it’s important to have a plan in place, a plan more concrete than “well, we’ll just wait and see, maybe the Big East won’t die.” Do you want Notre Dame to continue to play against the best? With the way expansion fever has hit the NCAA, I don’t know how much longer a seat will exist before leagues are packed to 16. I would rather join a conference that allows us to compete and work with the best on and off the playing field.

        Would you rather join a conference or try to make something work against BYU, Colorado State, and San Diego State? And Memphis, Louisville, and South Florida? Maybe the Sun Belt or Conference USA will have room for us? Is that national enough to overcome the Big Ten? Do you want to barnstorm mid-majors?

        If conferences fill up, I wonder when we’ll be able to fit in our desired opponents. Notre Dame can’t play 8 games in September.

        Dillon hosts the first pep rally. When I was there, some guy broke dining hall dishes on his forehead. Keenan puts on a variety show, the Keenan Revue. Sorin has the fall talent show. Fisher has a regatta- Carroll usually wins. Zahm does the Bun Run before finals. Alumni Hall streaks through Hesburgh. You can get quarter dogs after midnight in the Huddle. Nieuwland connects to Riley via the basement. Keenan and Stanford connect through the basement as well. The Observer and Scholastic have offices under South Dining Hall. The Irish Rover is the campus newspaper for conservatives. When someone drops a cup in the dining hall, Zahm guys clap. You run out of Domer Dollars way too fast if you buy things from Subway or Starbucks. Fr. Hesburgh has a sweet view of things from his spot in the library. West quad dorms are like hotels. Hayes-Healy and Hurley share a courtyard, and Hurley has a giant globe. Early morning rowers wake up the Lewis girls on weekends. You can make a hell of a cereal stash if you got Grab-N-Go. ND girls don’t get along well with St. Mary’s girls. Before we had Facebook, we had the dogbook, which had photos, names, and cities of incoming freshmen. Older people spoke fondly of SYRs in the dorms and Boat Club. You don’t walk up the front stairs of the administration building until graduation. You wear your class ring with the ND facing you as an undergrad, with the ND facing out as a graduate. We went to the Backer (with its sludge-ridden floor and pole), Finnegan’s, Corby’s, Club 23, Fiddler’s Hearth during JPW, and, after studying abroad in Europe, Fever.

        How’s that?

        • R says:

          Are the senior bars that great in South Bend? I’ve only been to the Sun City and Palm Beach bars.

          • IrishTexan says:

            Meh. They’re great because 1) it’s all you have, 2) you’re with friends, and 3) it’s off-campus, so it feels like an adventure.

            You won’t confuse it for 6th Street in Austin.

        • PensfaninLAexile says:

          Dammit. Every answer wrong.

          Any Pitt/CMU posters know if you can still get pitchers of purple cows at the PHI on Forbes?

          • Stew says:

            Oh boy… been way too many years since doing purple hooters at PHI during Carnival. It’s still there, so I can’t imagine they’d mess with that.

        • djinndjinn says:

          I don’t know… You could have picked all that up from watching “Rudy”…

          • IrishTexan says:

            If you can get your mitts on the limited edition Latin translation of Rudy, put it in your DVD player upside-down. You’ll be able to see all of Notre Dame’s secrets for yourself!

          • PSUGuy says:

            That was friggin awesome.

          • BoilerTex says:

            IrishTexan, not sure what will happen with ND and the BT, but you personally are allowed to join the Big Ten regardless. That was awesome.

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Yup, everybody, he’s legit

          • Cliff's Notes says:

            Wait a minute… How do we know FLP is a Domer? Maybe you’re a spy?

            And how do we know Frank really went to Illinois? Maybe this is all a clever ruse and he really went to Tennessee?

        • rich2 says:

          “Dillon hosts the first pep rally. When I was there, some guy broke dining hall dishes on his forehead. Keenan puts on a variety show, the Keenan Revue. Sorin has the fall talent show. Fisher has a regatta- Carroll usually wins. Zahm does the Bun Run before finals. Alumni Hall streaks through Hesburgh. You can get quarter dogs after midnight in the Huddle. Nieuwland connects to Riley via the basement. Keenan and Stanford connect through the basement as well. The Observer and Scholastic have offices under South Dining Hall. The Irish Rover is the campus newspaper for conservatives. When someone drops a cup in the dining hall, Zahm guys clap. You run out of Domer Dollars way too fast if you buy things from Subway or Starbucks. Fr. Hesburgh has a sweet view of things from his spot in the library. West quad dorms are like hotels. Hayes-Healy and Hurley share a courtyard, and Hurley has a giant globe. Early morning rowers wake up the Lewis girls on weekends. You can make a hell of a cereal stash if you got Grab-N-Go. ND girls don’t get along well with St. Mary’s girls. Before we had Facebook, we had the dogbook, which had photos, names, and cities of incoming freshmen. Older people spoke fondly of SYRs in the dorms and Boat Club. You don’t walk up the front stairs of the administration building until graduation. You wear your class ring with the ND facing you as an undergrad, with the ND facing out as a graduate. We went to the Backer (with its sludge-ridden floor and pole), Finnegan’s, Corby’s, Club 23, Fiddler’s Hearth during JPW, and, after studying abroad in Europe, Fever.

          How’s that?”

          That is excellent and brings back many great memories. I might have been the guy who broke dining hall dishes on his forehead during the Dillon Pep Rally.

          I am an older guy — I will provide examplaes of my age and my ND affiliation– my dorm was Pangborn and Fr. Riehle was the rector. I majored in the General Program of Liberal Studies and Physics with a minor in Economics. Later I actually pursued by doctorate in economics (not at ND).

          Now,

          “I think it’s important to have a plan in place, a plan more concrete than “well, we’ll just wait and see, maybe the Big East won’t die.” Do you want Notre Dame to continue to play against the best? With the way expansion fever has hit the NCAA, I don’t know how much longer a seat will exist before leagues are packed to 16. I would rather join a conference that allows us to compete and work with the best on and off the playing field.” The Big Ten agreed to have an eleventh member and called itself the Big Ten for about 20 years. If there are four super-conferences, and joining one of them was the only way that we had access to the BCS, then we would join a super-conference (it would be a Big 16 conference with 17 members). At 16 per, there will be only a marginal difference between them. Your scenario is a straw man. We can provide more money to a conference of 11 or 16 by joining it and we will be admitted.

      • pioneerlion says:

        Are ND fans so paranoid they have to establish the bonafides of all Domers who post to Frank’s blog? This isn’t ND Nation or BGI. You sound like a Zahmbie.

  18. Howard Hemlock says:

    So if there’s no Texas to P10, what do the P10 and the SEC do? Does the P10 go to 12 and stop? If so, do they still add Utah, or someone else? Where does all this leave Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

    • IrishTexan says:

      Maybe Utah to the Pac-10, and then OU, OSU, Texas A&M, and [Texas Tech/ ACC school] to the SEC?

    • Midwest Aggie says:

      The Mountain West Conference would be daft if they did not look to pick up some of the “misfit Christmas toys”. Just trying to find an appropriate word to describe those left behind – to no avail. There is talk that Conference USA and the Big East would target some of those schools too.

      In regards to OU, my suspicion is that it is either bound for the new PAC league or the SEC. Will they be bound to take Oklahoma State (OSU) with them? If SEC is balking about adding Baylor and Texas Tech, OSU may be in a similar situation.

      Depending on decisions by Nebraska and Texas A&M, there may be the open slot to the PAC-XX for either Kansas or Missouri. KU has proclaimed already that it will bring KSU with them — one possible space to join the PAC-XX will test that bond. Missouri may be the second target for the SEC if A&M were to decide that is where it wants to go.

      • Howard Hemlock says:

        KU did not in any way proclaim that it would take KSU along. A trustee said they should stay together, but it’s far from clear that the majority of regents would require that.

        • pioneerlion says:

          Good. Just what the big12 castoffs need, another short-sighted parochial keep-these-schools-tied-at-the-hip demand. Did wonders in forming and ruining the big12 and has been a huge obstacle for the schools that want to finally grow up and grow a pair to move on. The only thing such a legislative/political demand will enable is to hasten the irrelevance of KU’s bball program and put KSU back into the black hole of college sports.

        • Derrick in KC says:

          Frank Martin, the KSU hoops coach was on the radio this morning. When asked what he thought about the whole conference realignment situation, the first thing he said was that he was thrilled at how strong the bond between the 2 state schools are, and how committed they are to each other. I didn’t hear the rest of the interview cuz I had to walk into work. I don’t know if this reaches the level of “they are absolutely tied at the hip,” however, Martin seems to have some sense of a a tie between KU and KSU. FWIW

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        i like “orphans”

  19. NateDawg says:

    add

  20. Blood & Steel says:

    Ahhhh…and another expansion freebase hits the bloodstream.

    Damnn you frank for getting me hooked.

  21. Boss says:

    This blog changes it’s predictions every time you post. This post is no exception. Texas is gone to the Pac 10 with 5 others. Not to the Big 10. Texas put that deal together themselves.

    And the Big 10 isn’t stopping. The whole purpose of the expansion is to add TV sets and it hasn’t happened yet with Nebraska.

    This blog has clearly become massive source of misinformation.

    • zeek says:

      The Big Ten will stop if there aren’t the right candidates to add…

      If Maryland/Va say no, where exactly does the Big Ten go to get to 14 if ND is also hesitant?

    • GOPWolv says:

      subtract?

    • SH says:

      Well I guess we will never know for sure. Of course Frank could be purposely spreading disinformation or getting disinformation from whom he thinks is a credible source. We just won’t know until it all plays out. Either way, it is a fun blog to read and be a part of. I’m hoping Frank is right. Ever since Frank’s first post, I was convinced that UT would end up in the B10. The only reason why is $$$$$. It is just too good. I may be wrong, and maybe UT could get it elsewhere, but that does not seem likely.

      • @SH – Everything might not turn out this way, but it won’t be because the Big Ten didn’t try everything possible up until the last moment.

        • SH says:

          Oh I know. I’m sure B10 is offering everything it can possible, save unequal revenue sharing. If it works out great. If not, I’ll still watch on Saturday.

    • Champ says:

      Boss, considering the dramatic shifts in the landscape, is it surprising things are changing several times over the course of several days?

      Also, the deal Texas “put together by themselves” is a product of Chip Brown. That could also wind up being a little bit of “misinformation” if Texas was really playing both sides of the fence.

  22. Sportsman24 says:

    I’d prefer that TAMU joins w/ UT. I’d also prefer Pitt to be #16. That way the in-conference (season-ending?) Rivalry Games could/would be…

    Iowa vs. UNL
    MN vs. UW
    UT vs. TAMU
    ND vs. MSU
    NW vs. PU
    UM vs. OSU
    IL vs. IU
    PSU vs. Pitt

    I think strong rivalries are part of building a healthy/long-lasting/close-knit conference.

    Texas (along w/ the National Brands of UNL & ND) brings enough population/markets/TVs to support Pitt (excellent academics/research/solid athletics) as #16. PSU would finally have a legitimate in-conference/state rival. Ask anyone associated w/ either PSU or MSU what they think of the Land Grant Trophy

    • jtower says:

      SM,
      Where can we sign up?

    • Pezlion says:

      “Ask anyone associated w/ either PSU or MSU what they think of the Land Grant Trophy”

      Don’t care about it. On the other hand, most of us don’t care about Pitt either at this point.

      • Steve W says:

        The Penn State-Pitt series was good for about 15 years beginning in the mid-1970s. Before that, Syracuse was Penn State’s big rival.

        Some older fans in the Pittsburgh area still care about the series. No one else in the rest of Pennsylvania misses it.

    • Kyle says:

      As much as I’d love to see my panthers in that group, I don’t see how Delaney would turn down taking Rutgers and the 7 million population of New Jersey with all the media perks that would come.

      • UT to the B10 says:

        Rutgers is the back up plan if we don’t get ND.

        We would turn down Rutgers for ND.

        Without an in-market school, we can still get onto basic cable on the strength of our offering, though at a slightly lower rate. But, don’t just look at NYC/NJ – we will have a better chance of getting onto basic cable everywhere across the nation, with the HR adds that we’re adding, especially if we are bundled with the Pac16 network that Fox is co-running (along with the BTN).

        • Phil says:

          The one thing ND doesn’t for you is to get a geographic foothold close to NYC, where Big Ten games are going on miles from the city all season.

          That doesn’t matter if your ND, PSU, OSU etc. because the Big Ten will get a game or two each year in Giants/Jets and/or Yankee stadium.

          If you’re Minn, NW, Illinois etc. the only way you would see NYC is if you agree to one of the deals like Ind did with PSU where you agree to play one of your “home” games three states away from your fanbase.

    • uwbob says:

      I say skip ND, they are on the decline.

      Bring in Nebraska, Maryland (dc market), and Rutgers (Ny market)

      Then sit unless the SEC goes 16. I think we need a few more years to see what happens with ND both academically and athletically.

      I don’t want Texas or ND. I understand the revenue argument, and its a good one, but I think they bring too much baggage right now.

      • Kyle says:

        Maryland doesn’t come with too much baggage? I don’t think Delaney can pry them away, so matter how good a market/institutional fit they would be.

        • Vincent says:

          If Notre Dame and/or Texas is on board, Maryland can be pried. And it might happen even without ND or UT — the Maryland fan base, which I first thought would be adamantly opposed to such a move, has largely come around in favor of it, if various Terrapin message boards can be believed. ACC expansion hasn’t brought the football bonanza people expected, and the ACC basketball round-robin train has left the station and isn’t coming back. So you might as well grab the gusto, and no conference has more gusto (financially, academically, etc.) than the Big Ten.

          Or maybe some Terp fans have been getting the BTN (as I have now that I’m on DirecTV), and would like to see various Maryland teams get that kind of exposure.

    • Michael in Indy says:

      PU vs. IU; IL vs. NW. Otherwise your list is spot-on.

  23. jtower says:

    Utah, KU and Mo would all be chip shots IMO to go west. The real question is OU not quite up to the PAC academically, but very good athletically, Ok St. no match academically, but not terrible athletically, and TTech academics? and athletics? ??

  24. IL Chad says:

    So why is everything so quite officially around the Big Ten? (Todd – no one has officially put Nebraska in the Big Ten, so all three are at 11 with Colorado committed publically to the Pac 10.) All of the talk around the Big 12 South and the Pac 10 smells of desperation to me. I think the Pac 10, Oklahoma, OK State and Texas Tech are trying to talk this thing into reality. Texas and A&M are still squarely at the negotiating table, and it seems to me the Big Ten is still in control of this thing, as there are zero loose lips at any Big Ten school, Nebraska, Mizzou, ND or any other target. Osbourne at Nebraska has said the most publically, but it hasn’t been that much. When will anything “official” come out of the Big Ten?

    • agwbl says:

      These are the people who talked to Penn State for THREE YEARS before they joined and they let out such little info that all the ADs were pissed off.

    • boilerfan says:

      Nebraska hasn’t applied to join yet. It is assumed that their board of regents will do that on Friday. Their isn’t much for the Big Ten to officialy say right now.

    • JohnB says:

      I have to take issue with your characterization of Mizzou, which has had loose lips and everything else from Delaney’s first comments about expansion (and before). Mizzou’s spending too much time weeping about the prospect of getting left out – and having become a pariah in the Big12 – to say anything now.

      Bringing in the Big12 South actually makes a lot of sense for the Pac 10. Massive new TV markets, 2 marquee names and 3 other teams that have been solid or at least interesting to watch much of the recent past. And by putting some of their content in the central time zone, they can get a big boost in terms of visibility on the east coast.

      Both UT’s continued interest in the Big10 and A&M’s interest in the SEC are destabilizing factors. Though the Pac16 could work without A&M, it just doesn’t without UT. So unless/until UT is fully, inescapably committed, everybody else is trying to make sure they have other options.

  25. Hopkins Horn says:

    FOR SALE:

    One parka. Never used. Bought by mistake. Trade for case of suntan lotion acceptable.

    • jtower says:

      HH,
      Surely you have not given up on the CIC.

    • MichiganDav says:

      @HH

      Love this post and your insight into UT. Are UT-connected people telling you that the P16 is a done deal and the Big Ten is definitely not in play or is it just a gut feeling?

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Thanks. MichiganDav. I don’t have UT-connected people. Just an alum with a keyboard and time on my hands. It’s just a gut feeling, as has been everything else I’ve written.

        Keep in mind, for all these Big 10 plans to happen, we’d have to throw Tech overboard after stringing them along for weeks (months?). It would have been one thing politically to give Tech the Heisman early on in the process, but doing it this way? Can’t see it.

        • rocktologist says:

          UT kicked Houston, Rice, TCU, and SMU to the curb to get what they wanted 17 years ago. Do you really think they can’t treat Tech or whoever the same way now? Texas is going to go wherever they can have the most power and get the most cash for UT…and Tech can go rot in Conference USA with Houston for all they care.

    • angryapple says:

      If you happen to get marooned in an Arizona or Southern California desert, the Parka will keep you alive for longer than the suntan lotion.

    • willarm1 says:

      Bring your proof of citizenship.

    • twk says:

      Hopkins: From everything I’ve read, today, Mack Brown is the saddest man on the planet. He had the perfect thing going, and really didn’t want to change a thing, and I can’t blame him. Texas has a sweet set up right now in the Big XII. The “Pac 16″ deal is really just a re-packaged Big XII South, with an occasional cross over game with the Pac 8, and a joint TV deal. I think Mack will push hard for that, rather than having Texas go off on its own to the Big 10, as it seems the best way to preserve as much as possible of the paradigm that has served UT so well.

      PS: I think my “cartoon” characterization of how the A&M-UT meeting might go was a lot more accurate than you anticipated.

  26. UT to the B10 says:

    Frank, you’ve got it, except for one thing. We don’t need an even number.

    There will be no championship game. Same rotation model we have today with 11 which works out fine, except we will add a 13th game for EVERYONE. That’s 14-16 more games instead of just one to add to the BTN programming slate. More ad and gate revenue that would blow away what you could get from a single championship game. Also helps ND retain 5 OOC games which is part of their asks.

    I.e., there is no need to get an additional school outside UT and ND, unless they are required by UT or ND. Mizzou’s only shot is if the UT insists on bringing in more B12 players for geographical or political reasons. They are the only remaining school in the B12 that would remotely meet our requirements, as we ceded Kansas to the PacX as a part of our side deal with them. Though if truly UT cannot leave Tech (though I think they want to), including Tech still may be a back up plan, which still has some opposition within the B10 (votes aren’t there yet).

    Any hope of BE schools coming to the B10 are dead if we land ND first, because we have a deal with the BE to force ND into football membership to kill their sweetheart deal on the condition that we leave the rest of the league intact.

    In any case, we will stop when we are ready to stop. if it’s 13, 14, 15, or 16. There is no mandate for an even number.

    • Bamatab says:

      How do you plan on the Big 10 being able to add a 13th game for every school? Adding games to the season isn’t a conference decision, it is an NCAA decision. The only game that a conference can add is a conference championship game. I don’t see how the Big 10 could add a 13th game for every team.

      • SH says:

        @UT to the Big 10. Bingo! That is how I see it playing out. CCG are overrated and overvalued.

        @Bamatab – Who is going to hold the cards after this. The NCAA will allow it if petitioned correctly, then pressured if necessary. Don’t think the other conferences would like to get this extra game?

        • greg says:

          If B10 adds an extra game for every team, then the other conferences add an extra game for every team, AND have a conference title game. that idea is crap.

    • angryapple says:

      I’ve been saying this for six months. There is no reason 16 is any better than 15 or 14 or 13.

      Each school keeps a few annual rivalry games and plays half the rest of the conference in rotating years.

      With 13, you have four annual rivals and play four other other eight schools in rotating years. The only problem with that scenario is that Michigan State doesn’t get to play anyone the last week of the season because Penn State is busy playing annual rival Texas in a blizzard in Happy Valley, but really, no one cares about Michigan State.

      • Cliff's Notes says:

        Wouldn’t it be Texas vs A&M in the last week?

        • angryapple says:

          I’m thinking of a 13 school structure with Nebraska and Texas as the new additions.

          Nebraska – Iowa
          Wisconsin – Minnesota
          Illinois – Northwestern
          Indiana – Purdue
          Michigan – Ohio State
          Texas – Penn State

          Or are you saying the Big Ten should end on the weekend after thanksgiving and Texas should end a few days before with a Thursday game against Texas A&M?

    • mushroomgod says:

      I believe the “deal” to which you refer is 100% internet gossip.

  27. cjb56 says:

    I always laugh when I read any of these “Texas is superior to anyone in the Big Ten” riffs.

    As an Ohio State fan, and a college football traditionalist, I’ve always respected the Texas football program. To say it’s somehow superior to Ohio State’s, though, is ridiculous. They are equals. They just played three recent games, with the Horns winning two tight contests and OSU winning down in Austin. I expect any series between the two to be very close, and I’m sure Ohio State welcomes the competition.

    I know it’s popular to knock OSU the past three years, due to the two bad BCS title games (the second of which they should not have been in, but six teams ahead of them lost in the last week of the season), but OSU is 5-3 in BSC bowls in the BCS era, with two of them over the Big 12 champ…and a national title. Most Texas fans are great, and understand Ohio State and Texas’s place in college football history, but I laugh at the few who knock OSU…as if they somehow forgot it was just a few years ago when they were owned by Stoops and OU. Worse yet, criticism from Sooner fans! As bad as that mini-BCS slump that the Buckeyes endured, it’s nothing compared to the eggs the Sooners have been laying. Don’t get me wrong, I respect the Sooners program and tradition too, but they have no call to dis the Buckeyes recent bowl woes. Those in glass schooners…

    I hope Texas does join the Big Ten, and A&M too. If ND wants to join the party, that’s even better…especially if A&M goes SEC.

  28. Hodgepodge says:

    I think it’s pretty fair to say that Frank and PURPLE Book Cat on the Northwestern board are either getting their info from the same source or PBC is feeding Frank info, because it is exactly the same talking points. I’m not casting aspersions, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable about believing that there is a chance for Texas to end up in the Big Ten at this point if this info was coming from two separate ultimate sources. As it stands, it looks to me that someone is getting seriously played.

    • Hodgepodge says:

      I should clarify and say that those getting played could range from Frank, PURPLE Book Cat, Jim Delany and the Big Ten, or Texas-based reporters/tweeters. Regardless of who exactly is getting played, someone sure is.

      • @Hodgepodge – We may all be getting played here.

        • Bamatab says:

          Frank, I’m guessing that the players in this whole expansion process are putting out so much dis-information so that no one knows what the intent is of the players. It seems that the rumors are flying out by the hour.

          • Gopher86 says:

            Seems like an awful lot of effort just to fool a bunch of message board posters.

            I’m of the opinion that Orangebloods is a mouthpiece for the Texas AD and that the Northwestern board posts are legit. The OB reports have been injected into the mainstream media for the purpose of swaying public opinion (heck, even the internal Baylor emails were using them as sources of intelligence). The Northwestern emails have fit pretty logically during the entire process.

        • Faitfhful5k says:

          The manipulation source is a Fox satellite currently in position over Texas. Mind control waves are currently targeted at AD’s and university presidents. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

          Or maybe not… Fox may need a few more satellites to target the politicians and boosters.

  29. Big Ten Jeff says:

    Allow me to return to a previous pipe dream, now that Delany is close to proving to be a Jedi Master. If your first three ‘gets’ prove to be Nebraska, Texas and Notre Dame, complete the Super Death Star Conference by going after seemingly unreachable targets like Florida, UNC, Stanford or UVA, all of whom are more Big Ten-like than their current affiliations.

    Make it a truly national conference in the way Notre Dame has aspired to have a national schedule. We’d be playing with House money at that point, and could get on cable in just about every state, which would more than cover travel costs. The more onerous scheduling could actually be restricted to football and limited by pod considerations. Finish the job.

    • SH says:

      I agree. Assuming you get those 3, why not go after Stanford? Maybe the B10 doesn’t want to look to greedy and great all at once. Tell Standford that they are in in 5 years after the dust has settled.

    • mushroomgod says:

      I disagree. You can’t be everything to all people. We’ve got a bunch of expansion Napoleons on this blog……..

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        You can call it what you like, but I’m in it to win it (or are you satisfied with the SEC taking 4 straight Championships)? The Big Ten itself is admittedly looking east, west and south of its current footprint. Nothing says its view has to be based on states contiguous to the existing footprint.

        And yes, I admire dominance, as in the Bulls, UCLA and the Yankees of old. We have a decided advantage in academia and research, so there’s nothing wrong in my opinion in playing that hand. Not trying to be everything to everyone. I’m wanting us to win.

      • SH says:

        Look both institutions (Stanford/B10) probably see potential benefits to joing (not that it will happen). They also probably have ample reasons not to happen. In a way Stanford is Vandy, just on the West Coast. Vandy is in a confernece right now that is financially better of. And Stanford is in conference that is considering adding Tech. There is no reason to believe that Stanford may not at some point in the future consider a move out of the P10/16. And where would it move? Why not dream big. You never know what could happen.

  30. Midwest Aggie says:

    I am wondering if Texas has not painted itself into a corner by trying to get all of the Big12 South teams (minus Baylor) to sign up for the new mega-conference in the west. If I read it correctly, the OU AD has come out to say they will follow Texas where ever they may go — rivalry with Texas, continue to recruit Texas for kids, money, and such. Sooner fans on some of the internet sites have said they have concluded discussions with the SEC and they will play along with the Horns. Hopefully a Sooner fan can confirm or deny that. I am not sure if Texas can really pull up stakes now and jump on the Big10 boat while pushing/prodding/promising these other programs to join the new PAC league.

    Today’s meeting between Texas and Texas A&M was to see how serious A&M is to join the SEC. The Horns have come to the conclusion that A&M could be the “fly in the ointment” Chip Brown wrote about a few days ago.

    BTW, I love that Texas/Texas A&M banner on the top of the web entry article. My wife, the Texas Exe of the family, bought one last fall to prepare our house for the rivalry game on Thanksgiving Day.

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      I’m a Sooner Alum. This is about right

      OU is squarely with Texas. They are squarely with OU. Tech is stuck with Texas, and OSU is stuck with OU.

      SO…we have a block of 4 with aTm not signed off, and wanting to go to the SEC.

      A&M doesn’t want to go…I’m pretty sure the block can get Kansas, or Utah or hell even Baylor or Houston to come along to the Pac10

      • djinndjinn says:

        DRD: As and OK insider, how would you say OU and OSU view each other academically?

        • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

          We R bothe vary smarte and edumecated!

          • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

            Seriously we are very complementary in our roles as Universities. What OSU is good in is Ag..and engineering (shocking as a former A&M).

            OU is very good in Medical school, Geology, and meteorology.

            OU has come up a lot academically and done it with out being funded like bigger wealthier states can.

          • djinndjinn says:

            Thanks.

            OSU is mighty good in wrestling, too.

            I’m not a wrestling fan, but that’s actually something I’ve watched and enjoyed on the BTN.

      • JohnB says:

        I have a different slant. I agree that Joe C. (OU’s AD) said OU wanted to stay with Texas, but he also acknowledged that OU had talked with the SEC and left some wiggle room.

        Texas would like to preserve the OU-Texas game in some way because it’s a big donation-money driver and because of the history. But Texas is not squarely with OU, and will bolt for the Big10 if TPTB at UT really think it’s in UT’s overall best interest.

        OU wants to preserve the game with UT for the same reasons and for recruiting, but the game was non-conference for most of its history, so that would not be new.

        OU also knows that it is not going to get a Big10 invite, so unless/until UT is irrevocably committed to the Pac16, we need to keep options open. Getting to the SEC with A&M, while playing Texas non-conference, is probably the most lucrative option in any event.

        Everyone sees the landscape changing fast and while political forces would prefer to see Tech and Baylor get to stay with Texas and OK State get to stay with OU, I think everyone is looking at Kansas and seeing that if demands are carried too far, the result could be that everybody gets left out.

        So I think we are beginning to see more pragmatism on that front.

        If the SEC wants to go all-in on western expansion, they could pick up A&M, Tech, OU and OSU, leaving UT to go to the Big10. I don’t think political forces are enough to save Baylor’s bacon in that one.

  31. Patrick says:

    @Frank,

    Well put once again. This is nearly identical to what I have heard today with one slight addition.

    Notre Dame and Texas may be linked.

    If A&M goes to the SEC, and Notre Dame does NOT join the BIG 10, Texas will go to the Pac 16 with OU / OSU / TT. If A&M goes SEC and Notre Dame does join the Big Ten then Texas is coming to the Big Ten with them.
    If A&M will concede and go to the Pac 16 then the Texas 5 goes to the Pac 16.

    What I have heard today is A&M is deciding what they should do, if they go SEC then Notre Dame will decide, then Texas.

    PS – I have heard Rutgers has a very good chance at the Big Ten regardless.

    • @Patrick – Yes, it may be all or nothing. ND and Texas want each other.

    • djinndjinn says:

      How odd that Texas would care more about Notre Dame than Oklahoma and its Texas breatheren.

      • Gopher86 says:

        Think of it like a country club. You want to hang out with like minded people and avoid the riff-raff. Just because Texas grew up with these teams, doesn’t mean it sees them as peers.

        • Hank says:

          if Texas thinks the Domers are like minded to anyone they haven’t been paying attention.

          • Gopher86 says:

            Like minded in the sense that they don’t want any lessor teams taking advantage of their premium brands.

          • greg says:

            Like minded in that they both prefer a lot of money.

          • Hank says:

            gopher86 it’d called being a big fish in a small pond. Texas and Notre Dame may be of like mind that they don’t want any ‘lessor team taking advantage of their premium brands’ but that makes it tough to expand the pie. Schools like Ohio State and Michigan and schools in other conferences have premium brands as well. they’ve found by investing some of their premium brand in their partners have expanded the total for everyone. and without calling their partners lessor schools. the Big ten is prospering because of it. How did the other strategy work out for the Big 12?

          • Gopher86 says:

            I’m not defending ND or Texas– that’s just the mindset they have. I know things are conference before individual in the Big 10, but the nature of their BTN equity system makes it attractive to big names like Texas and ND.

            If they had a choice between going to the Big 10 alone or with a rival, they’d go alone every time. It’s the same amount of pie with fewer slices.

  32. agwbl says:

    Three Steps:

    1. Texas got A&M to jump on its interest in SEC in its meeting today. Both teams will end up losing their “Tech Problem”. Texas joins Big Ten.

    2. After Virginia Tech and Miami join SEC. Big Ten snatches Maryland and Virginia with their great research facilities and proximity to D.C. lawmakers. (Not to mention a renewal of JoPa’s annual win against the Terps.)

    3. ND finally calls B10 home.

    • Vincent says:

      Sub Florida State for Miami (its culture wouldn’t mesh with the SEC’s, and FSU is a better fit than a relatively small private institution), and you’re onto something.

  33. MIKEUM says:

    I am putting the slant in the category of “da bears” are going to do it this year. Nevertheless, I for one am certainly more knowledgable due to this website, however I know when to go with the flow. I live in Texas. I for one will disown the Big 10 if it brings in a virus to keep the fleet afloat. I now understand Notre Dame more than ever. The Big 10 has been overly conservative since Penn State’s entry, and consequently, they will need to step outside the comfort zone to bag the last gorilla out there-ND.

  34. crpodhaj says:

    Frank or Zeek, I posted this below and then the thread ended. :) Do you think all the rumors and all the playing of one conference off of a another is for one thing: Texas wants its’ own TV network (for its’ out of conference games) AND get a piece of the BigTen Network pie (in conference)? Is it possible Texas wants it both ways, and Notre Dame wants it too? That could be the power play going on right now. And if you are Jim Delaney, do you give it to them? At stake: these two schools going to a different conferences and the BigTen definitively, even in a best case senario, becoming the number 3 or even 4 conference in the country. It would be wealthy, but a solid notch below a PAC16 with Texas, an expanded SEC with Texas A&M, and Notre Dame remaining independent while playing Texas and perhaps even avoiding BigTen schools. I know this may sound crazy, but if you have been trying to follow all the rumours and tangled story lines that seem to change every five minutes, this is, I think, a possible conclusion. Add in the fact that JD has spent years on this and doesn’t want it to fail now; and you would still make silly amounts of money on a national BTN while the almost certainly regional LonghornNetwork might fail. And I don’t think this would be an enticement for Ohio St. or Penn St. to do the same, as probably only Texas and/or Notre Dame have the following to even attempt this. So, even hypothetically, if you were Jim Delaney, do you give it to them or let it be a deal breaker?

    • zeek says:

      It’s really hard to say.

      While that may be a concern, it’s not a concern for Notre Dame. Notre Dame knows it can make more TV money with the Big Ten (and would have many games nationally televised). I think ND might ask for something like completing its NBC contract, or something that can be worked out.

      I don’t think ND would demand anything unequal, they seem to be similar in terms of their demands as a Nebraska would be (probably not many), although they’d probably want some stuff on institutional fit but I don’t know how that would work.

      As for Texas, I don’t think this is all about the money any more. I think the Pac-10 Network is going to be all rights in as the BTN is, so I really think geography is the biggest problem.

      The Pac-10 is offering a new SWC for Texas to call home. The only thing you can really hope is that the offer of ND-Texas is enough for Texas to ditch the Pac-10 if A&M goes East. Even that’s not that likely to happen though…

  35. Big Ten Jeff says:

    Here’s my post from the other thread:

    @ crpodhaj: where I would agree would be on a BTN2, where an 80/20 (Big Ten/local) split was put in place for regional programming. Each state could produce its own content for local distribution without eliminating the content on BTN1 (which promotes the conference as a whole), while receiving some benefit for the realities of disproportionate revenue generation. The goal must remain All for All, but in this example where a Texas alone (without A&M) is generating over $80 million in new subscription fees, let’s not make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Smart, creative people surely can come up with some solution like this.

  36. Hopkins Horn says:

    So the SEC, not content to see Texas go to the Pac 10, might be considering a course of action which, if implemented, could result in Texas, perhaps in conjunction with Notre Dame if the rumors are to be believed, winding up in the Big 10 instead?

    • zeek says:

      I think the SEC realizes that it is in a similar situation to the Pac-10 in that the ACC schools may balk at the academic perception of the SEC. Then what schools would the SEC be able to add this round? If the Pac-10 is adding Texas/A&M/OU and the Big Ten adds Nebraska, where would the SEC go?

      So, I tend to think that while the SEC has more options than the Pac-10, it doesn’t have that many more viable options.

      I think the SEC is focused on trying to get Texas and A&M. I don’t think they’re worried about Texas’ backup plan. That’s why they’re still trying to sell Texas on the LSN in the SEC.

      FWIW, I don’t think it’s likely that adding Notre Dame would be enough to get Texas from going with the other 4 (minus A&M) to the Pac-10, although it would probably be a decent offer to be made to UT. I’m among those who are skeptical though that such an offer can really be enough to cover the geographical issues that Texas has with the Big Ten and that the Pac-16 solves even without A&M.

    • @Hopkins Horn – If I’m looking at it from the SEC point of view, Texas A&M is one of the few viable expansion options out there. In terms of fan base power, I think it’s fair to say that they’re more like the Mets (who are still the 2nd most valuable MLB franchise) to UT’s Yankees as opposed to being the Clippers to UT’s Lakers. I have serious doubts that any ACC school would move to the SEC because of the academic gap (whether real or perceived). If A&M goes to the Pac-10, the SEC will concede the state of Texas forever and maybe the calculation is to get a solid foothold in that market even if it can’t UT.

      Maybe there’s something else at play, too – the SEC and Big Ten could be more friendly than you think. Right now, they’re the equivalent of Wal-Mart and Target with everyone else far behind. How much of an interest does either one really have in watching a 3rd conference becomes their equal? Maybe keeping everything as a duopoly situation is better business.

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        But, even if the relations are better than we suspect, which is the optimal outcome for the SEC:

        (1) SEC stays at a profitable 12; Pac 10 gets Texas and A&M; Big 10 gets neither Texas or ND and remains a regional (geographic footprint) conference

        (2) SEC gains A&M but the Big 10 gets Texas and ND, the two biggest fish out there, and becomes truly the first national conference. (And just wait for the ratings comparison the first time A&M, on CBS, goes head-to-head with Texas on ABC.)

        I’d love to hear Alan’s thoughts, knowing that he has been quite conservative in viewing the optimal plans for the SEC, but, from my perspective, I think I’d prefer the latter.

        • zeek says:

          Yeah but if the SEC is still trying to sell Texas on the value of the LSN in the SEC, don’t they still think they have a shot? Even if they only get one, they still get the footprint for the future. That’s way better than being locked out, even if the Big Ten pulls off the even more of a longshot scenario of pulling in ND and Texas.

        • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

          if Texas goes to the Big 10…Nebraska might back out and head west with the Big EIGHT to join the Pac-10

          • Patrick says:

            No Way Nebraska backs out. Absolutely no way. Nebraska gets along much better with Texas than anybody is willing to admit. They would truely be happy about Texas in the Big Ten….. administration that is…. fans would be 50/50.

          • Dcphx says:

            The UT and NB presidents reportedly have an excellent relationship. They’re then ones making the decision, not the AD or FB Coach.

          • Huskerhydes says:

            Not sure the fan base would be 50/50. I think a large percentage would be happy to see UT in the big 10 with NU. We are not afraid to face UT on the field, we prefer it in fact. Kind of like OU in the 80′s we have some catching up to do and think we are starting to get the teams to do it. UT also helps bring an even bigger financial windfall and we still have a Texas connection to help recruiting in Texas. Complete Win, Win big Win situation.

        • SH says:

          Assuming #2 happens, if SEC goes from $18 MM a school to $30 MM a school by adding A&M, does it really matter if B10 has UT/ND. They play a lot of bowl games together, don’t all those bowls potentially become a lot more valuable. A rising tide lifts all boats.

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Hop – I would be fine with either scenario. As I’ve said many times, the SEC doesn’t need to expand and they won’t unless CBS/ESPN pay for it.

          Under your second scenario, we need to fill in a few blanks. If the SEC gets A&M for #13, let’s assume FSU is #14. The SEC stops and the Big Ten also stops at 14 with UTx, Nebraska and Notre Dame. The Big Ten picks up three legendary programs, but they are all in different places from a competitive standpoint. With UTx, the Big Ten get a team at its peak, while Nebraska is on the upswing, and ND has bottomed out, but optimistic about the future.

          The Big Ten now has 6 top programs in a 14 team conference. I do wonder if that’s too many Divas in one conference.

          The big losers are Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue and Mich St. Somebody has to be 5-7 or 7-5. See Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Ole Miss.

          If the SEC picks up A&M and FSU, the SEC gets a sleeping giant with A&M, ie a team that hasn’t consistently ever lived up to its potential, but could be great. With FSU, the SEC getsa legendary power with a national following, that like ND has bottomed out, but optimistic about the future (Calm down ND fans. I freely acknowledge that ND is more legendary than FSU, but I’m more optimistic about Jimbo turning FSU around than Kelly turning ND around).

          In the expansion competition between the SEC and the Big Ten, most people would say that the Big Ten won. As a SEC fan though, I’d be perfectly satisfied with A&M and FSU. Here’s why:

          California, Texas, and Florida produce the most D-1 prospects. The SEC has basically locked down Florida outside of Miami, and opened up Texas, where only LSU and Arkansas currently get players out of Texas on a consistent basis. Also, the other SEC states produce a disproportionate number of top recruits, based on their population, while the Big Ten states underperform. So the SEC will continue to bring great players into the league.

          The SEC may be more of a regional conference, but has had national appeal since the CBS contract was first signed. All those nationally broadcasted games, and national championships have provided a better national brand than the SEC footprint would ever indicate. Plus, SEC schools are on the ESPN channels almost as much as Texas Hold’em poker tournaments.

          Also, the SEC still only has one Diva in Alabama. UGA, UTn, UF, LSU, Auburn and FSU all can be national title contenders in any year, but UF is the only school with Diva potential. A limited amount of super-ego schools is probably a good thing.

          Also, I’m not so sure UTx being the only Southern, or Southwestern team really makes the Big Ten “national.” It would continue to be a Mid-western conference with one outlying school from Texas.

          Regarding A&M going heads up with UTx on CBS and ABC, respectively, its not like A&M would make the cut for CBS unless their game meant something, ie they would have to get more competitive. If A&M is in the Top 15 and their playing a top 10 UF, LSU, Bama, UGA, FSU, Auburn, or UTn, CBS would be just fine, unless UTX was playing ND, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. Also, I don’t think anybody would realistically think that just because A&M is in the SEC that they would automatically pull even with UTx. The SEC would certainly give A&M a boost, but they would still have a ways to go to catch up with the ‘horns.

          During the last round of expansion, the Big Ten hit a home run with Penn State, and the SEC hit two stand-up doubles with Arkansas and South Carolina, but I think both conferences are satisfied with those moves. If the SEC gets A&M and FSU in 2010, looking into my 2 LSU BCS crystal footballs, I suspect that in 2030, the SEC will feel just fine about the 2010 expansion.

          • PensfaninLAexile says:

            CBS is the only broadcast network that does not own a set of cable channels. They don’t have the cash to offer more money (unless they can do the TNT/TBS Tourney-style partnership).

            With everything so fluid, ESPN can hardly be expected to make any firm commitments. The SEC is just going to have to take a calculated risk they can up their payouts if they expand.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Pennsfan – CBS might not have a bunch a cable networks, but they are the top rated network and have been for years. Think CSI and Survivor. Since CBS gets the #1 pick, CBS would pay more if they got a few more doubleheaders. Right now, CBS only has two doubleheader, and one prime time game.

            The main reason ESPN did the deal with the SEC was to get ESPNU picked up by more providers. ESPNU would be primary beneficiary of SEC expansion. Also, with the demise of the Big XII, a few more windows open up on ESPN/ESPN2. The expanded SEC could grab those spots.

            We just disagree. If the SEC’s TV partners aren’t on board with SEC expansion, I don’t think the SEC expands. I think they’re on board, or the SEC wouldn’t be talking to anyone.

          • Bamatab says:

            @PensfaninLAexile, CBS does of at least one cable network that I know of, CBS College Sports Network. I also believe that the Showtime channels are owned by the CBS corporation (although I doubt that they would show college sports on them). They also are partners with the MWC in the MountainWest Sports Network (that one I may have had to look up :)).

          • Richard says:

            If the SEC gets TAMU, I would expect them to try for VTech, since it is completely virgin territory for the SEC (and I think NC is too tough a nut to crack, since UNC and Duke would never join the SEC, and NCSU would go only if they see UNC leaving the ACC). Remember that Florida can veto an invitation to FSU.

          • Richard says:

            This, of course, opens up Maryland and Virginia to the Big10. Texas wouls also get a southern companion (though they’re far away).

    • Midwest Aggie says:

      Not going to happen that Texas is going to do a “double-cross” on us.

      1. Due to our meeting the other day, your staff knows what we are up to and we know what you are up to. This meeting was to place all the cards on the table as dictated by the politicians. If Texas has any inclination of going to the Big10, we know it.

      2. Notice how the press conferences are set-up for next week. Texas and Texas Tech have already given their BOR the 72-hour advance signal to have a meeting. Topic to be discussed: conference realignment. Texas A&M has not given its mandatory 72-hour warning to its BOR yet. Our decision comes after you all publically announce that it will be either the Big10, PAC-XX, or going independent.

      3. To some of the BOR at A&M, the Big10 invite may be the Willie Wonka golden ticket. Not only because of the athletic benefits, but also the opportunity to be a part of the academic side of the house. The main goal of a university is not to be solely focused on football, but rather to make the univeristy as a whole better. Big10 does that and I believe A&M wants to break from the borderline Tier1/Tier2 standing and become a Tier1 school.

      4. According to this site, A&M is seen to have a number of positives on both the athletic fields and in the classrooms to get an invite to the Big10. May be that invite is dependent on coming with you all, but we are not a “Tech problem”.

  37. HawkeyeJim says:

    Frank

    A big Iowa “thank you” for all of the updates!

    Go Hawks!
    Jim

  38. GOPWolv says:

    Anyone have a link to a big east board/story confirming the ND ultimatum. The play makes sense, therefore, I think it has legitmacy.

  39. djinndjinn says:

    I don’t mind the idea of stopping at 14. It gives the ability to add a couple more teams in the future if its warranted.

  40. FLP_NDRox says:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigNo

    Our Lady of Victory, pray for us and your University.

    • djinndjinn says:

      Maybe your prayer will be answered and joining the Big Ten is just the thing that will save you. ;-)

    • Rich2 says:

      Be steady, FLP_NDRox. BE posters have always been grousing over our special relationship in the conference. Why kicking us out and adding UCF is a good idea is not clear to me. Continue to write Fr. Jenkins and the BOT. This recommendation to join the Big Ten has been decisively rejected twice in the last decade. There still is not enough change in the conference structure to warrant such a disastrous and short-term move as joining the Big Ten for a few years.

      It could be worse. We could be worrying about how we just received a four-year probation and have to rely on Lane Kiffin and Ed Orgeron to steer us clear of a hint of NCAA impropriety for the next four years.

      • @Rich2 – Here’s why it’s not an idle threat: ND really doesn’t want to be a part of a split BE with just the Catholic schools. I know that the alums are very OK with it, but the athletic department isn’t. Imagine a pre-sanctions USC joining the West Coast Conference for non-football sports and that’s effectively what ND would be doing. It’s just not going to be acceptable to an athletic department of that stature, especially if the Big Ten is offering more money than independence for football, anyway. If too many football schools leave, there are mechanisms in place for a split to occur immediately and without financial repurcussions. Note that the Catholic schools want stability as much as anyone else and aren’t in the mood to see more C-USA schools if football schools start leaving. They aren’t confident that ND would join them in a split league, so they aren’t sticking their necks out for the Irish in a manner that you might assume.

    • NeutronSoup says:

      I respect your posts here, FLP, but damn you for linking to TVTropes. As if I didn’t have enough to waste my time on with all the expansion discussion, now I have to fight the urge to lose myself in that site, too. :)

  41. Rookie says:

    So are the Big East options out? I would be glad to see that other than Pitt. I never truly understood Rutgers. Syracuse is too small. I liked Pitt. It keeps the ACC/SEC out of Pennsylvania.

    If the Big East starts to get poached by 1 or 2 teams, can the conference survive? How far are G’town and Villanova from being bowl ready?

    • zeek says:

      No options are out. Right now everyone’s just focused on Texas/A&M. Once they make their choices, everyone will turn to the Big East and ACC.

  42. zeek says:

    Well, Frank and Patrick, it seems you’re probably right that Texas will at least consider the Big Ten:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/7047110.html

    “The Southeastern Conference is very much in play for A&M, while Texas is at least mulling the possibility of joining the Big Ten or SEC, one person with knowledge of the situation said Thursday.

    UT as a Big Ten member is considered a stretch because of travel considerations and few historical ties with the conference’s other programs, but the Longhorns will at least consider the scenario, an insider said.”

    The main issue though is whether Notre Dame would sign on as well probably. I think Notre Dame is hesitant to sign on to something that quickly, so there’s probably nothing much that can come of it.

    Plus, inviting only Texas without A&M seems as if it creates larger geography problems…

  43. Stew says:

    Having grown up in NY, school in Pitt (not at Pitt mind you, but up the street at CMU – how come Div III never has craziness like this? oh yeah, there is no money there), and living in Dallas, this has been fun to watch.

    With all of the speculation running around, I think we have to go back to some of the original arguments around what all of this is about:
    1. Money
    2. Image

    Money is going to come from who can get the most from ESPN/Fox/ComcastNBC, and that will be determined by what kind of ratings each conf get; how many fans will they attract either from local interest or national interest due to their success.

    Image comes from who the university gets associated with every week in the news – this matters to potential recruits, students, and to alumni who give.

    Of the schools that seem to be in play, the ones that IMHO would bring the most money into a conference would have to be:

    1. Texas
    2. Notre Dame
    3. Texas A&M

    Below those three, there’s going to be a steep drop off in the value any other school brings to the table.

    The Northeastern football schools are relatively low on the pecking order for most Boston/NY/Philly/DC fans. OU/OSU/TT/Baylor bring shares of Dallas; TT/Baylor shares of Houston; Mizzou brings StL and KC; Utah brings SLC. Pitt, Cincy, Louisville bring their metro areas.

    I have yet to hear a compelling case as to why any ACC or SEC school would leave where they are.

    And finally, we haven’t thought through whether the real money behind these moves might want to have multiple leagues in the same market to both be able to get on basic cable. Just like Florida is shared between the ACC and SEC (and Sunshine Network and FSN), Texas and A&M in different leagues brings Dallas and Houston to both the SEC and either Pac10/11/16 and Big 10+n.

    If self-interest really is name of the game, then the questions are:

    - Can Texas make more money with its own network, or a share of the Big or Pac deals? And who does it want to be associated with USC or Michigan (or pick your favorite icon).
    - Does ND think when its current contract is up that it will find a deal, and be able to fill a full schedule in a super conference world?
    - Does A&M want to associated with Texas, or the South?
    - Is OU worth anything more than as just a rival to Texas or A&M? And if not, who needs them more?
    - Which conference are the St. Louis and Kansas City markets worth more to?
    - Can enough Big 12 refugees hang together to use their BCS bid as a chit to land somewhere?

    - And finally, who will be at long last be willing to make the 2nd move (Colorado having made the 1st?)?

    I dare say none of the “experts” know more than 25% of the positions of the relevant players, and are speculating almost as much as we are.

    • Parneli says:

      You hit on something I think has been going on all along. I really think you have conference leaders and schools loosely working together here to steer everyone towards the greater television good.

      I’ve been thinking this is what’s occurring all along. If the Big Ten and SEC split Texas and Texas A&M, BOTH CONFERENCES end up on every television set in the primary television markets in the state (the DMA’s everyone is dying for).

      If this is what’s happening, the Big Ten could be leading Mizzou along (like a guy teasing a backup option chick) to trade it as a pawn with the SEC for Vandy, who the SEC would probably sacrifice since they already have Tennessee for the sake of adding STL and KC to their footprint.

      In such a scenario, you’d primarily see the 3 easternmost remaining major conferences working on these types of scenarios with a little backhand collusion:

      Big Ten leaves the remaining West untouched to maximize coverage for a Fox/Pac 10 partnership network.

      The ACC, Big Ten, and SEC split UVA, Maryland, and Va Tech to maximize the DC, Norfolk, and Richmond markets.

      The ACC and SEC split FSU/Miami and UF to maximize the Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville markets.

      The Big Ten and SEC split Illinois/Nebraska and Mizzou to maximize the STL and KC markets.

      The Big Ten and SEC split Vandy and Tennessee to maximize the Nashville and Memphis markets.

      The Big Ten and Pac 10 networks are sold as a package deal in all Big Ten and Pac 10 DMA’s. Each collecting a bigger share in their home markets (Pac 10 in LA) and smaller share in their complimentary markets (Pac 10 in Chicago).

      If/when the SEC expands, I fully expect it to be a blend of Oklahoma, A&M, Mizzou, VaTech, and/or WVU even moreso than the obvious choices FSU/Clemson/Miami etc. ACC responds by grabbing the remaining Big East football programs Uconn, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Pittsburgh to pickup new DMA’s that overlap the Big Ten.

      THIS MAXIMIZES DMA COVERAGE FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE 4 REMAINING MAJORS AND WEEDS OUT AS MANY DOLLARS FROM THE BIG TELEVISION NETWORKS AS POSSIBLE.

      • Parneli says:

        Forgot to mention, the ACC and SEC have worked this concept to perfection in the past decade plus, both sharing full coverage in the Atlanta and Florida markets by overlapping UGA/GT and UF/FSU.

      • Hank says:

        that is such a compelling scenario. I hope Delany and Slive have thought of it

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Interesting theory. I’m not really on board with it, but that’s some quality thinking.

      • Husker Al says:

        To the lawyers on this board: Doesn’t the scenario above reek of a potentially legitimate anti-trust lawsuit?

        • nimrodxi says:

          @Husker Al – Probably. So what would really be fascinating is if the major players all see this as the best scenario, but can’t actually talk about it, so they’re each trying to signal the others that this is what they’re attempting.

  44. Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

    Wanna hear a rumor I just heard from an OU source?

    UT is in play for the big 10. If UT does back out of the Pac-10 and leaving for the Big 10….Nebraska may back out and join CU and OU along with the BIG EIGHT to join the SEC.

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      er…it’s late. I meant to join the pac-10

    • Rich2 says:

      This is a question I had: If Nebraska is leaving the Big 12 because of its conflicts with Texas, why would Nebraska join the Big Ten if Texas joins the Big Ten?

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        Ding!
        Answer: They don’t. Nebraska is wanting to get away from Texas.

        When Dr. Tom said Nebraska was in the Big 12 today…it was when the Big 10 was calling on Texas.

        • James says:

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the bigger issue that the Big 12 was skewed towards Texas and the Big 12 South from Nebraska’s perspective? That’s not going to happen in the Big Ten, because of equal revenue sharing, Texas being an outlier and not having leeches attached to them, and at least three other superpowers (Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State) to counterbalance it. Now a Texas/Notre Dame alliance, THAT could shift the balance of power.

    • Michael says:

      As far as I know, TPTB at Nebraska and Texas are actually somewhat close and the Big 12´s problems were more circumstantial than they were fundamental. In fact, after all this is said and done, I wouldn´t be surprised if there´s been significant collaboration between all three of the principal parties involved (NU, UT, and ND).

      Besides, all indications are that Nebraska is already in. The University´s official vote is tomorrow and that would be followed by a prompt vote from the Big 10 presidents. At this point, it is only formalities.

      I´m not sure I see any situation, on the other hand, in which a Texas decision comes before the official Nebraska vote. So even if there was some sort of uneasiness on Nebraska´s end, I´m not sure it´s relevant.

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        Well, Dr. Tom has issues with Texas. And the deal isn’t done. UNL vote could be suspended, or changed to a conditional,

        Yeah it would be last minute, but it looks like negotiations are going on till he last minute as each conference ups it’s final bid.

        • Patrick says:

          There is no way Nebraska backs out. NONE. This is seen as a big time athletic revenue move, but more importantly it gets them to the CIC.

          Nebraska does not want to ‘get away from Texas’, they actually get along. The Big Ten is a great move for Nebraska, if Texas comes along I think they would be happy.

          • StankyJones says:

            That’s the same thing I’m hearing in Husker land too. I can’t see Nebraska getting an invite from the BIG TEN then backing out and going to the PAC-10. It doesn’t matter who’s invited to the BIG TEN. It could be Texas and Nebraska would be happy just as long as they aren’t in the dysfunctional BIG 12 any longer.

            Husker fans I’ve conversed with would like UT, aTm, and OU to be added to BIG TEN. I can’t see OU for academic reasons.

            Lets get serious here. Would you pick the PAC 10 over the BIG TEN. If you said yes, then you are USC and you don’t want to leave your kingdom.

        • JohnB says:

          The Big10 is a really good fit for Nebraska in too many ways. I don’t buy that Nebraska would back out for an untested Pac. Especially because a bunch of the potential money for the Pac stems from getting UT.

    • SuperD says:

      Seriously doubt this happens but this would own from a CU perspective. I wouldn’t have to give up “Hate Day” the day after Thanksgiving. FWIW we did have some message board rumors that the PAC had at least had talks with the PAC about coming with CU as our travel partner.

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      I’ve speculated before that such could happen, in part because that’s about the only way the P10 could reach 16 without TX or aTm. I expect NE to go to the B10+ regardless of whether TX does, but NE to the P16 is a believable option.

      One second still left on the clock…

  45. Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

    Adding.

  46. PensfaninLAexile says:

    How did Vanderbilt fall out of the discussion?

    • zeek says:

      Because now that the Big Ten is unlikely to get Texas, the focus is mostly on Notre Dame.

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        I see. So, Vandy has to wait on ND. Could the B10 push ND to an agreement by starting negotiations with the Commodores?

        • zeek says:

          Er, Vandy was never really in the picture.

          It was only really floated for a sunbelt scenario where ND didn’t join and the Big Ten wanted to go anyways.

          It was also floated back when we were working under the assumption that the Big Ten would only take 2 per conference (and hence leave Nebraska out for Texas/A&M).

          I don’t think Vandy’s ever really complained about being in the SEC; they’re a southern school, etc. Sure they’re private, but that’s not really a reason they’d up and leave for a conference of northern schools, especially with rival TN.

    • jtower says:

      How can Vandy fall back into the picture so Texas, A&M, and ND can form the southern Pod.

  47. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Adding. When can we sleep of work?

  48. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Oops. Forgot to actually add.

  49. Ponderosa says:

    On a political (as well as football) level wouldn’t it make more sense to break up the Texas schools?

    They could each dominate their own conference and meet in title games.

    TT to PAC-10 w/OSU and CU.
    – Seems like the Tech offense would fit well there.

    Baylor stays in in the Mountain West/Big XII (they aren’t going to the PAC-10, right?)
    – Sort of ‘saves’ the Big XII. The MWC could joint the remaining 5 Big XII teams, keeping the BCS invite.

    A&M (w/OU) to the SEC

    Texas to Big 10

    Diversification would work better than what the State of Texas had in the Big XII.
    Kind of a ‘take over the world’ approach.

    • zeek says:

      The Pac-10 is only going to 12 schools if UT isn’t included.

    • @Ponderosa – Florida, Florida State and Miami did very well for years in separate leagues. FSU and Miami haven’t been the same since the Canes joined the ACC.

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      On a political (as well as football) level wouldn’t it make more sense to break up the Texas schools?

      They could each dominate their own conference and meet in title games.

      Exactly, Hoss.

  50. SH says:

    What are the odds, I can go all day tomorrow without looking at this blog. I’d say slim to none.

    • GOPWolv says:

      we need to start Frank AA. Hi, my name is GOPWolv, and I’m an expansaholic. I first knew I had a problem when I completely failed to prepare for court so that I could hit refresh every 20 seconds.

  51. SH says:

    I can see the write up in the next ABA Journal. FTT Blog caused thousands of lost billable hours.

    • GOPWolv says:

      “BigLaw across America was suddenly hit with a loss of recoverables. The hit will likely be seen in a dramatic drop in profits per equity partner in Southern and Midwest law firms.”

    • Hank says:

      right. like lawyers can’t find a way to slip this into billable hours anyway.

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        LOL… Hank, really, such a negative world view!

        and just to be clear, no one steals office supplies either

  52. Gopher86 says:

    I personally applaud Texas A&M for making this move. It seems to me that they did two things right here: they made sure the move they made was a good fit culturally (and geographically) and they were proactive in getting the best considerations for their University.

    Texas A&M broke rank and was willing to test just how much they were worth as a program. The answer? Much more than the Pac-10′s deal was going to net them. They’re showing they’re not going to be part of a package deal with lessor teams (OSU and TTU) or allow Texas to take their muscle for granted while they try to hash out a sweetheart media deal in this new conference (wiggle room for Longhorn Sports).

    You’re going to blackball me? Fine. You won’t have to send the Christmas card to my new address on this giant pile of money.

    • angryapple says:

      Agreed. If I was a Texas A&M alum, I would be proud. As a Big Ten alum, I am grateful.

    • Bob in Houston says:

      A&M to the SEC also helps Texas with the “Tech problem.”

      Consideration might be enough.

      Saw Rick Perry on the news last night saying that while he would prefer a (state of) Texas conference, the decision would be made by each school.

      It could be baloney for the cameras, but I view it as a possibility that common sense has prevailed and both Texas and A&M will be allowed to do what is best for each of them.

  53. Bamatab says:

    Looks like a station is reporting that OU is going to the SEC. Apparently Josh Heuple (OU’s qb coach) got a text while giving a speech saying OU to the SEC. Now, I’m not saying that this is false, but when did news outlets stop verifying their stories before they break them. It seems like a new tv/radio station is breaking a false story every other day. Here is the link:

    http://www.ktbs.com/sports/23865899/detail.html

    • Michael says:

      If OU´s actually in, I have to believe that means A&M has made up their mind and is off to the SEC.

    • zeek says:

      If OU somehow detaches itself from the Pac-16, I don’t see how it continues. Then you replace OU and OSU with not as good fits and you’re only bringing Tech if A&M goes East with OU?

      I don’t see how Texas allows that one to happen if it really wants the Pac-16 to work.

      One of OU or A&M has to go with Texas to justify the Pac-16…

      • Michael says:

        Zeek,

        The Pac16 isn´t happening.

        OU and A&M are off to the SEC.

      • Bamatab says:

        If OU and aTm both go to the SEC, and the SEC offers UT a chance at a Lognhorn Network, and the stars line up just right, could UT go to the SEC? I never would’ve thought there was a chance in hades that UT would go to the SEC. But if OU and aTm both jump, then could that force UT’s hand with the promise of the LHN? Again, I doubt it, but it may have gone from a 0% chance to a 30% chance.

        • Michael says:

          UT´s not going to the Pac 10 by itself, they´re not staying in the Big 12 and they´ve said that their values don´t align with the SEC´s . . .

          That leaves the Big 10

        • zeek says:

          If OU and A&M both go to the SEC, let’s just assume that for the moment. The Pac-16 is probably dead. You can’t replace OU/OSU/A&M (note OSU won’t be wanted by the Pac-10 if OU isn’t coming), and Texas wouldn’t be able to justify going west on their own without another national brand (OU/A&M).

          Texas would probably look hardest at the Big Ten and SEC in that case.

          That being said, we really need more confirmation on these kinds of reports.

          It would be a smart gamble by Slive if he thinks that removing OU/A&M from the Pac-16 invites kills it and forces Texas to choose a different option with the hope that it is the SEC…

          I still don’t think Powers/Dodds are going to let OU/OSU out of this, and I don’t think OU wants to leave Texas even for the SEC with A&M…

          • jd wahoo says:

            Agree w/ Zeek – there’s every indication that OU is going to stick w/ UT, and really no reason to think otherwise. The only school involved that really perceives itself to be Southern (and that counts Gene Stallings among its decision-makers) is A&M, so it’s understandable why they are drawn in that direction.

          • ShockFX says:

            zeek, that Pac-16 was NEVER A REAL OFFER! It was just to create chaos.

            And no, OU is not tied to UT. Why would they be? They weren’t in the same conference for years without a problem.

            And again, Slive isn’t working against Scott and Delany, he’s working with them.

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        @zeek. I agree with most of that…unless UT goes to the Big 10, and Nebraska goes west in the Pac 10 group.

        Which is what I heard was happening.

        This is a little surprising. Not totally, the Pac-10 deal has seemed to be unraveling

    • zeek says:

      Rivals.com’s Carey Murdock claims he spoke to Heupel afterward, who denies the claim.

      http://oudaily.com/news/2010/jun/10/report-heupel-says-ou-heading-sec/

      • Bamatab says:

        Maybe he realized he wasn’t supposed to let that cat out of the bag and is trying to put it back. If in the off chance OU is going to the SEC and he slipped up and said that, I’d hate to be him when he gets into work in the morning.

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          I’m with you Bama. That TV channel reporting the Heupel text message is in Shreveport, LA (where I grew up) and they have a pretty good reputation.

          I’m guessing that OU tries to get into the SEC if the Pac 16 deal blows up, but I think the Pac 16 stills works even without A&M. Utah or Kansas give Colorado a better rival. Pac 10 likes pairs: UTX/TTech, OU/OSU, CU/Utah or Kansas.

          Looks good to me.

          • Bamatab says:

            Alan, I’m starting to think that aTm is the key to SEC expansion. I think it is the one school (outside of UT of course) that Mike Slive thinks would be the most benefical for the SEC for the long haul (the next 20-50 years). I think that while OU and FSU would give you an elite school, and VT might open up the DC market, for some reason I think aTm is the key. What are your thoughts on the SEC’s options and targets.

          • zeek says:

            aTm is the key for the SEC because of recruiting and market strength.

            The SEC will likely make a network someday, so having a flag down in Texas is crucial for the footprint…

    • gopher2 says:

      “News” outlets started just publishing stories without verification when they realized that breaking a story is valuable and there is very little consequence to being wrong.

  54. GOPWolv says:

    I don’t buy Neb moving to P10. The Cali schools are really far away and the B10 is right there w/ a bag of money. I think the KU, ISU’s of the world will float any rumor now to make themselves appear relevant. “Oh yeah, well we’re all going to the Pac10.”

  55. jd wahoo says:

    FWIW, Chip Brown is tweeting that UT/TT/OU/OSU are definitely going to Pac-10. A&M is having an internal struggle, and if they go SEC, KU and Utah would be considered for inclusion in the Tex-Pack. Might be the only way to rescue KU from the scrap heap.

    http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

    I know some of you bear ill will toward Chip Brown, but he’s been pretty accurate on all things Pac (could one of his sources be CU AD?).

    • zeek says:

      Chip Brown has been pretty much spot on about the goings on in Texas. He did seem to be spreading misinformation about Nebraska’s chances in the Big Ten (probably fed to him by a source in Texas interested in keeping the Big 12 together), but other than that, he’s been accurate about most of what’s going on.

      As long as Texas can keep OU attached to it, the Pac-16 is going to materialize barring some last minute possibility of a different scenario (ND signing onto the Big Ten would probably cause Texas to maybe re-evaluate its options).

    • SuperD says:

      I seriously doubt the CU AD is his source as his favorite hobby between Texas tweets seems be bashing CU with a pretty biased agenda. The early leak on the APR reports (which we already new was going to be a hit and took the scholly hit last year), implying we only got in because the Cal hippies hate Jesus, etc. I think its pretty obvious that it is difficult not to see Dodds lips moving when Chip talks. Though I think some of his later stuff is likely coming from the tagalongs…Baylor and Tech most likely.

  56. Faitfhful5k says:

    Update:
    Blog hits 958,701
    Countdown to Super Death Star Conference launch on schedule.

    By the way Frank, thanks for being such a great host. :)

  57. Guido says:

    I think almost anything at this point is a possibility. Some questions.

    What would Nebraska fan think if Nebraska actually goes to Pac-10?

    Are Beebe and Missouri sloppy drunk in some alley right now?

    Could SEC add Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M and leave K-State, Ok State, and Texas Tech swinging in the wind?

    Will Texas and ND get a room?

    • Patrick says:

      Nebraska is NOT going Pac 10. They are going Big Ten tomorrow for the revenue and the CIC. I think they are hoping Texas joins them.

    • Husker Al says:

      Agreed, Patrick.

      For Nebraska the Pac-10 negative implications financially, geographically and culturally. The NU administration would be vilified as fans ask why we put ourselves in a position to break up the Big12 if the Pac-10 was the final destination.

  58. GOPWolv says:

    WildcatReport.com
    Post #12955
    N-DUB

    MyFanPage
    Add Buddy Found on a Rutgers board Reply

    ——————————————————————————–
    by a Maryland poster, copying pasting from an Ohio State mod

    I figured you guys would be interested in this, unfortunately it makes sense to:

    Something about Chip Brown from an Ohio State mod that has connections to the football staff(so it might be a little out of the loop):

    “Good read here…received this via PM…no link because this is the first time its been published.

    The Chip Brown Circus

    We like Chip Brown, we really do. His work at Orangebloods.com played a large part to give this expansion the jump start it needed in making June a relevant month in the college football circus. His early information also proved to be mostly accurate. The problem was, and to no fault of his own, Chip decided to take the ESPN and national media carousel journey which was the beginning of the end for his information and let us tell you why.

    By going mainstream as the face of the information break, Chip put himself in a tough position. With all the national media focused on his tweets, twits, twerts, and whatever else he posts he became a target of schools and conferences alike.

    Chip Brown is now officially a puppet.

    That isn’t meant in a bad way either, but it’s the truth (ironically enough, whenever someone has the need to say it isn’t meant in a bad way, why does it always feel like it’s sad in a bad way?). Schools and conferences know that any information they feed to Chip will be posted and re-posted abroad by a variety of reputable national media outlets, creating havoc and pandemonium all the while sending those dogs off the wrong path and diverting the attention of their real intentions.

    “Texas and Texas A&M have not received contact from the Big Ten.”

    Alright, that’s the straw that broke the wooly mammoth’s back. Really Chip, really?! Even cavemen know Texas has been contacted; the Geico commercial actors are even offended by your naivety. You mean those emails that came from Ohio State’s president, Gordon Gee, about Texas were just randomly thrown in the air and that pertinent information he had in it was just malarkey that he pulled out of his yoohoo? How can anyone believe what this guy is saying when he is not only fed information like that but honestly believes it?

    The real question after that is then why is he being fed that information, what purpose does it serve? Well with all the attention on Texas to the Pac 10, per Chip, it allows and buys time for Texas to sit patiently and see how things unfold a little bit first which has always been their plan. Why does Texas have any need to rush? They are Texas! Do you really think the super power money making bananza machine that is UT is going to feel the pressure to make a decision? And do you think the money making conference in revenue (the Big Ten) is not going to contact them? This whole situation with Orangebloods now has the feeling of a hot buxom young blonde marrying an old rich geezer who’s about to croak and is just being used now, unfortunately for OB they are not the hot young blonde. Orangeblood has something the schools want, an indirect national source that they can manipulate for national posturing.

    By Texas letting Chip think they are headed to the Pac 10 it buys them more time to work out the details with the Big Ten on whom also joins in while working with their legislation. On a deal as large as this one, the extra time to work out the details puts them in the best position possible. Again, it’s not so much Texas that is in the rush but it’s who is coming with them and the surrounding details that needs the time. If Texas makes it known they want to head to the Big Ten, all of a sudden other conferences go into panic mode to pick up the next best options which lowers Texas’ leverage and bargaining powers to get what they want most effectively, but by the “UT to Pac 10″ talk that Chip is preaching it put everyone in a false sense of security.

    “Texas, OU, OSU, and Tech are a lock to the Pac 10 but will wait a week to announce.”

    Seriously, are we going to do this again Chip! Going to wait a week, yeah, I can really see Texas Tech feeling secure about waiting a week to join the Pac 10. Good to see Oklahoma not interested in looking at their other options as well, like the SEC. Heck, also good to see Texas wasn’t even the least bit interested in looking around, please head directly to the self-checkout lanes! These are decisions that have affects in the hundreds of millions and they aren’t going to look around, talk to other conferences? I know the South isn’t that smart but come on! (I kid, I kid!)

    The bottom line is to be very careful when reading what sources like Chip Brown and others are saying because there is always a motive for that. Schools don’t give out information that they don’t want to get out, most often, and they don’t give out as much as Chip is getting and being used for. There was another report from a Kansas City television station that Texas and A&M were headed to the Big Ten, and even though those line up with what we are saying we find that report to be complete hogwash. Why? It’s unfounded.

    Right now we are seeing television stations, internet sites, radio stations, newspapers, etc., finding themselves in a win-win situation with these rumors. Putting out a random “sourced” rumor will draw attention to them. If it turns out to be false, oh well, theirs was false just like 99% of everyone else’s was so no loss there.

    If it was right, though? Well, you’ll find yourself like Chip Brown and Orangebloods.com, being pushed out in the national media market getting great exposure as “breaking news” and then be looked towards for more information, and thus used up by the likes we’ve already mentioned.

    When looking at those that are paraded out there, you have to look at these “breaks” from a critical angle. Why was this information leaked out? Who does this leverage? Who is getting helped by this information? Do you really think any school is going to leak legit info to him when they know he’s going to tweet it and have it posted on hundreds of message boards, is that really the way AD’s want to create leverage and bargaining power for themselves?! No, it’s not. Which is why we say Chip Brown is still playing an important role in all of this, it’s just not the one he thinks or wishes he was playing because he is the puppet and Texas is the puppet master.”

    • Blake says:

      Hmm… I wonder if they fed Chip Brown and the other “breaking news” sites even more red herrings after seeing the original post (that had been deleted and is now up on Northwestern rivals) got Delaney into a rage…

    • Gopher86 says:

      I consider him to be a mouthpiece for Texas at this point. The guy is a legit journalist, but it’s pretty clear that most of his reports have favored Texas’ interests.

    • John says:

      Doesn’t this mean Chip Brown is playing the Blutaskry role?

      I’ll let you guys figure out the other roles….

  59. djinndjinn says:

    We’ll see how all this shakes out, but for a moment consider this 14-team conference:

    Penn State
    Notre Dame
    Ohio State
    Michigan
    Michigan State
    Purdue
    Indiana

    Texas
    Nebraska
    Wisconsin
    Iowa
    Minnesota
    Illinois
    Northwestern

    Imagine Texas playing the likes of Penn State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State in one season.

    Imagine Ohio State playing Texas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and a yearly game with Michigan.

    • IrishTexan says:

      Boy oh boy, the laundry on those fields will look great.

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Sadly I forsee many two loss Rose Bowl teams looking at that. It’s like the SEC…but worse.

      • Ryan says:

        No chance, SEC would still be way stronger. In this scenario, the big 10 has added one great team, one mediocre team, and one poor team. That suddenly turns the Big 10 into a better football conference than the SEC? LOL.

    • GoBucks says:

      These are exactly the divisions I posted a few days ago. Mind you, I profess no brilliance, as it was more of what I would want to see as a(n) (OSU) football fan than the result of serious deep thinking about the current news/rumor cycle and other non-football factors. From what FLP has said, ND fans would not favor this kind of schedule, for a variety of reasons that go beyond sweet football matchups.

      I think it would be great, but it is a valid point to say that coming through unscathed would be pretty difficult. With this kind of firepower, though, would the Big Ten start receiving more of an SEC-type treament, i.e., winning the conference will guarantee an undefeated champ a spot in the NCG, winning with one loss will probably guarantee it,and winning with two losses might so long as there are not a slew of undefeated or one-loss teams out there in other conferences? Or would the existence of this kind of conference actually remove SEC-type treatment from everyone?

      As an Ohio State fan, I actually like this idea. It prevents a situation like a few years ago when Ohio State was not NCG good but still got in because everyone and their mother lost in the last two weeks of the season. That OSU team would likely not have come through this kind of conference without two losses (yes, I know they beat TX that year; I am just speaking generally).

  60. Pariahwulfen says:

    …and another 1k replies for my inbox…

  61. jd wahoo says:

    Frank…do you have a client-matter number I can bill for my time spent here on “research and analysis re: novel issues in education law and policy as it pertains to interstate commerce?” That would be great, thanks.

  62. angryapple says:

    Who else is excited for for the 2010 Big Twelve football season!

    Notable games:

    Colorado @ Missouri — October 9

    Texas @ Nebraska — October 16

    Baylor @ Colorado — October 16

    Nebraska @ Missouri — October 30

    Texas A&M @ Texas — November 25

    • DeLoss Doss says:

      Don’t forget Mizzou @ Texas Tech. Hopefully the Missouri governor will throw out the first pitch, or something.

  63. Parneli says:

    In terms of pure television footprint, it’s in the best interest of the Big Ten and SEC to find a way to work together to overlap their market share of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin.

    If Texas won’t consider the SEC because of academics, it’s easy. Texas to Big Ten. Texas A&M to SEC. In turn, both conferences expand coverage onto every single cable/dish television household in the Lone Star State.

    A 1 + 1 = 3 scenario.

    This is the same reason I believe that the Big Ten is leading Mizzou along, confident in their place in the STL (Illinois) and KC markets (Nebraska), and will ultimately leave Mizzou for the SEC to snatch up more television households.

    How about the OKC DMA? Does UT have enough pull to get the BTN into OKC? If so, OU and/or OSU to SEC again leaves the OKC DMA as a shared market for both the Big Ten and SEC.

    The more shared DMA’s between the mega conferences, the bigger the total pot milked from the major television networks and cable/dish providers.

    • JohnB says:

      I don’t think UT and Nebraska would pull BTN to tier 1 in OKC or Tulsa (Markets 45 and 61, respectively).

  64. GOPWolv says:

    Texas/Nebraska should be excellent, should the Horns head West.

  65. Jeepers says:

    Ham sammich.

  66. angryapple says:

    I can’t decide which potential reaction I’m most excited about:

    -Missouri fans and executives upon learning that they are definitely not joining the Big Ten

    -Notre Dame fans upon learning that they are being kicked out of the Big East and joining the Big Ten

    -Texas fans upon learning that Texas A&M and Oklahoma are joining the SEC and they are joining the Big Ten

    -Jim Boeheim upon learning that Syracuse is leaving the Big East and joining the Big Ten/ACC/Wasteland Conference

    -Dan Beebe upon learning that 7 members of the Big 12 have voted to dissolve the conference and he is out of a job

    -Lew Perkins after he gets shit-canned

    • Imnotdrunk says:

      Well its to late for CU to vote, and if NU leaves before a vote they are out. So let me see, that leaves MU, ISU, KU, KS, Baylor voting no, and UT,aTm,OU,OsU,and TT voting to dissolve. Unless MU has some shaddy back room deal for the Big Ten brewing to go along with UT they cant vote to dissolve, they dont have a majority and thats what it takes in Delaware to dissolve the corp. MU is a player or the rest of the Big 12 is going to be paying out their ass to break away.

      • angryapple says:

        It’s not too late for Colorado to vote. They haven’t signed any papers. Nebraska won’t sign any either. They’ll both wait until Texas and Friends decide where they are going and then the deserters will vote to cancel the exit penalty or just dissolve the conference altogether.

    • Bobestes says:

      From what I understand Lew was already shitcanned.

      • Gopher86 says:

        He was cleared of all charges in the investigation. His retirement date in late 2011 has more to do with certain provisions (bonuses) that kick in. If they had any dirt on him, he’d be gone right now.

      • angryapple says:

        Not good enough. He should have been packing his stuff in boxes last week while building security looked on to make sure he didn’t steal any staplers.

    • 84Lion says:

      I was a bit surprised that Colorado got that Pac-10 invite the day after they got the notice of scholarships being docked due to low APR scores. Maybe the Pac-10 though USC needed some company in the doghouse. By the same token, Syracuse also got docked because of low APR. Based on that I think Syracuse’s chances of picking up a Big Ten or ACC invite might be a bit less now than before. There are too many other good candidates out there.

      • Gopher86 says:

        Colorado was a double play for the Pac 10. They nailed down the one team they had in all their scenarios and they partially covered the USC sanctions story.

  67. Rugby says:

    add an ag

  68. Carl says:

    Could it be?

  69. Phil says:

    Frank may be right that Notre Dame doesn’t want to end up with the GTowns, Novas, etc. for their non-football sports, but I don’t believe that is something starting them in the face right now because there wouldn’t be the votes for an ultimatum.

    Here are two possible scenarios ND could be facing:

    The Pac16 deal falls apart so the SEC takes A+M and Okla and at most 1 or 2 ACC teams. In that case the Big East would probably lose a team or two to the ACC but possible gain some Big 12 leftovers. The Big East would be a conference so desperate for survival that ND could stay indep in fb and get the same or better terms from the BE for the non-fb sports that they do now.

    The Pac16 deal could happen so that the SEC eventually takes the best 4 ACC football teams. The remains of the ACC could merge with the Big East to form a 12 or 16 team conference. ND could join that conf, be the big fish, have more private schools with them and have easier scheduling (because conf games would take them up and down the east coast).

    I think the only way for the Big ten to “force” ND to make a move is to invite at least 2 Big east teams, and even then they better be sure ND doesn’t have any interest in the ACC.

    • StvInILL says:

      NotreDame is a school that lives with its wife in South Bend yet mostly sleeps over at its girlfriend, The Big East. It doesn’t pay any rent for the Big East. It really spends all it money back home at South Bend. Yet the Big East is so happy to have the handsome strapping ND on it’s arm it ignores the fact that it’s just getting used. The Big Ten offer a legitimate marriage to a mature and respectable conference with benefits. ND continues to dither. It that ND feels like it may take a back seat to the Big ten’s children from another marriage?

  70. Dr. SuperEngineer says:

    Whats been missing from this discussion is an understanding that, in the Big Ten, the tail does not wag the dog… ie. The BT is very different from other conferences in that, what may have started out as an sports only conference, has turned into a multi-BILLION dollar academic affiliation FIRST and a sports conference SECOND… This thing is being driven by academics.. not football. I can not stress this point enough In the Big Ten, Academics generate more revenue than sports…. Billions more

    Let me explain how the CIC works… Dr. SuperEngineer From Ohio state is a world renowed expert on Yadda-Yadda-Tech. He gives a talk to Urbana-Champaign’s Chemistry department (as CIC members often give talks at member institutions). Dr. NobelChemist, who is an expert on blah-blah-dynamics hears the talk and realizes he can collaborate with Dr. SuperEngineer for a $40 million dollar federal grant. They get together and throw in the Penn State Super computer team just for good measure. Obviously this will be the strongest grant application in the country…. The CIC does another $40 million… Multiply Dr. SuperEngineer by his 10,000 CIC colleagues and you dwarf the BTN…

    Of course UT is coming… duh!… if this was only about sports it would be questionable… but sports is the tail, Bio-Physics is the dog… and the tail is not wagging the dog.

    • zeek says:

      All the more reason to immediately go after Maryland and Rutgers if Texas heads off to the Pac-10.

      • Dr. SuperEngineer says:

        I just explained why texas is never going to go to the PAC 10… It would be the single stupidest thing a university president has ever done… it’s an absolute no brainer… all this media nonsense is political cover, entertainment for the shepple, and free marketing for college sports

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          Uh, no.

          It’s one thing to believe that the Big 10 would be a better conference for Texas.

          It’s quite another to term accepting a deal which almost perfectly satisfies the various concerns of academics, athletic, geography, history, politics and tradition as “the single stupidest thing a university president has ever done.” Exaggerate much?

          • Bob in Houston says:

            With HH here. Constituents don’t really care about the academic benefits. No fans root for grants.

            Texas athletics has travel issues with Pac-10 membership if they are alone. Baseball will suffer in the Big Ten. The academics and money will ease that pain, but these are issues that the Pac-10 moved to alleviate, and the Big Ten can’t.

            Personally, I lean toward the Big Ten, but the Pac-10 offer is about as good as it gets otherwise.

            As I posted well above, A&M to the SEC (even strong consideration of the offer) helps Texas go to the Big Ten if that’s what it wants.

            As Dr. Tom said, this is a potential 75-year decision. You don’t want to blow it.

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            “No fans root for grants. ”

            You might be surprised…

          • Playoffs Now! says:

            No fans root for grants.

            I hear the damn Yankees still do.

      • Vincent says:

        Agreed. While the Big Ten would on the whole have many athletic benefits for Maryland, it’s the academic and research possibilities for College Park that truly excite me. And it’s why I’ve been pushing this move for a long, long time.

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      Yep, and don’t forget that 40-50% of those funds are allowed to be used for ‘indirect costs’, i.e. the university gets to keep and use the funds. Now look at how much PSU’s research dollar grew since joining and extrapolate that to Texas’ potential. They’d be nuts not to join. It’s a different game the Big Ten is playing.

    • JJ says:

      Not sure TX is a lock, but I certainly agree. Lots of people don’t get this at all. This is why no one other an AAU or ND will get an invite – no way these guys share with T Tech or WV or some such place (no offense, they are great schools, it’s just the way it is).

      As a related matter, one of the real values of the sports is that it inceases general awareness among the masses and builds social comrodery, which makes the public approve fundings for good ole “Massive State University”, which 10 of 11 of the B10 are. Not saying that is bad. Football is a great tool and it is fun. It is not more important that the schols though.

      One specifice thing about TX is that, I believe, it MSU and MIT are the 3 US leaders in nuclear physics, which is where outrageous amounts of money are at play. MSU just got some grant to build some massive thing that will be the only one of its kind in North America. Putting these programs together is a real asset to them both. Simon would probably do anything to get them together, lock up dough for MSU and further squeeze MIT.

  71. HuskerZac says:

    Yee haw

  72. HerbieHusker says:

    adding

  73. BCSBuck says:

    add

  74. gas1958 says:

    I travel for one day and this is what is miss!
    (1) How much credence can be given to the rumor/report of NE -> P10?
    That doesn’t seem remotely plausible. I guess we’ll know for sure soon.
    (2) CU -> P10 seems like a reasonable insurance policy if the Texas annexation blows up. Utah can be added and at least the P10 has done something.
    (3) At this point, isn’t the center of our universe College Station? Until we know whether A&M goes SEC or P10 aren’t we on hold?
    (4) What happens to the leftover teams if UT -> B10 and A&M -> SEC?
    Can the SEC afford to add OU/OSU also? Will that “overbalance” the conference?
    (5) I’ve only seen VT and FSU discussed as options to balance A&M, what do we think of Clemson?
    Just some reactions to events.

    • zeek says:

      Well if you want the Big Ten to get Texas, you need the SEC to get A&M and OU at this point.

      There’s really no other easy scenario for Texas to drop the Pac-10 situation and go to the Big Ten.

      But as of now, OU looks totally binded to Texas, so that’s not going to happen.

      • willarm1 says:

        But is Texas behind OU?

        If Tex wants A&M and they are left at the alter, I would guess Tex could choose ND and the Big Ten instead of OU and the pac 10.

        still think the odds are slim.

    • Vincent says:

      Clemson would be an ideal fit for the SEC, a solid football program with fine fans (sort of the Nebraska of the ACC), a sea of purple and orange. However, Virginia and Florida have more to offer as markets than South Carolina does, especially since the SEC already has the Columbia chickens. Perhaps Clemson could fill out space #16, but there would probably be more attractive candidates for that slot.

      • Bamatab says:

        I agree. Clemson is a filler school if the SEC expands. They have a decent tradition with a decent fan base (when compared to SEC schools), although they do add a nice in conference rivalry for South Carolina and Georgia (with whom they had a nice series of games back in the late 70s and 80s). They just don’t add the markets that I think that the SEC is currently looking for.

  75. JJ says:

    What about this?

    Old Big 8, with NE, joins CO in the Pac-10, they put the whole Texas experiment behind them.

    aTm heads to SEC with whomever, likely TT

    TX heads to B10

    Baylor stands around saying, what the f just happened?

    Seems like the best win for everyone, except Baylor.

    • Bob in Houston says:

      Baylor was shouldered into the packed subway car that was the Big 12, and is now claiming that they always were a member of the club, not just in the right place at the right time.

      They have spent money to upgrade facilities and would be a decent catch, but they’re not what they think they are.

      • Bullet says:

        Ken Star had an editorial in the Houston Chronicle yesterday, “Big 12 Texas schools must face realignment together.” He talked about how important it was to the economy of central Texas, with a $155 million impact of Baylor athletics.

        Talk radio supported what a number of other sources have said. Everything was very fluid and anything could still happen.

        There was a report in the UT student paper that a Baylor representative was at the Texas/Texas A&M meeting. Doesn’t seem likely, but you would think the UT student paper would be informed about such things.

        There’s a science maxim that usually the simplest explanation is the best. I think the meeting was simply to see if the Big 12 could be saved. Both schools wanted to keep the Big 12, so they were exploring whether it was going to be financially and competitively viable. And they were going to explore their options and where they could go together.

        I think they end up together, but A&M to SEC with UT in P10 or B10 is definitely a possibility. My gut feel on UT (with no inside info) is:
        P10 60%
        B10 30%
        SEC 9%
        B12 1%

        If A&M separates from UT, the only place they would go is SEC.

        The idea that the Tech problem goes away or ties only UT down is wishful thinking. Both schools were tied to the Tech/Baylor problems in 1994. Tech doesn’t have to go with them, but does have to land in a viable conference. B12-CU-NU-UT-A&M is not viable.

    • twk says:

      Where does the money come from for an expanded Pac 10 without the Texas television market? The Pac 10 already has a large population, but doesn’t deliver the ratings and interest that other secions of the country do, thus the need to add Texas. The Big 8 is no more viable as part of the Pac 10 than it was stading alone in 1994.

      • Stopping By says:

        Truthfully – A LOT of blame IMO has to be laid at former commish Tom Hansen’s feet. I am not going to argue that west coast fans are more passionate than other because as a whole – we are not. That doesn’t mean we don’t care or don’t pay attention though.

        Hansen was the farthest defenition from “aggressive” as you could get to describe someone. The Pac has an advantage of a huge population base with the disadvantage of timezone difference from the east (damn geography!). Hansen never really attempted to do anything to creatively alter the situation positively – which affected TV deals, bowl tie ins, etc. He was in office for 25+ years too (which lays blame to all Pac universities allowing him to sit for that long), so that is a whole lot time to allow a conference to fall behind the national pace.

        Since Scott has come in, he has (if nothing else) created an feeling of optimism from Pac fans. Sure the jury is still out, but he has hired a great forward-thinking staff (presumabley to navigate through both expansion and a PTN), hired a successful sport marketing agency (CCA) to rebrand the conference, more importantly – convinced the Pac schools to take on more Thurs/Fri games which increases exposure (vs getting buried w/ no exposure on Sat w/ current TV deal).

        Bottom line is that the Pac is currently undervalued and Scott (w/ or w/o TX) is going to put together a better deal for the conference than Hansen probably ever would have dreamed, but if you include the population bases of both the CA + TX + all other major markets included in the footprint – you have a lot of leverage at the negotiating table.

  76. greg says:

    Hawks are always in the top 300.

  77. Gumbynuts says:

    Add

  78. big10expander says:

    Guys. Nebraska is in the Big 10. Period. Done deal. Any discussions speculating on anything other than that is not worth your time.

  79. SH says:

    Regarding Hopkins and the Dr’s discussion above. It keeps bringing me back to the fact that the money is just so large in the B10, whether it be from a TV standpoint or research grant dollars. The former is much easier to understand and sell. I just don’t see how Texas can pass that up. Of course a real wildcard is a LSN. The whole P16 just seems like a redo of the B8 merger. Looks good on paper – from college athletics side, but doesn’t look good on other fronts. I know the B10 wants UT and it seems like a lot of UT wants the B10. Maybe it won’t work, but at the end of the day, how do you turn down that money and opportunity. The P16 is probably the easier sell, but the B10 is the more attractive opportunity. A real pickle I tell you.

    My question is what is the drop dead date for a decision to be made? Does something have to get done this summer, this month? Could we be talking about this for a year. What are the hard dates we are looking at?

    • GreatLakeState says:

      That PAC16 deal may look pretty in the dark but the longer it sits out in the light of day the less attractive its going to get. A&M has told Texas they want a week to think about joining the SEC (which they will). That gives the Big Ten ample time to shake some sense into TEXAS before it gets to the alter and takes its vows. It is simply illogical for TEXAS not to choose the Big Ten.

      • willarm1 says:

        But Texas would be picking up and leaving everything behind. Yes they may get a couple of ocg to work.

        But that is a lot of tradition to leave behind.

        Maybe that is why they are (acting)(trying) to save the Big 12.

        “well we gave it the old college try…see ya”

        Don’t you think it may be easier to persuade A&M to Pac 10, than pick up and leave everything?

    • Bullet says:

      P10 plans to decide by end of year so they can negotiate their TV contract in the spring. No other date has been given. SEC has no time frame. B10 is rushing only because they had to. This could drag out to November, but I suspect everyone wants it resolved before school starts in the fall and they all have additional responsibilities.

      As for the B10 being a no brainer for UT, it really is double chess with a lot of moving parts. There’s no doubt in my mind Powers would love to be in B10 and thinks it would help the school academically. But there is also student-athletes, athletics and politics. And there are so many places UT could thrive. SEC might be the best for short term financial gain. If FL is getting $10 million on local broadcasting, UT could get at least that, maybe $15 million. Coupled w/$17 million network that drawfs the $22 million from B10. Yet UT prefers not to go that route.

      They will at least give some consideration to student-athletes, who will have to travel much more in B10 and P10.

      Politics have to be considered. It is a real struggle getting funds out of the legislature or really getting anything you want. The Texas legislature, until this Tier 1 plan, has been unfriendly to higher education in recent years. You don’t want to alienate a significant block.

      And if you get another SWC situation where the top athletes don’t stay home, you start losing more and losing athletics revenues. And Athletics support generates academic donations. There is a reason all these commuter schools in the south are starting football in spite of the cost and Title IX issues. And its not just because the Presidents love football. It clearly has drawn the student body together which in time leads to greater donations. And that is more if you win.

      • Stew says:

        It’s not just politics, it’s alumni donations that have to be factored in. UT gets ri-donk-ulous amounts of cash each year from the alumni base, who from a football perspective care the most about two games OU and A&M. Baylor may get fired up for the drive down I-35, but to the Longhorns, it’s just another speed bump to a bowl game.

        As the schools sort out what is in their best interests, they are going to be looking at all revenue streams (TV, tickets, donations, etc…) and costs (financial for costs and image – do (ahem) student-athletes travel too much and miss too many classes, etc…)

        None of this is a slam dunk, and I for one would be really surprised if this gets settled as fast as the blog- and Twitter-world believes.

      • Bullet says:

        Just saw an article interviewing Chryst, former ND player/MAC commissioner. Didn’t really have much to add, usually answering, “its too early.” However, he did comment that these things have a “rhythm” to them and thought that it would all wrap up by the end of summer, consistent with my comment above.

  80. [...] To me, it seems all too convenient that the Texas coalition of universities seems to lose a member every day in expansion talks. The foregone conclusion that UT will join the PAC10 has some serious holes in it and at least one other expansion guru, Frank the Tank, agrees with me. [...]

  81. Yep That's Me says:

    add

  82. duffman says:

    Friday Follies?

    a) no matter what really happens today, or this weekend I feel sure there will be tons of fakes stories and rumors. Welcome to the world of modern media.

    b) a friend linked me to a guy who writes for the atlanta j c, he was supposed to be on vacation till july 5 and has written 2 articles in the last 2 days (so much for vacation when expansion is going on). something to read next time frank crashes the word press hampsters.
    will put each in a different reply so it will go through correctly.

    c) before I zonked out last night I was reminded that when I was young the teaching was that in polite conversation you refrain from talking about religion, sex, and politics. we covered baylor, cheereleaders, and the texas governors race yesterday, and the world did not come to an end.

    d) thank you for the occasional humor interludes, it adds a needed release to the current craziness in college football right now.

  83. michst8bball14 says:

    that post that was copied from an ohio state site re chip brown is awesome and spot on. They misinofrmation people are leaking to him are giving texas so much more unpressured time to talk to the b10. Keep at it chip! Sorry, zeek, I think you trust him far too much.

  84. Gopher86 says:

    Mizzou president back tracks on their Big 10 interest. Claims Mizzou is a loyal member of the Big 12.

    http://ht.ly/1XcDq

    Looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

    • StvInILL says:

      Well this is for Mizzu’s president or anyone else who was wandering about how to get into the Big Ten.
      http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13105/clarifying-the-bt-inviteapplication-process
      Here’s the way it works, according to the Big Ten’s Dec. 15 statement about its expansion study.

      Step 1: Commissioner Jim Delany, in conjunction with Michigan State president Lou Anna Simon, would decide that formal discussions need to be initiated. Obviously, Delany and Simon wouldn’t make this decision without consulting the other presidents and chancellors.

      Step 2: Delany would inform commissioners from any affected conferences. In the case of Nebraska, he’d call Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe.

      Step 3: Formal discussions would begin with a candidate, who then would apply for admission. Again, no invitations, only applications.

      Step 4: The Big Ten’s Council of Presidents/Chancellors, chaired by Simon, would vote on the applicant school. The school would need at least eight “yes” votes to be admitted to the Big Ten.

      This is the formal process for expansion. And while it likely will be just a formality — the Big Ten doesn’t want to embarrass any institutions — it’s important to note that there aren’t invitations. Just like Penn State did in 1990, Nebraska would have to apply for admission…

    • Gopher86 says:

      Man, are they getting defensive or what?

      http://ht.ly/1XiHS

      “It’s a nine-inning game, whether we’re in the bottom of the first inning or bottom of the ninth, the speculation has been running away from everyone, including all of you in this room for the last seven months. The fact that we have obligations to our Big 12 Conference first and foremost … you shouldn’t be surprised the lack of information from the University of Missouri.”

      via Dave Matter of the Columbia Tribune. Twitter: @Dave_Matter

  85. michst8bball14 says:

    PBC:

    Chip Brown Reply
    ESPN really dropped the ball listening to this guy. Dear ESPN et al, if you want the actual story behind this, purplebookcat@gmail.com

    (I think I just ended that email account)

    I don’t doubt that Chip thinks what he is getting is real. But, he is being played like a fiddle. He was fed accurate information early on, and built credibility on the topic.

    Then when the UT needed it the most, he turns on the Nebraska won’t go and Texas 6 to the PacX lines. Exactly what Texas needs to demonstrate reluctance, an effort to save the Big 12, and finally an attempt to save the sister schools.

    Sorry, but we knew this was going to happen at least a month ago on the Northwestern board. It is happening as predicted then. No wild swings as in Chips versions. That’s because it’s been scripted.

    • SH says:

      Let’s not get too carried away. I’m sure there is lots of disinformation being spread. Some of it unitentionally. As much fun as it is to think about these orchestrated efforts, these processes take on a life of their own. Everything seems pretty fluid here. The B10 can game plan and come up with a strategy – just like a regular football game. But then Colt gets knocked out or the refs give Neb another down. The Butterfly Effect takes hold. Sometimes your plans work out exactly – often they don’t.

      Chip Brown may be getting used by UT, but isn’t he using this whole process as well. Just like Frank? A few months ago, did anybody really know who Chip Brown was? Frank the Tank was a funny character from Old School. So if Chip and Frank are being used, it is working out for their benefit as well.

      I’m not insinuating that Frank is being used per se. But clearly he has found and exploited a topic that drives people to his blog. Kudos to him.

  86. BuckeyeBeau says:

    I’m sure it was in other threads, so sorry.

    But what does “a Big East message board obsession” mean or refer to? and how is “it coming true?”

    Again, sorry if I missed it; if anyone has a link.

    thanks.

    • Gopher86 says:

      My understanding is that the Big East commish gave Notre Dame an ultimatum to join football or get out.

      I’m wondering if the Big 10 is in bed with the Big East. Big East pushes on Notre Dame, Big 10 doesn’t raid them. A fair trade considering the Big East wasn’t going to get ND anyway.

    • StvInILL says:

      Me too/ My guess is that the BE strategy would be to give ND an ultimatum to officially join the league in football or get the hell out. This would most likely trigger a move to the Big Ten or least likely trigger ND to stop sampling and marry the BE in football. Either way they think it will save their fragile football conference.

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      nevermind, I see the answer up towards the top… thanks Kyle…

      but reiterating, seems an empty toothless ultimatum from the BE to ND. I’d bet not enough votes to expel ND from the BE. So what’s the “stick?”

      • gas1958 says:

        Exactly. From an old ed. class I once took: “Never make a threat you’re unwilling or unable to follow through on.” What, exactly does the BE have over ND? Zip, it seems to me.

        Maybe UT still goes west if A&M goes to the SEC; I still believe in the attraction of a UT/ND parley with the B10.

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        and thanks also to Gopher and StvInIll (and wow, it took me two hours to read from the top down to my post… creative billing here we come).

    • Bamatab says:

      BE sacrificing ND so that the Big 10 doesn’t raid them.

      • SH says:

        The Big East is really just a stepping-stone conference for programs.

        • StvInILL says:

          And the BE is still fragile even with the ND question settled by a move to the BT. In the case that the ACC gets raided by the SEC Uconn, Syracuse and Pitt are three good, no great, Basketball schools that play Div I football. The ACC was always a Basketball first league anyway right? And whats left of the Big 12 may also be looking at the Big East to fill things out.

          • SH says:

            Can you go back to being a basketball conference? From what we are seeing, football is everything. You must do everything you can to shore up your football lineup. This may be as good a reason as any for those ACC schools who can to start looking to B10 or SEC. Although there is no reason why the ACC can’t be a good football conference.

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            @ SH; for sure about going back to Bball only. Lots of Bball only conferences.

          • Gopher86 says:

            It’s not profitable to be basketball focused. That’s the reason why the Big East was raided by the ACC the first time around.

            I have no doubts that the Big East and the ACC could create an amazing basketball conference out of their parts, but it won’t get them nearly as much revenue. The Big East is a living example of that.

      • duffman says:

        bama,

        in its own weird way this is strange logic..

        a) right now the B 10 is 12 (Nebraska) and will max at 16

        b) at most the Big 10 could raid 4 schools (very low odds – especially as half the teams are basketball only schools.

        leaving the following 8..

        Cincinnati – NO WAY
        Louisville – NO WAY
        Uconn – Next to No Way
        Pitt – with PSU in , highly doubtful
        Rutgers – possible, but not a top choice
        USF – NO WAY
        Syracuse – possible, but not a top choice
        WVA – NO WAY

        and

        ND – the Big 10 lust object for ages

        c) outside of ND the Big 10 MIGHT take 1 or 2 schools at best from the Big East, but no more

        d) ND brings national audience to the Big East it could not get any other way, and it is a BCS conference.

        e) What is the REAL threat of the Big 10 – that it picks off ND – OR – it picks off maybe 1 current BE FB school.

        f) either way the Big East loses 1 school, and ND offers national exposure.

        This seems like a no brainer, but the pencil pushers, bean counters and top dogs in the BE should just call the Big 10 bluff, and tell them to piss off! Am i wrong here? Did I miss a memo somewhere? Am I really worried that the Big 10 will offer UC, UL, WVA, USF, and a few oterhs are really in danger of falling en mass to the Big 10? seriously!!??

        • StvInILL says:

          WVU – No way this happens
          Louisville – No way this happens
          Connecticut – in 20 years I think people say what’s the big deal?
          USF – No way this happens
          HIGEST PRIORITY
          ND, TX
          NEXT HIGEST
          Nebraska
          NEXT
          Rutgers, Missouri, Maryland
          NEXT
          Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia

        • willarm1 says:

          Maybe ND is looking for some cover to join.

        • Vincent says:

          If Big Ten agrees not to raid the Big East if ND comes along, it benefits Maryland, which could become the eastern partner ND wants if it joins what it perceives as a midwestern conference.

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Hmm, in the light of day, I’m not so sure the Big East should be so concerned about restocking. With the Big XII imploding, the Big East isn’t limited to the Memphis/UCF/ECU platter. Even if Rutgers and Syracuse go, they can pick from Mizzou/KU/K-State, etc.

          Again, it’s all moot if Gtown and Nova think ND’s is leaving either way.

    • Faitfhful5k says:

      It should also be noted the Big East is looking nervously to their south. If the SEC moves in on the ACC, the ACC may in turn move on the Big East teams.

  87. GreatLakeState says:

    I cannot believe what a homer Zeek is for Chris Brown (who, if you read through his tweets over the last 5 days has been laughably wrong at every turn) and the PAC16 deal which is going NOWHERE.
    USC’s troubles could delay the launch of the PAC16 network for years. Texas will end up going to the Big Ten or the SEC.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Sorry, CHIP Brown, not Chris Brown (he’s the Rhianna beating singer).

      • StvInILL says:

        Isn’t Chris Brown ann SEC man?
        alriight, I couldnt resist. I’m a bad man. keep your t-shirt on Chris.

      • Michael says:

        GreatLakeState,

        You have this right. There is a lot of VERY INTERESTING STUFF going on behind the scenes right now, and over the next few days, as this plays out, I´ll write about some of it.

        In short though, collaboration/non-collaboration, who´s playing and who´s being played? Also, what is the hold-up? Think about these two questions in concert and you can figure out what´s going on.

    • zeek says:

      Calling me a homer is kind of laughable.

      I’m just trying to be objective.

      And objectively, Texas has a deal from the Pac-10 which allows them to keep their local traveling troupe, while going to a better conference in terms of earnings and academic perception.

      I’ve always stated (just look at my previous posts), that there were several ways for a Pac-16 to unravel.

      1) Stanford balks. At this point Stanford might be happy with the new “Pac-8″ kicking the Arizona schools over to a new SWC. But you never know, they might veto Tech/OSU, but we have to wait on that…

      2) SEC takes OU and A&M off the board. Texas wants to go to the Pac-10 with OU/A&M. If both go east, then Texas almost certainly ends up in the Big Ten. The problem is that OU seems entirely subservient to Texas.

      3) The Big Ten takes A&M. This one isn’t happening; A&M doesn’t seem likely in any scenario now…

      I’m not really changing my tune. Taking A&M but letting OU go west allows the Pac-10 to take Texas and the SEC to take A&M…

      • GreatLakeState says:

        ESPN (INISDE/SUBSCRITION) is reporting that Texas IS talking to the Big Ten and that even Oklahoma State is waffling on the PAC16 deal (perhaps for SEC)

    • Justin says:

      Let’s assume Texas A&M bolts for the SEC.

      Would the Big 10 take Oklahoma as the price for Texas?

      In other words, a three team expansion of Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. OU isn’t an AAU school, but they are a valuable athletic commodity. If you take OU, it allows Texas to play Texas A&M out of conference, but they at least keep OU as a conference opponent.

      Divisions?

      West
      Texas
      Oklahoma
      Nebraska
      Iowa
      Wisconsin
      Minnesota
      Illinois

      East
      Michigan
      Ohio State
      Penn State
      Indiana
      Purdue
      Northwestern
      Michigan State

    • SH says:

      I love it. The only place I saw Miami ever discussed was on this blog. I want to see some reporter go to a school’s AD and say “Your school has been heavily discussed as a potential expansion candidate by a one Mr. Frank the Tank. His commentors seem to agree, except for a guy named Zeek – he is holding out for MD – how do you feel about that?”

      AD – “Who is Frank the Tank?”

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        I love it. The only place I saw Miami ever discussed was on this blog.

        Interesting analysis, since Mia and FSU have been a part of the SEC expansion speculation pretty much everywhere.

        • duffman says:

          playoffs,

          not with serious folks as UF already owns FL and would offer no new footprint. I said this awhile back, the SEC excells at the in state OOC matchups. They get the big in state game for the SEC TV market, but do not have to take the actual ACC team into the SEC. It is the best of both worlds for the SEC.

          We were floating a ND / Big 10 football ONLY agreement similar to this as an alternative to adding ND to the Big 10. something like..

          ND annual schedule

          3 B 10 games Michigan and 2 others (1 from each side that rotates)

          3 P 16 games USC and 2 others (1 from each side that rotates)

          for the rest of the ND games they are totally free for ND to schedule and control

          everybody wins, and no divorce in 5 – 10 years

        • SH says:

          I have never seen Miami as a expansion candidate for the SEC. They may make someone’s list b/c they are in Florida but are pretty much dismissed right away.

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Interesting that several ACC schools just came out to announce their solidarity with their league.

      Deja vu all over again, but further east.

      • Gopher86 says:

        That’s what I’m thinking.

        The ACC has a little more unity due to their new contract and their academic appeal, but I could see a few teams cracking under pressure.

  88. omnicarrier says:

    “Of course Texas wants A&M to follow it. If the two schools moved together to the Pac-10, Texas could maintain the status quo. With nothing still to differentiate the two schools, the Longhorns could continue their recruiting momentum.

    But Texas A&M can change that dramatically by joining the Southeastern Conference.

    It could offer recruits a choice, a chance to play in the best football conference in the nation, in front of rabid fans and in sold-out stadiums, in cities and college towns that their families can drive to.”

    Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/06/11/1492807/draw-swords-texas-am-and-carve.html#ixzz0qYU7yig3

    Someone who gets it. The worse thing that could happen to UT is for A&M to go to the SEC while they go to either the Pac-10 or the Big 10. They must go together or UT to the Big 10 and A&M to the Pac-10.

    Since the latter scenario definitely isn’t happening, UT will USE Texas politics to tie them together and once Texas politicians do that, in return they will want to save TTU as well. Which is why the only realistic possibilities are the Pac-16 or making the Big 12 work with the two defections of Nebraska and Colorado.

    • SH says:

      I don’t think it is the worse thing. I think the premise that as long as A&M is in the same conference the status quo is maintained is true. But assuming A&M goes to SEC and UT goes to B10, to believe that A&M will overtake UT simply because recruits will want to play in the SEC is pure speculation.

      UT right now has a lot of inherent advantages over A&M: it is the flagship, it has donor money out the whazzu (sp), it is currently top dog, Austin is better than College Station. If recruit A wants to play in the SEC now, he can now. I think a top recruit looks at a lot of things, and really both B10 and SEC offer a lot of the same. Exposure. The real difference is location and perceived strength of football. But by adding UT/NEb to B10 you have made it a much better footbal conference. The B10 likely can offer more exposure than the SEC. And now the B10 can offer a recruit one thing it can’t currently offer – that is to go to school in a Southern climate.

      • SH says:

        One more thing for a recruit to consider.

        The B10 plays in a lot of sold out stadiums as well, with UT/Neb wouldn’t it be the best football conference (certainly you can’t just dismiss it), they have just as rabid fans (and may have just added the most rabid fan base) and oh yeah greater exposure. The only thing the SEC could offer is that you can drive to road games. That is probably important to a lot of recruits, but …

        Would you rather play at a school that is top in its conference or one that is mediocre? That is the question for now, in 20 years A&M may be a perennial top 10 and UT will be struggling, who knows?

      • m (Ag) says:

        A&M shouldn’t be afraid to keep UT in conference; I think they should prefer it. A&M is 18-17 against UT over the last 35 years. They’ve been in a funk for awhile, but it’s resources and fan support means it won’t stay down forever.

        However, I think A&M absolutely should look to shed some of the other programs in its division to play a more national conference schedule. The fact that the national media when this started didn’t really know that there are real differences between Texas A&M and Texas Tech in terms of academics and size of fan support is a shame.

        I would be disappointed if we still had OSU or Baylor in our division in 2 years, and I’d prefer to part with Tech.

        Athletically, I think going to the Big 10 with UT would be at least as good as going to the SEC. Shed all the other regional schools and form rivalries with national schools. The Big 12 was always formed around the OU-UT rivalry; it seemed to define everyone else as second class citizens from the very start (I think Nebraska fans will agree with me on this). If the 2 schools move to the Big 10 UT will get the most attention early on, but the fact that neither school has decades of history with the schools means A&M gets a chance to develop it’s own history in the conference without getting eclipsed by UT’s previous rivalry.

        Again, being a non-Texan, I’m probably more sensitive to this than most Aggies. I know around the country schools with A&M in the name generally have a bad reputation, while schools in one division are often seen as similar schools. So I see a possible move to the Big 10 without schools like Tech and OSU as a great positive statement on the national stage about the University. And I’m certainly not afraid to have our sports teams play there.

    • StvInILL says:

      I think everybody is saying no to Tech at this point. A&M might just be the price of admission and is workable. Add Tech to the mix and it becomes problematic for all. I think the Best over fit for A&M is the SEC but if they go with Texas, that’s the deal people can live with. The politics sure makes this thing more complicated.

    • gas1958 says:

      This is why I think A&M may well go to the SEC, if they can. From their viewpoint, they don’t need UT anymore and the SEC is the perfect choice for them.
      (1) They go in near or at the top of the conference academically (For all the talk that the SEC doesn’t care about this, watch the talking points if A&M does go, this will be mentioned prominently).
      (2) Although in the middle of the SEC pack in football, this move would help A&M recruiting tremendously, I think.
      (3) Although A&M has been playing Arkansas lately, I haven’t seen mentioned a school that could develop into a fantastic rivalry with A&M: LSU. Anyone who has been to College Station and Red Stick knows what I mean by this.
      Politics may, of course, prevent this, but my guess this A&M’s first choice by a mile.

      • SH says:

        LSU/A&M would become a great rivalry. Lots of LSU fans in Houston.

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        aTm and LSU first played in 1899. They’ve played about 50 times. But one side cut it off in 1995. Not sure which. I always thought they should play yearly in Houston. That’s the turf they’re fighting for.

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          But that’s Rice territory. No one’s taking that turf.

          • duffman says:

            loki,

            UT, A&M, TT & Rice and everybody’s happy. I am chomping at the bit for the biggest SEC game of the year..

            Rice vs Vany in the battle of the brains!

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            I feel 100% certain that Rice would never have been mentioned on this site if I had not blundered in.

          • M says:

            loki,

            I’m pretty the first mention of Rice was when I was listing all AAU schools in FBS and you stumbled in (drunk presumably) and went off on a diatribe about “Rice will never be included in anything”. It would probably not have been mentioned twice.

          • M says:

            *pretty sure… need edit…

          • Bullet says:

            Using the old sporting goods store test:

            I was in a sporting goods store in Houston yesterday and Rice merchandise clearly outnumbered LSU merchandise. And we left with a couple of Rice shirts to go with our UT shirts. So Houston must clearly be Rice territory!

            Actually they had 9 sections on the wall with college shirts/caps, 4 UT, 2 A&M, 2UH and 1 other. The other was mostly Rice with some LSU and Baylor. No Red Raiders.

            As for the Cougars, they are trying to get their hat in the ring, announcing a new stadium and renovation of bb arena. Link is in this article:

            http://blogs.chron.com/cougars/2010/06/i_just_think_its_going_to_take.html

          • duffman says:

            loki,

            I really am sincere about rice and vandy, it really is sort of a cool fit. as you are a rice person I was really just wondering how you felt about it?

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            @M
            ‘diatribe’? really? I thought I was rather calm and reasoned…

            @duffman
            It would be awesome if true. We would be slaughtered in football and basketball, but we could compete in baseball and minor sports. But we just don’t have the fans to make this work.

        • Bob in Houston says:

          The most recent series was ended prematurely by LSU.

        • Hangtime79 says:

          As many rapid fans of both schools in Houston, play that at Reliant and you would sell the place out.

          • SH says:

            Would be nice, but don’t ever see them playing in Houston as long as there is an 85,000 stadium to fill that is fairly close by. But both are rapid fans. Don’t know if it could ever develop into a national rivalry, but from a local perspective it would be intense.

        • Bullet says:

          LSU/A&M was a very heated rivalry in the 70s.

        • twk says:

          A&M played LSU every year IN BATON ROUGE for a long time, with LSU mostly kicking A&M’s ass. LSU dropped the series in the ’70s when A&M started winning, and wanted to play home and home.

          The series resumed as a home and home series in 1986, with LSU winning the first few games, but A&M got the upper hand as the series moved into the 1990s. LSU decided not to extend the contract–the reason given was SEC expansion, but no Aggie believed it.

          If the A&M goes to the SEC, the rivalry will heat up very quickly.

          • m (Ag) says:

            For me the dream scenario would be:

            1) A&M and UT going to the Big 10 together

            2) the Big 10 deciding that, with this many powers in the conference, they’ll play a 7 game schedule and push schools to schedule at least 2 good non-conference games for TV purposes. Big 10 rivals like Michigan and Minnesota could agree to play as a non-conference game when they’re off the schedule. PSU could play Rutgers and Connecticut if they really wanted East Coast rivals; Nebraska could continue to play some old Big 8 schools. This would expand the conference’s geographic exposure without having to add 20 teams.

            3) A&M and LSU agree to renew their rivalry. An Alabama or Auburn would be almost as good.

            A&M would then get to play UT, Arkansas, and LSU as regional rivals every year, with national opponents in the Big 10. We also wouldn’t feel a need to schedule Texas Tech ever again. I don’t think it would be hard to get people excited about the football schedule.

    • duffman says:

      of the BIG 3 – B 10 , P 10 and SEC,

      only the P 10 and SEC can take Baylor and TT

      The SEC can do it without OU and OSU, but the Pac 10 will not take six to the Pac 16 unless 1 of them is Texas..

      simple , eh?

    • Ron says:

      The downside to this argument is that Texas A&M would be joining an SEC athletic conference consisting of schools that are (generally) inferior in academics to either the PAC or Big Ten conferences. They are certainly free to do that, if that’s the statement they wish to make about their values. UT is NOT forcing them to do anything, it is their choice. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is a Texas A&M graduate who is rumored to be working behind the scenes to keep UT and Texas A&M together. The University of Texas DOES NOT dominate state politics by itself, if it did there is no way Texas Tech would have procured a PAC10 offer.

      • gas1958 says:

        All excellent points. I don’t think A&M -> SEC is likely, just an interesting possibility. I agree that at this point UT can’t force them to do anything, and especially agree about the last point: no way P10 takes TTech without holding their nose. (Will Stanford really go for that?)

    • Ssouth says:

      Actually, I think this writer has it backwards.

      If I’m a Texas recruit, and my choices are (1) Texas in the Big Ten (with Notre Dame), (2) A&M in the SEC, and (3) some other SEC team, A&M is my last choice. With Texas, I get more national exposure, play in stadiums just as large as in the SEC, and can still have my family around for huge home games versus national schools.

      If A&M leaves Texas for the SEC, it immediately becomes Arkansas–a second or third-rate football school in a tough conference. Recruits won’t be lining up to get beaten up on by Alabama, LSU, Florida, etc. Rather, they’ll want to play for one of those schools, or more likely, for Texas. Where is a recruit more likely to get more exposure for the NFL–at Texas, which will be playing a national schedule, or at A&M, who like all the other second-rate SEC schools will have to play a regional schedule and load up on powderpuff non-conference games to survive the rough SEC schedule and limp into a lower-tier bowl game?

      Even worse, instead of going to A&M, recruits will be drawn to the SEC powers, who are close by and will be in the same conference as A&M. A&M will eventually lose whatever natural advantage they have in recruiting as Saban et al swoop in and pick off the best recruits in the state not going to Texas.

      If I’m A&M the SEC is a third-best solution, far behind the Pac-16 and Big-16. The worse thing that can happen to A&M is for Texas to go to a new national conference, and A&M to be stuck behind in the SEC.

    • duffman says:

      omni,

      some points I noticed….

      A) this is a charlotte NC paper saying A&M should go to the SEC

      B) it goes on to say what I have voiced grave concern here before

      “Through this whole conference upheaval saga, the loudest sound in the room has been the silence coming from the SEC. Anybody else find that odd?

      SEC commissioner Mike Slive, however, has been anything but a disinterested bystander.”

      C) then my jaw drops

      “My educated hunch is that the other SEC targets would be Oklahoma, Virginia Tech and North Carolina. If Oklahoma wants to tag along with the Longhorns, the SEC will look at Maryland and the Washington, D.C., market.”

      This was what I have feared all along IN PRINT in a NORTH CAROLINA newspaper. We keep saying UNC to the SEC is a no go, but here it is in a NORTH CAROLINA newspaper. Folks, a 16 team SEC with A&M, UNC, Maryland, and UVA or Va Tech is not only possible, but a very REAL threat to Big 10 expansion plans!

      • m (Ag) says:

        This was printed in a Charlotte paper, but the copyright says Fort Worth Star Telegram.

        Checking the website, here’s the link to his articles at the paper:
        http://www.star-telegram.com/303

        He apparently covers at least some college sports in Texas, so he’s certainly familiar with A&M’s situation. He doesn’t seem to have any inside info on the SEC or the University of North Carolina, only an opinion.

        The Charlotte paper probably read the piece, saw the speculation about North Carolina, and decided the speculation would interest its own readers.

  89. Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

    I was interviewed yesterday (Thursday) by a reporter for the Denver Post to get local alumni reaction to the possible move to the Pac10.

    We talked for about 30 minutes.

    The article ran today (Triday). Nothing earth shaking. KU, Iowa St, Missouri fans are nervous. I was the OU guy.

    I got 2 quotes in:
    “We’re not a West Coast school,” said Dayton, the Oklahoma grad. “CU fans are Pac-10 people: it’s about school first and the university and having fun — and, ‘Oh, as an entertainment option, we have football.’ ”

    Asked how this would affect the other sports besides football:
    We play other sports?” joked Daniel Dayton, a 1987 Oklahoma graduate who serves as the president of the OU Club of Colorado. “We have football, spring (football) recruiting and spring football. Those are the top three sports.”

    http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15273691

  90. SH says:

    I don’t really know much about the CIC, so I’ll put this out there. I think Zeek or Vincent said that if MD was ever in consideration, then Johns Hopkins might be a school you would consider inviting to the CIC since it is in the same state. Is that true? If that is true, would you ever consider doing the same for Rice if UT joins B10? Or at that point, are you basically simply saying anyone can be in CIC? Just curious?

    • zeek says:

      No, I think you’d restrict it to top schools in the footprint. It should be tied to the Big Ten in that way at least.

      But it would require an enterprising president to suggest it…

  91. Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

    a Chip Brown Twitter:

    NONE!!!!!! … RT @dk16000: @ChipBrownOB Is there any legs to UT to B10 ?
    http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

    Seems he’s fanning the flames of A&M being out of the Pac16 deal:

    Seth is A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney’s son. … RT @SethMcKinney: @billyliucci if we go to the PAC 16 I’m going on a hunger strike!!

  92. Ponderosa says:

    Big XII question.

    Why wouldn’t the remaining Big XII teams use the BCS bid as leverage to recruit teams: from the MWC, the BE, Boise State, etc?

    The Big XII could nicely reconstitute itself. Kind of a shell corporation.

    KSU, KU, ISU, MU, Baylor add – BYU, TCU, Boise, CSU, Cinci, SDSU, etc. Mix and match to come up with nice conference called – Big Mountain (with a BCS bid).

    There is a very nice opportunity as long as KU, etc. stop feeling sorry for themselves.

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      because for the non revenue sports there is an NCAA rule that says you have to have 6 teams that have played together for X amount of years (forgot the exact number) to get an automatic bid.

      SO….for Women’s softball for example…these 5 teams don’t have an automatic qualifier. That kills the conference.

      It’s also assumed the conference will lose the BCS slot as well.

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        Thats why they use the MWC as the shell. And they get the AQ when the B12 dissolves.

        • Bullet says:

          If they don’t join the BE, they do just as loki says. That’s what CUSA did with the Metro conference. They were originally going to form a a new conference and figured out using an existing conference worked better, so they kicked out the Virginia schools and added the others. So the group would call it a new conference for marketing purposes, but use the MWC shell and Mountain network and take as many of the MWC schools as they wanted. Probably all, but not necessarily.

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            I could see them dropping some of the bottom MWC teams to ass UTEP and Houston.

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            ‘add’, I said ‘add…

          • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

            @loki – the problem with dropping the bottom MWC is they are in good media outlets (for the MWC) like San Diego and New Mexico.

            Wyoming..isn’t going to be kicked out. They are one of the core members. CSU would fight hard, and Air Force would fight for CSU

            Also…the MWC members will be reluctant to go to 16 teams as the reason the MWC was formed in the first place was because the WAC 16 teams didn’t work out.

        • Ponderosa says:

          Thanks for the correction(s).

          Sounds like the ex-Big XII teams have a chance to be okay.

  93. NeutronSoup says:

    My current thoughts (which are worth exactly nothing):

    Assumptions:

    1. Chip Brown has a legitimate source within the UTexas administration.
    2. PurpleBookCat has a legitimate source within the Big Ten office.
    3. Texas will not go to the SEC.

    Although these are certainly debatable, I feel that there has been enough circumstantial evidence for each to point to all assumptions being true.

    That being said, the two information sources are currently posting diametrically opposed information. Chip says no way Texas goes to the Big Ten. PurpleBookCat says Texas has always wanted to go to the Big Ten, and if it doesn’t happen it will only be because of a Texas “backstab”.

    So I see three possibilities here:

    1. Chip’s info is legitimate, and Texas will never join the Big Ten. This means they are just playing the Big Ten to get the best deal possible from the Pac-10. Maybe for other Texas schools, maybe just for themselves. This would explain the Pac-10′s commissioner’s public statements about possibly being satisfied at 11. It’s a “Don’t push us too far” message to Texas. In this scenario, Texas will negotiate hard, but eventually join the Pac-10 with the Big 12 South, sans Baylor and maybe A&M. It’s the path of least resistance.

    2. Texas has always wanted to join the Big Ten (or wanted to join once the Big 12 seemed to not be viable) and is maneuvering to make that happen. Thus, forcing NE to declare allegiance, which sped up the timetable and destabilized things. Currently, they are feeding Chip the info that they will never go to the Big Ten because… I’m trying to think of a reason why letting people think they’ll never join the Big Ten would help them join. Anyone? In any case, this would require some big cojones to ditch the rest of the Big 12 South. A&M ditching them for the SEC certainly helps this effort.

    3. Texas legitimately doesn’t know what it will do, and is just trying to get the best deal from whomever it can. Hence the conflicting info coming out everywhere. They’re trying to tell all parties what they want to hear in an effort to bring A&M on board and mollify the state politicians.

    I guess 3) is kind of a cop-out, but I think it’s the closest to the truth. My personal feeling is that if Texas goes to the Big Ten at this point, it will be a huge shocker, and Delany is the Machiavelli of the new millenium. I’m leaning against that happening at this point.

    • AggieJack says:

      Chip Brown and Ketch from Orangebloods are just spewing the stuff that is being fed to them from the Texas AD office in my opinion. I am starting to see that the real media is seeing Brown and Ketch for what they are, an arm of the Texas Propaganda Ministry. Whether A&M goes to the SEC, Big Ten, or PAC 10, it will always be this way.

      • NeutronSoup says:

        I agree that Chip Brown is getting his stuff from the Texas administration. I guess I should have added an assumption (which I think could also apply to PBC based on some of his posts about the impact of his earlier report about possible concessions to Texas & ND) that their respective sources WANT this information to get out. The question in that case is, why? If Texas is thinking of joining the Big Ten, what do they get from leaking that they aren’t even considering it?

        The most likely answer at this point seems to be political cover until A&M makes a move to the SEC, or until ND makes up their mind. That’s a pretty reasonable motivation, but I’m not sure it’s enough to justify it in my mind.

        • Ssouth says:

          I think that Chip has let the power go to his head and is now making assumptions or wild guesses based on past information (that might not be accurate anymore). It just seems strange that whenever any rumor surfaces, Chip Brown is there with a twitter about it. Even if UT were feeding him info, they can’t be feeding him as much as he’s spewing out.

    • Mike B says:

      Here’s my reason to hope for 2): The leak of the Pac 10 offer to the Big XII six would have had to have come from Texas, if your assumptions hold. It doesn’t seem to me that if Texas WANTS to go the Pac 10, that they benefit from that leak.

      If that was what Texas wanted, they’d have wanted it kept quiet. By making it public, all sorts of destabilizing things happened: the Tech and OSU barnacles exposed, the (failed) Baylor gambit, the early Colorado invite, aTm’s SEC flirtation.

      I’ve laid out before why (and therefore won’t repeat) I don’t think the Pac 16 scheduling works out very well for Texas, Colorado, or the Arizona schools. If this is a deal that Texas wants, I think it will last about as long as the Big XII before it implodes.

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        I think it will last until the next wave of TV contracts comes out, and changes things again.

        So…hope for long term contracts.

    • Hodgepodge says:

      It’s possible that both Chip Brown and PURPLE Book Cat are both right in as much as they both may be being fed 100% accurate information. CB is obviously getting his info from DeLoss Dodds or one of his cronies, and PBC seems to be getting his info, with obviously a few degrees of separation– from Bill Powers. If Dodds and Powers are not on the same page, that could explain the discrepancy.

      Of course, PBC may be working off old information as well– we don’t know to what extent Bill Powers may be in contact currently with Big Ten officials.

    • Djinn Djinn says:

      I can see the appeal of the Big Ten to Texas. It would be better in money and enhance its academics.

      The Pac-10 pitch has an enormous appeal of being able to play much more locally, alsmost like a Big XII schedule now, and it’s an easier path to a championship game, or at least a quality Bowl. Really, in most years Texs would have just two tough opponents (OU and USC).

      However, the Pac-10 deal means you’re being sequestered somewhat from the quality Pac-10 institutions, there is no CIC with which to improve its research status, there’s less cash on the table, and your peers will always remain Texas Tech and Oklahoma. Does UT see itslef as a regional school, (the best school on the plains), or a world-class university.

      Ultimately, the decision comes down to whether the choice is being made for either a combination of academic reasons and a bigger influx of cash…or for logistical reasons for its athletic teams (really, football) and acquiesing to state political forces.

    • Bullet says:

      I think 3 is closest to the truth, but all 3 could be true. Texas doesn’t know, it originally wanted to go to the B10+1 (which I believe was their 2nd choice after B12-1), but now finds it too politically difficult to go to B10+1 and so most likely goes to P10+1+?

  94. Mike says:

    Nebraska to give minute by minute updates of their regents meeting on twitter at 1CT. twitter.com/huskers

  95. Sportsman24 says:

    How plausible is this…
    * B12 gives NU & MU an ultimatum
    * NU announces a move to the BT
    * UT agrees to join the BT, if ND joins too
    * BT agrees not to take any other BE schools, if ND joins
    * BE issues ultimatum to ND
    * ND agrees to join the BT
    * UT agrees to join the BT
    * TAMU decides to join UT in the BT

    The BT stands at 15 and is looking for one more, but BE schools are off-limits & the CoP/C finds MU too academically-challenged. So here we are, trying to findy Lucky #16.

    • GOPWolv says:

      Delaney pulls this off and then goes on to solve world hunger.

    • zeek says:

      It’s not plausible, at this point A&M is either going to the SEC or the Pac-10 with the gang.

      Texas may be in play depending on a lot of other things of course…

      • AggieJack says:

        I believe anything is possible right now. Could all the hyperbole around A&M wanting time to decide between the SEC and the PAC 10 be a deliberate feint cooked up by A&M and Texas to give the time needed for a Big Ten move for both of them? It could be. My personal preference is A&M in the Big Ten with Texas.

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, but I think the geography barrier is too much of a problem.

          I think Texas/A&M would want Tech with them if they were going to go to the Big Ten.

          • Midwest Aggie says:

            Speaking as an Aggie fan, no, we do not want Texas Tech to follow us.

          • m (Ag) says:

            To say a little more:

            Geographically, it would be nice to have them, though they’re not really close.

            It would make the politics very much easier to have them.

            However, if politics and geography were taken out of the picture, they wouldn’t be brought along.

    • Mike B says:

      Pretty hard to disqualify Mizzou on academic grounds if you’ve already accepted Nebraska.

      More likely: UT, aTm, and UN-L want no part of those whiners.

      If VT goes to the SEC and puts some of the ACC in play, there are plenty of targets.

      Otherwise, maybe Vanderbilt becomes a possibility.

    • Kyle2MSU says:

      If this plays out I sure hope #16 is Maryland.

      Count me a member of the bandwagon.

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      aTm to the B10+ doesn’t appear to be happening, but MD-VA or GT-Vandy would make great 15th and 16th schools.

  96. tt says:

    One theory on the Big East ultimatum to ND (I haven’t read every post on here, so, I don’t know if this has been proposed yet, if it has, I appologize):
    Maybe the reason why there’s been a change of heart and the catholic basketball schools are willing to give the ultiamtum to ND is because the Big East is eyeing Kansas. If the Big12 ceases to exist, the forgotten 4 will be looking for a home. Yes, the MWC will be looking at adding the teams as well, but this is one of the few times the Big East has a trump card: they can go to Kansas and say: “Where do you want to play basketball?”

    • mushroomgod says:

      There is no ultimatum.

    • Just Joe says:

      My theory on the Big East ultimatum: Notre Dame will absolutely not join the Big Ten if those circumstances are known, they do not want to be seen as an institution that gets strong-armed into anything, and will cut off their nose to spite their face.

      ND will either broker a deal with the Big East to say they’ll play X games annually in the Big East (which they already do to an extent), or they’ll send their non-revenue sports to a conference that will welcome them under the same “we’ll play X football games per season with you” offer.

      It wouldn’t even surprise me for the Irish to join the Big East just to spite the Big Ten for now, and revisit the issue again in a few years if/when the ND program picks back up.

      • tt says:

        I agree with the first part, if there is an ultimatum, it won’t be publicly known — ND would never want to look like a weaker party

        For the second part, I don’t know if I can agree with that. ND might try that tactic, but if the Big East is eyeing Kansas (who would be a full member, football included), I don’t know how many concessions they’d be making to ND. However, ND will never join the Big East, even if it’s just to spite the Big Ten. It’s not happening

      • StvInILL says:

        This is why it may be stategically necessary to torpedo the confrence. Pitt, Syracues, rutgers anyone? So if no texas, you take two of these. And ND.

  97. zeek says:

    Colorado is an official member of the Pac-10 right?

    Can it now veto expansion? Because that would be hilarious if it did so in order to get West Coast games…

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      ROFL… Zeek, i’m sorry, but that’s the funniest thing I’ve read in awhile… my brain just went off on the various “facial expression” of Stanford and Cal, etc., when Colo vetoes TX and the rest and i can just see the “sh**-eating grin” on Colo’s “face”. What a coup for Colo which (by all accounts) hates TX.

      But, back in reality, i’m sure Colo. has no veto.

    • Mike B says:

      That is hilarious, because Colorado gets totally screwed by the two division Pac-16. As I understand the way the scheduling would work, Colorado would only get to travel to the Bay Area once every four years (playing @Stanford and @Cal once every 8 years). Ditto SoCal. Seattle? Once every 8 years.

      That sucks for Colorado. Arizona and ASU, too.

  98. Ken Smithmier says:

    adding

  99. GOPWolv says:

    Someone call me out if I’m wrong, but I think “membership” starts immediately upon acceptance, even if games wont be played until several years later.

    For the record, I tried to do this in my fraternity. Got initiated and tried to black-ball someone immediately. Didn’t work, there was a bylaw. My bet is the Pac10 has such a bylaw or the acceptance modifies the voting rights of a new member for a number of months/years.

  100. Huskerhydes says:

    I think I know what is really going on here and it all comes back to Dan Bebee being a super genious. It has all been a ploy to get CU to bolt to the Pac 10. The negotiations going on now are to get Notre Dame to into the new Big 12.

    Bebee, Dodds and Osborne have been having back room discussions for months about this and how to best play the Big 10 into pushing the Pac 10 to officially make the play on CU.

  101. GoPSU says:

    @FranktheTank – On the Northwestern msg board, Purple Book Cat stated that “Joepa has played a huge part in this”. How so?

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      hmm… if JoePa’s driving this bus, then ND is out and a bunch of eastern schools are in

    • jokewood says:

      – build relationship with Texas. Joe is friends with Mack Brown. The PSU coaching staff went down to Texas to learn how to better utilize Michael Robinson. Paterno was the keynote speaker at an fund-raising event honoring Mack Brown a couple years ago.

      – Paterno has publicly stated displeasure with Notre Dame joining the Big Ten, noting that “they had their chance.” This puts out the notion that the Big Ten may get tired of dancing with Notre Dame and that Notre Dame might not get another offer down the road.

      – Paterno has advocated eastern expansion, threatening Notre Dame’s non-football life support.

      • zeek says:

        If Texas isn’t coming, JoePa’s going to get his wish.

        Maybe not his Pitt. wish although that’s a possibility.

        Maryland/Va/Rutgers are at the top.

        I don’t think we should underestimate VaTech as well.

        It’s not AAU, but it’s a much better fit than any non-AAU on the board (whether it’s UConn or TTech).

        If JoePa’s really riding the bus, we might see something crazy.

        Think Va/VaTech/Maryland/Rutgers to 16.

        • Vincent says:

          Don’t see the Gobblers tagging along with the Terps and Cavs (just too many teams from that neck of the woods)…you can be sure Slive would like to have Tech if the SEC decides to expand.

          In this scenario, Missouri might just get in at #16 after all. At least it is AAU.

          • zeek says:

            True, but it would be easier to grab both VA and Tech I would think, I mean Tech does owe VA i guess?

    • Faitfhful5k says:

      Throughout this JoePa has happily shared his thoughts about Big Ten expansion, but then finishes by saying… But what do I know? Nobody tells me anything.

      At one point he said… This will all start in the Pac-10. They must make the first move.

      Nobody could understand that remark at the time. Only the Big Ten had said anything about expansion.

  102. Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

    From the Eugene, Oregon paper the Register-Guard:
    http://www2.registerguard.com/cms/index.php/opinions-on-sports/comments/never-mind-the-clutter-pac-16-announcement-coming-very-soon/

    Expect the Pac-16 to come together very soon. By the weekend, most likely.

    “You can take it to the bank,” one very good source said.

    And the chances that something falls through? That Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State somehow don’t join the Pac-10?

    “Pretty close to zero.”

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      So Daniel: how do you edit the little icon/imagine/geometric symbol thingie that each of us is assigned by WordPress? yours is different

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        have a WordPress.com account (and then it took me over 2 hours to figure out how to do it…..I can be a bit obsessive)

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      But that’s more than Less Than Zero.

      “…Hang on to your hopes, my friend.
      That’s an easy thing to say,
      But if your hopes should pass away
      Simply pretend that you can build them again.
      Look around,
      The grass is high,
      The fields are ripe,
      It’s the springtime of my life…”

  103. pioneerlion says:

    Great stuff, pointing out and dispelling some conventional wisdom:
    1) ATM and UT are not joined at the hip.
    2) ATM looking out for its own FINANCIAL interests; so much for “traditional rivals”.
    3) UT and ATM are tired of dragging along and propping up the poor sisters of the SWC – TTech and Baylor.

    All of this brings into perspective another potential big10 suitor – Maryland. Debbie Yow is an uber-cost conscious AD. The football program has not reaped any benefits of expanding their stadium with luxury suites, and the football team had to travel by bus to 1 or 2 games last year. Yow is always looking to save a dollar and bring in a dollar, as the ADept is self-supporting and gets no $$ from the university. Moving to the big10 solves a lot of $$ and fan interest problems for the football team, which has to fund all the other sports (save mens basketball, and maybe womens basketball). Academically MD fits well, and they have a TV presence that could be grown in the DC area (although VaTech currently is the DC area college football TV king, MD gets far more ink in the Wash Post and Times). The conventional wisdom that says MD would never consider the move are missing these points, and IMHO MD would jump at the chance to join the big10 and expand the cash flow to its ADept coffers. If Yow and the UMD Chancellor/President said yes, Gary Williams would have to grudgingly go along – assuming the big10 invites them.

    • GOPWolv says:

      Yowzah!

    • StvInILL says:

      No disrespect to Rutgers, but Maryland is a right here right now candidate for an eastern expansion. Rutgers is betting on a future. Fuure inters in the NYNJ area, continued respectable footbal in the future, and development in future of facilities. Which I know there is some in the works.

      • zeek says:

        I think most of us agree that Maryland is probably the top pick right now assuming the whales aren’t coming.

        Maryland + Rutgers is the ideal all around footprint play to go to 14.

        • BuckeyeBeau says:

          if “most everyone agrees” count me in the minority.

          • zeek says:

            Well it’s a footprint play that works. I mean perhaps we don’t do that and stay at 12 for a while, which is certainly possible.

            I don’t see Delany as just sitting around though. The Big Ten presidents are going to want more.

      • Phil says:

        Instead of MD or RU, if Joe Pa has a lot of influence as rumored above it would be MD and PA. As the 3 big “Mid-Atlantic” state schools they have some similarities, and by bringing in MD and NJ you bring Joe Pa’s two most productive non-PA recruiting areas into the conference.

        • Phil says:

          of course I meant “MD and RU” above. If I have to stare at this screen for more than a couple days more of expansion rumors I am going to need glasses.

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      ugh… tired of hearing about MD … but, okay, i’ll open my mind to the idea.

      I know nothing about MD Univ.

      so internet research: probably already done, but here goes:

      MD is located in College Park, MD, basically just outside of Wash, DC. MD is contiguous with PA.

      according to http://www.nationalchamps.net, MD started football in 1892, claims one NC, has been in ACC since 1953, claims 11 conference championships (including two pre-ACC championships). Is 600-524-43 (.533) overall in football; current coach Ralph Friedgen is 64-36 since 2001.

      Last bowl was Humanitarian in 2008. Played in Orange Bowl in 2001 (lost to Florida); no other BCS appearances.

      total bowls: 23 with record of 10-11-2.

      Stadium: Byrd Stadium with capacity of 54,000 (towards bottom of B10 stadiums — Ryan Field = 47,000).

      College Park to University Park/Happy Valley: 204 miles (via Mapquest.com driving distance)
      to C-bus: 416
      to AnnArbor: 523
      to E. Lansing: 586
      to Bloomington: 640
      to Lincoln: 1204 (note: stadium capacity 81,000)

      okay: so my conclusions: in general, bleh for football anyway. But geographically, not awful. Certainly not as awful as Texas at least in terms of mileage.

      from what I read on here, MD is a home run academically and has good bball. but clearly not a football school, not a football power and seriously doubt MD “brings the DC market” as everyone keeps saying.

      so, internet research has not changed my mind.

      MD is a “bleckkk” possible addition (at least athletically).

      • zeek says:

        To be fair Pitt and VaTech are the best football schools not in the Big Ten in the east.

        It’s not like there’s massive pickings of great athletic schools from SC up to Penn.

        You’re talking VaTech and UNC primarily…

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        and reiterate that: MD does not bring the DC market anymore than Rutgers brings the NYC market.

        • zeek says:

          That’s not the point.

          The point is the footprint, BTN inventory, etc.

          Both also have massive enrollments, etc.

          And NYC/DC already have enormous numbers of Big Ten alumni. You just need to bring the games there.

          Penn State/Ohio State/Michigan don’t play in NYC or D.C.

          What happens when they do?

          You need to think like a TV exec. It’s like when the Yankees go down and play the Marlins and like 50x as many fans show up.

          • zeek says:

            Obviously, every game isn’t like that.

            But still, the Big Ten now has 4 national brands and 2 semi-national brands for football. What happens when Notre Dame finally comes around? That’s 7 schools. Presumably you’ll be rotating them through D.C. and NYC a couple games the season. That’s what matters.

            NYC and DC are already saturated with Big Ten alumni. You just need to bring the games there.

            They also bring fertile recruiting grounds, which is not something to be underestimated.

      • mushroomgod says:

        MD would be a GREAT addition. Problem is, Maryland’s not coming.

      • Vincent says:

        If you need a new market in the east (thus disqualifying Pittsburgh), Maryland has more to offer as a whole than Rutgers. And it gives the Big Ten some exposure in D.C. circles for federal grants to the CIC, money that dwarfs athletic revenue.

        You’re not going to get five perennial top 20 football programs through expansion. Maryland complements the rest of the Big Ten in many other ways, and its football would not embarrass the conference.

    • Vincent says:

      Gary Williams is not Jim Boeheim. He coached in the Big Ten (Ohio State), and knows the conference and the money it brings. Gary might not be 100% happy with such a move, but he knows it would benefit Maryland over the long term (and he’s frequently visited Annapolis to lobby for academic funds for the university). And he’s not going to be coaching for that many more years, anyway. Williams would not have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Big Ten, unlike Boeheim at SU.

      • duffman says:

        vincent,

        we have worn them down with logic, the Terps are being see for the good fit they are. Nebraska and Maryland have been2 on my wish list since early on.

        a) Academics
        b) Sports
        c) Flagship schools
        d) No twins
        e) 2 more states to lobby for CIC research funds

  104. Hank says:

    the latest from Purple Cat Book if not already posted

    —6/11 Morning Update from the office:

    Had an update this morning. Same story as yesterday, Missouri must convince Texas & A&M to come to the conference for Mizzou to get an invite, while the Big East schools must pressure Notre Dame to either join fully (which it won’t do) or leave the conference. Big Ten may move forward with Texas and ND only, but Texas must ensure that it has done whatever it can to ensure its former Big Twelve partners find a good home. Texas administration is internally divided, and Orangebloods is connected to only one side of the conversation – the side that has not been involved with the strategy all along.

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      Wow

      and what is the link to that message board again?

    • NeutronSoup says:

      Link: http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=143839427&Page=7

      So many moving parts. That’s the thing that worries me the most about this plan, if things are as Purple Book Cat says. It just depends on so many things falling into place to work. But again, if Delany pulls it off, he’s a genius.

      • WolverinePhD says:

        I have read every post on this board since it’s inception. I have been obsessed with expansion and the more I read the easier it is to tell fact from fiction.

        I really don’t buy anything from this poster. Garbage. Time will tell, but I think he is full of it.

        • NeutronSoup says:

          Just curious, as I have no personal investment in whether or not PBC is telling the truth, but what is it exactly that makes you think he’s not? Serious question, as I fully admit I may have missed something.

          So far, I haven’t seen anything he’s posted shown to be false yet, and he continues to provide updates as the situation evolves instead of just posting a rumor and disappearing. I don’t discount the possibility that he’s being used to leak information helpful to the Big Ten, of course. He even mentioned in one post that he didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize the negotiations, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not giving the Big Ten side of the story.

          • WolverinePhD says:

            I fully believe that at one point he was receiving GOOD quality information. But now that whomever he was getting this information from is aware that he is posting…

            They are feeding him false info.

          • duffman says:

            right now I feel the same about Purple Book Cat that I do about Orangeblood.

            a) they were privy early on to inside info

            b) they are pushing an agenda for someone who want a certain “spin”

        • Bullet says:

          Someone made the same comment about P10+6. I agreed with him. Sometimes expansion fact is stranger than fiction.

      • Hank says:

        agreed. there are still a hell of a lot of moving parts. its like watching the Flying Karamazov Brothers

      • indydoug says:

        I just hope Delaney & some of the other players have tapes of conversations ( legal only, of course)or at least very good notes of ALL the “goings on” since or even before B10 announced expansion study. What a great movie!!! Any body care to select the actors for the players??

      • mushroomgod says:

        I think it’s 90% nonsense.

    • willarm1 says:

      I hope Missou isn’t in charge on convincing because I don’t think they carry much weight.

  105. Robert says:

    If I’m Texas and I truly want to go to the Pac 16 with the rest of the Big 12 South (I have no idea if that’s the case or not since Frank’s sources are saying something different than Chip’s), I immediately accept the Pac 16 invite with the other four schools besides A&M.

    Then I make a public statement saying something to the effect of “We want A&M to come along and we’re committed to maintaining that rivalry. But as a group of schools, we believe inviting another major conference into the region would be detrimental to our institutions and there would need to be consequences for that, which could mean an end to a 100-year-old rivalry.”

    That puts all the public pressure on A&M at that point. Maybe A&M says screw you, and still bolts to the SEC, hoping Texas and the rest of the regional schools are bluffing. But if they do, they’ll likely be perceived as the villain who ended rivalries with not just Texas, but also Tech — their two major rivals.

    • GOPWolv says:

      Agree. If UT wants to head off west, then that is a pretty easy decision that can be made immediately. Why wait? If they don’t announce the P16 soon, then the B10 story (and Purple Book Cat) is accurate.

    • Hank says:

      good point. if the Pac 10 was as slam dunk as Chris Brown seems to believe then it would be in Texas’s interest to accelerate the process as much as possible and take the opportunity to force TAMU’s hand before they can make a case for an alternative.

    • Robert says:

      If Texas let’s A&M make the first move, the pressure shifts to Texas. Because then A&M can simply say we’re headed to the SEC, Texas has an invite there too and we’d love to remain in the same conference as them and continue our great rivalry.

      If Texas goes elsewhere at that point and actually stops playing A&M, they’re then viewed as the school that ended the rivalry.

    • Bamatab says:

      If that were to happen and if I were Mike Slive, I’d offer the following to aTm.

      I would state either through backchannels or publically (depending on how UT’s message was sent) that any former Big 12 school that seeks retribution against TAMU in scheduling can likewise see such a boycott from the entire SEC in all sports after 2010. And I would push our TV partners to exclude them from coverage (or in ESPN’s case, some sort of diminished coverage) as well.

      I’d then offer TAMU a cash payment from the SEC up front as a bonus which would help them get their AD books balanced. I would get ESPN and CBS to commit to a year’s worth of local advertising of the coming of the SEC to Texas with TAMU constantly featured in a prominent fashion.

      If UT tried to publically bully aTm for wanting to come to the SEC, I’d hope that the SEC would stick up for them and apply what pressure they have (the SEC is still the strongest conference in college football right now and ESPN has a vested interest in keeping it that way).

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Oh no. The SEC might boycott us.

        • Bamatab says:

          Look, UT and the other Big 12 schools threatening aTm for doing what is in their best interest is petty at best. And if the SEC can convince ESPN that it is in their best interest for the SEC to have a Texas footprint, then ESPN may be able to apply some pressure to UT and their followers. I know that the SEC boycotting you isn’t that big of a deal since they don’t play the SEC teams very often, but ESPN is a different story. They are the gasoline that drives the marketing and exposure of college football.

          • Robert says:

            But, Bama, while it may be what’s best for A&M, it isn’t what’s best for Texas, Tech, OU or OSU.

            If they let the SEC into Texas, that hurts the regional schools when it comes to recruiting. There’s no two ways around it.

            So while it may be in A&M’s best interests to go SEC, it’s not in any of the other school’s. So you can’t really blame them for waging war on this issue and showing A&M a reason why maybe it won’t be in their best interests after all if they’re not playing any of their rivals any more.

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            ESPN is going to punish Texas how?!?

          • Bamatab says:

            Hopkins, ESPN could regulate UT to a footnote or shrink their coverage of UT on College Football Gameday and other college football coverage shows like College football live. With those type of shows, ESPN still controls the “propaganda” for college football.

            Now, I’m not saying that they would do any of that, but if I was Mike Slive I’d at least make the case to try and apply that pressure on them. Now UT may tell ESPN that they don’t care if they never mention UT ever again, I don’t know. But to say that ESPN currently doesn’t hold some leverage on the college football world is just not accurate in my opinion.

            Now that whole scenerio probably would never happen. i was just trying to think of some ways that the SEC could combat a UT + followers threat to aTm.

          • @Bamatab – Don’t forget that the Big Ten has a very large deal with ABC/ESPN, too. For all of the talk about the Big Ten Network, the ABC/ESPN still pays out nearly twice as much per school.

          • Bullet says:

            Sounds like anti-trust. ESPN couldn’t do that. In any event, ESPN really doesn’t do UT any favors. Except for Lou Holtz (who lost several shots at MNCs while at Arkansas by losing to UT), the announcers all downplay Texas.

          • duffman says:

            If ESPN has no effect, how do you explain the rise of Uconn and the ACC. In the late 70′s and early 80′s ESPN was looking for broadcast material. The big 3 were it (ABC,NBC,CBS) and they were tied to Big 10, SEC, SWC, Big 8, and Pac 10. The fact that we even know the ACC and Uconn are there was the early contracts for ESPN broadcast material.

            I have to think Bama raises an interesting point, especially as the BTN and possible PTN (with FOX) would be a rival. They could argue and beat anti trust very well as an alternative to the BTN and PTN and could maybe even go after FOX for anti trust as it would look like the bigger of the two.

            College Game Day is an ESPN product with an established following that can drive the ESPN agenda. I am not pushing any conference, but right now the “appearance” is that the SEC is THE football conference RIGHT now. Before bama and alan get all excited I am making this claim on the “perception” of the NC game, as most people do not remember who finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc,

            If tOSU had won the past few years it would be different, but this is past history. Future history has not been made yet. If tOSU wins the next few NC’s then the “general” public will have forgotten the current SEC streak. We blogging here follow sports, but there is a chunk of the public who only watches the Super Bowl, NC game, NCAA NCG, Kentucky Derby, NBA Finals etc.

            If this ends in a 2 party system (BTN & PTN – FOX and SEC & ACC & BE – ESPN) then I think Bama makes a VERY valid point!

      • Robert says:

        The problem with that though, Bama, is I don’t think any of the Pac 16 schools would care about not playing SEC schools. They have a million other non-conference options.

        And also, A&M to the SEC would still be two years away. I don’t see how it benefits ESPN to start running commercials about A&M going to the SEC in 2012 while they’re still playing in the Big 12 for two more years.

        • Bamatab says:

          They could start the commercials a year or two down the road. It’s just something else the SEC could offer.

      • willarm1 says:

        SEC control ESPN programming? Who they are all powerful

        • Bamatab says:

          ESPN has a vested interest in the SEC having a footprint in Texas. Not saying that ESPN would do it, but if UT and their followers want to be petty about it, then maybe the SEC could convince ESPN to have a “talk” with UT about what is in everyone’s best interest.

          • GreatLakeState says:

            News Corp. trumps ESPN tenfold. I would be very surprised if Murdoch’s (or ESPN’s) people aren’t trying to add pressure one way or the other.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Great Lake – Looking at News Corp’s and Disney’s 2009 annual reports, it looks like Disney had revenue of $36 Billion and News Corp had revenue of $30 Billion.

          • zeek says:

            GreatLakeState; they don’t even compare.

            Disney is probably the most powerful media conglomerate in the world.

            ESPN is the most powerful cable grouping in the world; it’s valued at well north of $10bn.

            And in terms of sports FSN is nowhere even on the radar of ESPN.

          • John says:

            @alan & @zeek

            Everything you say is true but this expansion stuff involves a lot of powerful media properties:

            Fox
            NBC
            CBS
            Comcast
            …and many more.

            One of the most underrated aspects of all of this is how intertwined all of the players in the TV space are in this.

            Its one of the reasons I’ve said all along that one of forces at play in re-alignment is a notion of what is best for College Football as an industry.

            How does the industry maximize its value to the TV companies?

            The NFL has the model built to perfection.

    • willarm1 says:

      I think this is what makes the most sense as well. I also think it won’t come to public pressure and the like. I think A&M will do the right thing in terms of keeping tradition together.

      Of course if they balk, and Cal and Stanford get some religion who knows what will happen

      Maybe the Big Ten will get some religion with ND and some some Texas BBQ.

    • zeek says:

      It’s really not that easy guys.

      Texas is bringing Tech/OU/OSU with it to the Pac-10.

      They’ll probably force Tech et al. to not play A&M just as Texas won’t. They’ll lock A&M out from their biggest former rivalries…

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Zeek – then the Ags turbo charge the Arkansas rivalry, re-ignite the great rivalry with LSU. They could have a “Bear Bowl” with Bama, and even a “Sherill Bowl” with MOO U (that’s Miss St, located in beautiful Stark-Vegas Mississippi). Before the SEC went to divisional play, LSU and Auburn rarely played each other, but this battle of Tigers is now one of the great SEC games most every season. Things change, you adapt.

        I was a student at LSU in the late 80s when A&M was winning SWC championships and LSU was winning SEC championships. LSU played A&M to open the season and those games were intense as just about any SEC game. I hope the Aggies have forgiven us for running onto Kyle Field back in 87 after a 17-3 LSU victory.

        • Robert says:

          Alan, yes, A&M will have new rivalry options. But Arkansas and LSU aren’t the same for A&M as Texas and Tech are. They just aren’t. These are bitter rivalries that date back 100 years. Half of A&M’s traditions are about Texas.

          A&M may learn to hate Arkansas and LSU. But they won’t HATE them the same way they hate Texas and Tech.

          Plus, people in Texas aren’t going to be as interested in an A&M-LSU rivalry as they are in an A&M-Texas or even A&M-Tech rivalry.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Robert – I don’t disagree with you. The best case scenario would be for UTx and A&M to keep playing, but if UTx chose to boycott the Aggies (which would be very petty), then the Aggies have to move on and make the best of an unfortunate situation.

          • Midwest Aggie says:

            If we never played Tech again, we would be fine with that. This is not a threat to A&M. No one really cares about the A&M v. Tech match-up other than our own fans.

            In regards to the hate A&M has for LSU and Arkansas, it is there but it has been dormant for a few years. In fact, when Texas played LSU in the Cotton Bowl a few years back, I prayed fervently for an earthquake to open up and swallow up both teams, their fans, and that out-dated stadium. To only have the ground close up afterwards.

            We have had a rivalry game with the Cajuns for 35 years or so before they tucked their tails and ran away. To hear “Tiger Bait” being screamed at me again is something that makes me cringe, but bring on the hate!!!

            We have been in the same conference as the Piggies for years, and that got intense as the game approached; but not to the intense level of playing LSU and Texas. We are already playing the Piggies in Dallas as an OOC opponent.

            The problem with joining the SEC, we lack those ties and bonds to the other SEC teams. It will take time.

          • Midwest Aggie says:

            My post above is to show that A&M has bonds to both Arkansas and LSU. Our games with the Tigers were intense and after 17 years or so of not playing, the fight is still there for some of us older Ags.

          • duffman says:

            an interesting though to chew on..

            i said early on that the decisions will be made by people in their 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s. If alan and aggie are right, what really need to know is how folks at these respective schools feel in this age demographic?

            This could be the single biggest factor (irrational tho it may be) as to where A&M calls home in the future. I am beginning to think that the Aggies really just want to tailgate at the Grove with the pretty Ole Miss coeds.

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, the Aggies will be fine in the SEC; no one’s going to argue against that.

          But, being shut out of all of the big intra-Texas/Oklahoma rivalries will hurt them in terms of how big those rivalries are in Texas.

        • Bullet says:

          And they didn’t come after you with swords and dogs?

        • AggieFrank says:

          Alan

          I was at that game as well. You are forgiven :)

          we all wrote it off as a bunch of drunk and happy Cajuns vs showboating at the time anyway.

          Not playing Texas every year would suck but not playing the rest of the Pac5 would have zero impact on A&M. If Texas wants to take their ball and go home, well I guess the Ags will just have to deal with it.

      • twk says:

        The entire A&M athletic department would start a conga line immediately if the announcement was made that we would never play Tech, in any sport, ever again. It’s one hell of a long ass bus trip out to Lubbock, and even more depressing when you get there. Not to mention that the Tech student body was given the nickname “classless clowns”, and adopted it as their own. A boycott threat from Tech? That’s funny. As to OU and OSU, we hardly played them before the Big XII.

    • m (Ag) says:

      “That puts all the public pressure on A&M at that point. Maybe A&M says screw you, and still bolts to the SEC, hoping Texas and the rest of the regional schools are bluffing.”

      Guys…the only school in the Big 12 A&M cares about playing is UT.

      If Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech said they’d never play us, I think the collective opinion would be “whatever.”

      If we were in a different conference than Texas Tech I’m not sure the athletic department would want to schedule a home and away with them unless politics intervened.

      Before the Big 12, we didn’t play Oklahoma and Oklahoma State very often.

      If Baylor said they’d never play us again, we’d laugh hysterically. (Not that Baylor appears to be getting a Pac 10 offer)

      Yes, we would be disappointed if UT never played us again. However, we wouldn’t need boycotts or anyone running in to rescue us. We would have a good conference schedule and probably find a decent non-conference game. If we really wanted to play another school based in Texas there are many more to choose from, with more coming into Division 1.

      The UT game is both the biggest and last game of the season, and a lot of traditions are based around that. Because of this, UT fans get confused; they think that people in College Station spend all their time thinking about them. All our traditions are really about Aggies coming together, not worrying about Austin. UT is our biggest rival and we enjoy that rivalry a lot, but we should not sacrifice our best interests to it.

      Of course, politicians may hold us hostage to it.

      • m (Ag) says:

        One more thing about this scenario: if the administrators move to the SEC, they’re already writing off all of these ‘rivalries’ with the exception of UT.

        There will be 8 games in a 14 team SEC (probably), and they will try and schedule UT as the 9th game. That’s all that most top schools schedule for home and away. Maybe they’ll try and go with a 10th game; if they do, they might try and get a team with national appeal instead of OU or TT.

        I’d imagine they would call up Texas Tech and offer a 2 home/1 away package and get it rejected, then make the same offer to Baylor and might see it accepted.

    • Midwest Aggie says:

      Ain’t going to happen. Full stop.

      The politicians are letting each school’s BOR figure out what is best for themselves. That said, the game between the two schools is bigger than letting petty vengeance get in the way. This whole realignment episode will only make the rivalry game that much more heated and intense. All the schools, minus Baylor, got to find a good home. Why punish A&M for not toeing-the-line when everyone wins?

      As for Texas Tech, as an A&M grad, they can either play us or not play us. I really don’t care. As for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, we never really played them before we all were thrown into the Big12. It was fun but there is really no history and consequence to not playing them from here on out.

      As for Baylor, TCU, Rice, SMU, UH, and the other programs within our state lines, they will jump at playing us. In fact, this whole realignment episode may have strengthened our bonds with Baylor as we tried to help them (unsuccessfully). The “Battle of the Brazos” will continued to be played. It is a heated rivalry that could very well continue; especially in basketball.

      Finally, back to Texas. If Texas does decide to “take their ball and go home”, then the politicians will step-in. This game is bigger than some of you give it to be — and the stakes have only gotten that much bigger to win the Thanksgiving Day game.

  106. Josh says:

    ESPN is reporting that Boise State will join the MWC today.

  107. Derek says:

    Espn is reporting Boise at to mwc I a done deal. Does this mean mwc isn’t expecting any big 12 scraps leftover for them?

    • zeek says:

      They’re expecting the Big 12 schools to look to the Big East probably…

    • Derek says:

      Boise St to mwc is a done deal***
      hate thr iPhone keyboard!

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      I assume the MWC held off in case a CU+KU+KSU option was on the table to get to 12.

      Now that CU is off the table, adding Boise to get to 10 is no-brainer. Invite KU and KSU to get to 12. If they decline, stay at 10.

    • Bullet says:

      This is actually big news for the Big 10+1. MWC decided things were too uncertain on Monday. Boise was all but invited in, but they all changed their mind on Monday (Delaney has done nothing to Mizzou that MWC presidents haven’t done to everyone around them). Now they think the results are certain enough. Someone earlier posted that the B10+1, B12-1 and P10+1 wouldn’t all be 11 for long. I suspect he was right.

      And for all the open process nonsense about the B10+1, Delaney himself said there would be very little warning. Once it was decided it would happen very quickly (call conference president, get application, accept new team). I suspect he expected 30 days, not 7, but noone was going to have a long time to prepare after knowing who was going. It was all going to be decided on phone calls and occassional e-mails.

  108. John says:

    If Purple Cat Book has BTN contacts and Chip Brown has Texas AD contacts, then this split starts to make sense.

    * UT admin wants Big Ten
    * UT athletic department is concerned about aTm and OU jumping to SEC
    * compromise is P-16 but only if aTm is along for the ride.

    Missouri is involved to lobby aTm to move to B10 instead.

    If aTm heads to Pac-16 or B10, UT comes along for the ride. If aTm balks and moves to the SEC, then UT is split on what it would do. SEC or B10.

    aTm has all of the power now.

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      This looks right to me…right till the last sentence.

      Really I think the truth is more: A&M finally has power and control of it’s own destiny. Something UT isn’t use to as UT has been in power over all their underlings so far.

      If A&M goes to the SEC…the Pac16 deal I don’t think is done at all. Just grab Utah, or Kansas and go.

      • John says:

        True, this would be aTm’s Alexander Haig moment.

      • Ssouth says:

        I think A&M to the SEC ruins the whole Pac-16 deal. Right now for UT, the Pac-16 offers to bring in 2 teams they care about playing (OU and A&M). Without A&M, the Pac includes only OU as an attractive division game, which the Big Ten can match with Notre Dame. Travel will also become an issue, because the replacement for A&M will likely be Utah (Baylor was already rejected, so I don’t think they reemerge as an option).

      • Hangtime79 says:

        Problem with that Kan and K-State want to be joined at the hip. Why go west when you could go to the BE where football is not nearly as important as basketball, which oh btw you are really good.

        Heading to Corvallis for games OR having your basketball team play at Madison Square Garden couple of times a year? Think Kansas goes BE.

    • Hank says:

      agreed. that seems to make the most sense to me

    • Hangtime79 says:

      John I think your right. We are staring into two different view points inside Texas: Admin and Athletic Office.

      Athletic Office wants desperately to be in Pac-10 and still be able to run the show and be the epicenter. Faculty and Admin like the idea of being in B10 with other research institutions.

    • Bob in Houston says:

      1) No, A&M will not control Texas.

      2) If I want A and my boss wants B, ultimately, B will be chosen, or my boss will be fired. Therefore, if this is the scenario, Texas goes Big Ten.

      I don’t think Bill Powers is going to be fired. Mack Brown has a lot of pull, but I don’t know if he has that much pull.

      • Bullet says:

        A&M will most certainly not control Texas. Texas also does not control A&M, contrary to a lot of speculation on the board.

        Athletic Department and Administration are not fighting. That’s not Dodds style. He will do what Powers wants.

        What is typical for UT would be the regents wanting one thing and the President another or the board of regents splitting into different factions.

  109. GOPWolv says:

    I think there ought to be a NCAA regulation re field turf color. The smurf turf is ridonkulous.

  110. Josh says:

    According to the Omaha World-Herald’s liveblog coverage, Tom Osborne arrived at the regents meeting carrying a card with “Big 10/reasons” written on it.

  111. jtower says:

    Athletic Office wants desperately to be in Pac-10 and still be able to run the show and be the epicenter. Faculty and Admin like the idea of being in B10 with other research institutions.

    139 M budget Athletic Dept or

    $2.25 billion Research Expenditures FY2009

    http://www.utsystem.edu/News/files/FastFacts2010.pdf

  112. Scott C says:

    Omaha’s 1620 The Zone will have live coverage of the Nebraska Regent Meeting and any press conferences following. They’ll have local coverage until at least 6:00 PM CDT.

    http://bit.ly/5Hwikh

  113. Faitfhful5k says:

    To Longhorns fans and Aggies fans:

    I have to admit watching Texas politics from afar is great theater, but from Big Ten land it has also raised a few eyebrows. We recognize we are observers of a situation that is chaotic, unstable and the every-man-for-himself mentalities prevail in the scramble for lifeboats. But we are having some trouble projecting what happens down the road, if you would enter the comparatively boring, stable, share-and-share alike world of the Big Ten. As you can imagine, it is a rather difficult projection based on recent events.

    The easy metrics for constant expansion (academic reputation, football brand, TV) are quite apparent. Of course, Texas and A&M score very well on all these counts. The harder evaluations are about those amorphous compatibility issues. Would you help me on this concerns? A couple questions…

    Do you believe it would be beneficial for your school to be the only Texas school in a conference?

    Maybe I am reading too much into the current turmoil, but as an outsider it seems it could provide some breathing space to focus on the best interests of your school, rather than having attentions constantly diverted by a Texas “voting bloc”, or outside political interests. In asking this I am assuming you can maintain key rivalries OOC. Furthermore, in this new world of TV footprints I am sure you recognize the value and earnings for your school are diluted when you are joined by Texas brethren who overlap markets.

    Do you feel your school would benefit and thrive from being in a conference where there is a cooperative relationship between relatively equal peer institutions towards common goals?

    For a very long time there was a common perception the Big Ten was controlled by Michigan and Ohio St.; the Big 2 and Little 8. This was probably just an illusion from the Bo and Woody days. It clearly is not the case now, as evidenced by the Big Ten Network where Ohio St. and Michigan receive the same shares as Northwestern and Indiana. If there is any power struggle between our Big 2, it might be compared to a tug of war on a very short rope. And when the rest of the group reach in to grab the rope, you essentially have the entire conference holding hands. JoePa has said when Penn St. joined the conference he considered himself to be the new kid doing his best to fit in (funny visual there). The Big Ten has been called a “check your ego at the door” group, and we have all heard about “Texas-sized” egos. Please reassure me. :)

    • GOPWolv says:

      Nebraska makes perfect sense, as does ND from cultural points of view. I have big concerns RE Texas. See, i.e., the entire history of the Big XII.

    • Josh says:

      That’s why I’ve soured on UT to the Big Ten, despite initially being very enthusiastic about it. In the Big Ten, I feel like in the end, every other school in the conference has our back, and we’ve got there’s. Nebraska is going to fit in perfectly with that ethos. I’m increasingly becoming convinced that UT will not, although to be fair, that’s sometimes because of factors beyond UT’s control (state legislature, TTU, BU, etc.) But some of it is just Texas ego.

      • GOPWolv says:

        yeah, it is a tough call. more money/TX recruits v. civility and decency. makes sense to stick w/ your values.

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          I see one person on here who seems to possess neither civility nor decency.

          • GOPWolv says:

            never claimed it for myself, but way to bump the number to two.

          • Mike B says:

            I got your back here, HH. As a born-and-bred midwesterner who has lived all around the country (incuding two glorious years in Austin), I want to come to the defense of Texans. By and large, everyone I met in Texas was extremely well-mannered and friendly.

            I also spent quite a bit of time in early 80′s in Houston. You had a bit more of the fist-fighting, Urban Cowboy contingent there, but I was younger then. Still mostly a very positive experience.

            I’d also like to note that most New Yorkers are very friendly, if you can ever get them to slow down long enough to get to know them.

            Most annoying people I’ve met? In reverse order…

            4. Chicagoans (City of, not suburbanites)
            3. Southern Californians
            2. Anyone from Indiana
            1. Northern Californians

      • zeek says:

        And that’s why it’s time to move on to Maryland/Rutgers.

        • zeek says:

          I mean yeah, I get it. Delany is still focused on his Texas/ND scenario. But that’s such a longshot, you’re counting on A&M and OU doing other things, etc.

          Let’s just get back to schools that make sense financially/academically and will someday make sense on the field.

          Of course, I’m starting to think a play at VaTech by the Big Ten might be more interesting than not.

          Go for Maryland/Va/VaTech if you really want another football splash. VaTech isn’t AAU but it’d fit in well enough academically. (Way better than other non-AAUs like Tech or UConn).

          • Kyle2MSU says:

            I’m not sure I’d describe the Texas / ND scenario as a long shot. There’s a chance they could have made their decision to join the Big Ten by the weekend. After all the years (apparently) planning that went into getting to this point don’t just abandon your goal because of a few delays.

            Besides, the Texas issue needs to be resolved one way or another before Maryland & Virginia option really begins to open up.

            I think there needs to be greater SEC pressure on ACC schools for either to begin thinking about jumping.

          • Ryan says:

            How exactly is Maryland or Virginia a “football splash”?

    • Faitfhful5k says:

      I guess I was trying to followup to a previous question where Texas and Nebraska fans were asked how they could get along if they both ended up in the Big Ten. Both sides seemed to chime in to say there would not be no such problems in a different environment.

      I attributed that to structural issues contributing to their differences in the BigXII. I was wondering if those same issues would disappear in an established, stable conference like the Big Ten.

    • m (Ag) says:

      “Do you believe it would be beneficial for your school to be the only Texas school in a conference?”

      I think it would be much easier as a pair. Geographically it would be a bit nicer and it would be easier for the average Texan to accept.

      I think we could integrate into the ‘share and share alike’ mindset just fine.

      • Faitfhful5k says:

        Fair enough. Thanks. I hope all works out well for all the great people who have contributed to Frank’s blog.

    • jtower says:

      You mean because every-time one of the ADs or presidents of the involved schools scratches his balls we assume it means something. All we have so far is a bunch of gossip. Sure some of it turns out to be correct because every possible scenario has been suggested. And without a doubt reading the last 3,000 posts on FtTS has made me aware of numerous factors involved with conference expansionpalooza. Now if only the University Presidents would read so they could make an informed decision.

    • Bullet says:

      No, I don’t think it would be good for UT to be the only TX school in the B10. I just don’t think the state has cultural affinities with the B10 states.

      You hit on a good point that does make the B10 different. Ohio St., Michigan and Penn St. are not carrying everyone else. WI, MN, IL all bring a lot to the table as the sole flagships in populous states. IU brings basketball which used to matter. PU, MSU and IA all have substantial followings and are big universities with certain very strong departments. NW brings a lot to the CIC. So sharing the BTN makes a lot more sense than it does in the B12, SEC or P10. None of those conferences share everything equally.

  114. Gopher86 says:

    Gene Stallings (the supposed rogue Regent for A&M to the SEC) had an interview on ESPN radio:

    http://espn.go.com/dallas/radio/archive?id=4503349

    • Stopping By says:

      any key takeaways (for those that can’t listen – although I would prefer to listen then work)?

      • Gopher86 says:

        From what I read on twitter (I’m on radio silence at work), Stallings is quoted as saying he has forgotten more about Football/conferences than the Governor knows. Or something of that nature.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        My takeaway is that the only PAC16 that old redneck wants to be involved with is a Pack16 of Pabst (or Lone Star)

  115. Fredbird says:

    Total and unadulterated BS from Purple Book Cat. He may have been right on some things early on but he’s either making stuff up or getting totally false info. I knew a month ago that Nebraska was coming and Texas was not. Nothing has changed that.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Awesome, so who’s the Big Ten taking next?

    • michst8bball14 says:

      FredBird, Mike B, and others are dead wrong.

      PBC has better info than anyone out there. He isnt making any of this up.

      Texas to the b10 is a REAL possibility.

      Zeek doesnt think so, I do.

      I have been following this stuff just as much as him.

      This is the only thing we have ever disagreed on.

      But trust me, PBC is not getting a load of B.S.

      the things he said re: chip brown are 100% accurate.

      He has been wrongs so many times already, I cannot believe him anymore. He has 1/2 the scoop. He has said Texas and b10 have never had any contact which is 100% false as we saw from the emails from osu.

      This is just giving texas an easier platform (less pressure) to negotiate with the b10. It is very simple.

      It may not happen, but it is a real possibility. It depends on what comes out of the meeting.

      Are you trying to tell me that if they were all on the same board and knew where they were going, that they would be having to have yet another meeting? That’s absurd.

      There is much negotiating and infighting going on with Texas and b12/b10/Pac10.

      Everything is still very much up in the air and all 3 are realistic possibilities.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Even ESPN, who is desperate for TEXAS to join the SEC admits that the Big Ten and Texas are is talks. If they can admit it why can’t Brownie? Because Brown is either forbidden to discuss it or his anti-Big Ten bias won’t allow him to.

        • michst8bball14 says:

          right. ESPN wants Texas not in the b10 cuz ESPN hates b10 because of the BTN.

          I agree with everything you say.

  116. John says:

    Would OU do the P-16 with neither UT nor aTm in the fold?

    P-16 East of:
    AZ
    ASU
    CO
    OU
    OSU
    KU
    KSU
    Utah

    • zeek says:

      If neither UT nor aTm is going to the Pac-10, they’re going to grab Utah and call it a day.

    • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

      I don’t think Oklahoma wanted to go to the Pac Ten EVEN WITH the Texas schools in the fold!

      OK and OSU’s natural fit is in the SEC for a variety of reasons – cultural fit, rivals with the Razorbacks, Recruiting, Cable coverage, BBQ…the list is pretty extensive.

      • Stopping By says:

        I believe they did want to stick w/ TX schools to Pac – AD said as much….

        • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

          Good Point. I would say you are absolutely right they want to desperately stay with the Texas schools…..but will they be able to?

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        You nailed it Hawkeye! OU is not excited about this pac 16 deal at all.

        Take UT out..and OU well…may not have a choice

      • JohnB says:

        Pac doesn’t make sense without UT.

        If UT and A&M are going Pac, OU goes Pac.

        If UT goes Pac but A&M goes SEC, OU probably goes Pac.

        If UT doesn’t go Pac, I don’t think the Pac 16 forms. CO and maybe Utah and stop at 11/12.

  117. Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

    Two Insightful Ideas Originally Posts by Duffman:

    First,

    “Delany and Slive are the only ones really playing no matter what the bloggers or media think.”

    I think he’s right. The Pac 10 has been played. If they don’t pick up at least one of the two major Texas schools, they come out one of the big losers in this expansion (along with Iowa State). But of course the Pac never had many great schools to target out west, so they went for broke with the “Surf and Turf” hail marry. The SEC is yet to be heard from and Slive will not let the Texas market go without a good fight.

    Second, duffman wrote:

    “The Big Ten eliminated one of the historic football rivals that was not already in the Big 10 or SEC. Go back and look at the Nebraska vs Oklahoma history as it relates to NC’s. I think folks miss what Delaney has really done here.”

    Any new expansion has to be about building rivalries. The Pac Ten “hail marry” attempt tried to keep the Texas and OK rivalries together, but I never heard much on the creation of any New rivalries. That’s one of there reasons the plan will probably fail. Whereas the Nebraska acquisition will have inherent rivalries with Minnesota (NUL has had a long discontinued rivalry with the Gophers from when the Gophers were a powerhouse in the 50s and Minn leads the series) and with Iowa (John Deere Bowl).

    THE QUESTON is whether a ND / Texas rivalry really has legs? Is this idea about Hispanic Catholics in Texas a real basis for a rivalry or is it more of an “urban legend”? Or maybe the fact that the two schools are “national powers” is enough to make it a natural rivalry…..

    • zeek says:

      It’s a strange mix of both but definitely more that they both have national star power on a scale that no one else really has.

      Notre Dame has always been the national independent of sorts, but with no actual footprint region that really belongs to them.

      Texas is the biggest national brand out there in terms of the fact that it brings its whole footprint (none of the Cali teams do that).

      Not to mention that they’re sort of located centrally but on opposite sides of middle of the country.

      That’s probably enough to have a 100 year rivalry good to go…

    • Stopping By says:

      I disagree with the idea/wording going around that the Pac got “played.” How so? They have precious few team to choose from considering their geographic location (as you mention). So the only way they can technically be percieved as “winning” is to get UT and/or aTm. If they give their best shot and get turned down – then I don’t see that as getting “played.”

      Now if UT used the alleged deal to the Pac as leverage to the other conferences for a better one, well that is just smart negotiating. If all rumors now are true though and aTm never wanted to go – that seems like it is the biggest issue. So if UT ends up going to the B10, its not because the Pac got “played,” its because aTm wanted the B12 or SEC ONLY and allowed the TX break up. If anything, the P16 deal has given UT pause to consider.

      Sensitive much? Well, maybe – but someone here needs to stick up for the Pac :)

      • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

        Stopping,

        I have many good friends who attended Pac 10 schools and I’m a big Lute Olson, Arizona fan so my apologies. Maybe the term “played” implies that the Pac was somehow “dubbed” into getting screwed. And you’re right that isn’t the case. The Pac is simply playing the cards that have been dealt to them…and the cards are not the best due to simple logistics of the schools.

        But it does seem that the Big Ten and probably the SEC are doing their negotiations behind closed doors. I would question the Pac’s strategy of laying out six invitations without paving the way first. I hope it works out well for the Pac, as others outlined on this board, it’s good for the Big Ten that the Pac is strong, especially considering the Rose Bowl affiliation.

    • ShockFX says:

      Sigh. The Pac-10 didn’t get played. They are working WITH the Big10. I’ve been saying this for days now. Sharks don’t eat each other unless all the fish are gone.

      1. Long standing historical ties.
      2. BTN is 49% Fox owned. Fox is going to launch the Pac-10 network when it happens.
      3. Scott’s deputy commissioner is Kevin Weiberg, who not only has strong ties to the Big 12 from his time as the league commissioner but also helped launch the Big Ten Network during its early stages.

      • gas1958 says:

        “The winners write the history”, right? If the P10 gets any pod of
        teams that include UT, then it was a brilliant move of great daring and vision. The B10 can stop now (I’m not advocating this, nor do I think it likely), having gotten one of the storied programs in college football history, one that also reinforces their values and vision. To me, that’s the difference, as I think zeek has said multiple times. The P10 had fewer choices so they made the opening gambit.
        The intimations of P10/B10 acting roughly in concert, seem a bit overdone to me.

      • Faitfhful5k says:

        I agree.
        If you watch the sequence of events the conspiracy theorist in me sees the interplay.

        Pac-10 offers the Pac-16 open invite.
        Colorado to Pac-10.
        Hints the academic bar has been raised.
        Nebraska to Big Ten.

        Slowly closing off all options with very safe moves after stirring the pot.

    • Bullet says:

      Hispanic Catholic ND fans are an urban legend. ND does like to recruit in Texas and hasn’t done too well lately.

      UT and ND are both national powers and have a long, significant, if limited football history. I posted this before. Probably the most significant point was ND going to the Cotton Bowl after the ’69 season to play Texas in their 1st bowl in nearly 50 years. That was a BIG deal at the time. ND and Texas played in the Cotton Bowl after the 1969, 1970 and 1977 seasons with UT rated #1 all 3 times.

  118. Hopkins Horn says:

    UT Regents to meet Tuesday to discuss conference realignment.

    I am sure they will conduct the meeting in an uncivil and indecent manner, considering that they are Texans.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/06/11/texas-decision.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

  119. Hank says:

    Notre Dame vs Army in 2013 is off

    http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100611/SPORTS36/6110366/-1/SITEMAP

    “Unfortunately, we would have liked to play Notre Dame in 2013,” Army athletic director Kevin Anderson said on Thurday. “But Notre Dame has found that it’s not going to work for them.”

    I wonder if their scheduling just got a little tighter

    • GOPWolv says:

      Here’s hoping, but they did just schedule a bunch of BC games.

      • Huskerhydes says:

        I don’t think those contracts are signed yet though. Thought it was an agreed in principal type of thing, didn’t sound like it was quite inked yet – very close to a done deal though.

    • monty says:

      Very interesting – good find

    • Phizzy says:

      Apparently, Notre Dame has nine opponents scheduled for 2013:
      Arizona State
      Connecticut
      Michigan
      Michigan State
      Navy
      Oklahoma
      Pittsburgh
      Purdue
      Southern California

      So, they would apparently have room for few more…unless something happens.

  120. Big Ten Jeff says:

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20100611/NEWS/306119977#live-blog-nebraska-board-of-regents-meeting

    It’s official, from Lee Barfknecht:

    Nebraska has officially accepted an invitation to join the Big Ten Conference, The World-Herald learned early Friday afternoon.

    Two sources from conference offices said that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany contacted BIg 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe on Friday morning to inform Beebe that Delany had officially invited Nebraska to join.

    A source with direct knowledge of the situation said Nebraska accepted.

  121. Gopher86 says:

    East Carolina AD tips C-USA’s hand and calls it as he sees it:

    http://www.ecupirates.com/genrel/061110aaa.html

    “This is a time of great uncertainty and anxiety for almost everyone in intercollegiate athletics since no one can predict the course of conference expansions, even those members of conferences who have been competing for and winning national championships in football (Texas/Oklahoma) and men’s basketball (Kansas). We have seen and heard predictions ranging from the incredible (the dismemberment of the Big East) and now to the impossible (the implosion of the Big 12).

    There is no guarantee for anyone in such an environment, just as there is no way to guarantee what will happen in any game once the ball is kicked. That is the beauty of athletics at every level. The team that wins is usually the one that can stay focused on the things under their control. Games are lost in two ways – the first is being distracted by things the team cannot control (officials’ calls, the weather, etc.) and the second is not being properly prepared for the intensity and/or the game plan of your opponent.

    You, the individual members of the Pirate Nation, have prepared well for the upcoming game of musical chairs, no matter how long or how short the music may be. You have created a game atmosphere in Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium that is the envy of much larger and more widely-recognized programs. You have supported facility projects that are currently under construction to bring all athletic venues up to nationally-competitive standards. More importantly, you have and continue to demonstrate your Pirate Pride and Passion on a daily basis.

    The decisions currently being made by conferences to extend invitations to new members and the acceptance of those invitations will be made by knowledgeable individuals who have been doing their homework for quite some time. However, no matter how well those individuals have planned and prepared for every anticipated eventuality, something will happen that no one could predict. The potential implosion of the Big 12 has taken all bets off the table and created great uncertainty as new bets are placed without time to consider the odds or other pertinent information.

    Conference USA is rapidly preparing to compete for the remaining Big 12 members if the meltdown continues to a full implosion.

    The Big East has been in a bunker mentality, hoping to keep enough of its eight current members to remain a viable FBS (formerly Division I-A) Conference with automatic qualification for BCS bowl games.

    Now that there is a possibility the Big East will not lose any current members, the Big East dilemma remains how to add football members when there is “no room at the Inn” for other sports. The eight Big East FBS institutions are locked into a successful consortium with eight other institutions who do not play FBS football in the Big East.

    The Big East is wisely going to exhaust every possibility to solve their dilemma internally before addressing the complications created by adding “football only” members or leaving their 16 team consortium to create a new conference. The “internal” solution of choice is for Notre Dame to agree to move their football program into the Big East. As long as there is the slightest possibility this could happen, the Big East will not close the door on that possibility by adding someone else as the ninth member.

    Another internal solution for the Big East is for Villanova to upgrade its national champion FCS (formerly Division I-AA) program to FBS status, just as UConn did several years ago.

    It is my belief that most FBS institutions in the Big East would genuinely like to have a ninth FBS member, but at this time, a ninth member is not an absolute necessity. The desire for a ninth member is not enough of a necessity to disrupt their relationship with the seven non-FBS schools and Notre Dame in all other sports.

    If the Big East does still end up losing a FBS member (or members) to expansion in another conference, it will replace that all-sports member or members based on a pre-determined pecking order that addresses the conference’s needs at that particular time. Those needs may range from (1) the best football program available to bolster the Big East’s chances to keep their BCS automatic qualification, (2) the best overall sports program, (3) the best location for travel for all sports, and (4) other perceived needs of the conference membership as a whole.

    Replacements for all-sports members in the Big East would have to be approved by all of the remaining members, not just the FBS members. So, if two Big East FBS members are lost to expansion, there would be 14 members remaining in the Big East. Eight of the 14 votes would be institutions which are not playing football in the Big East.

    As for the rest of the expansion nationwide, I believe Texas will hold the Big 12 together. Texas and Oklahoma should be very happy to say “good riddance” to the conference championship game. Those two teams have a better chance for each to end up in BCS Bowls in a given season without the “double jeopardy” that a conference championship game creates for them. In fact, a nine-member Big Whatever should be their goal.

    If Texas holds the Big Whatever together, the Pac 10′s “quick strike” will come back to haunt them because they are now committed to finding at least one more member who can add value to the Pac 10. Colorado’s main value was as “bait” for Texas, Oklahoma, etc… in order to create real value for the Pac 10.

    The Big 10 is likely to be happy with a nice prize catch in Nebraska and 12 total teams, and put other expansion talk to rest soon. Notre Dame is the only remaining option for the Big 10 that provides guaranteed long-term value and there seems to be no reason for Notre Dame to change its long-term commitment to remaining independent in football.

    Of course, as I said at the beginning – there are no guarantees in athletics and none of the above predictions may hold up. All any of us can do is work as hard as we can to position ourselves to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. When the QB throws a floater in the flat that is going to be a touchdown for one team or the other, that is the moment to make the play.

    You are doing your part to help us prepare to make that play, but none of us knows who is going to come down with the ball … or if the pass will fall incomplete and both teams will simply regroup for the next play. That is “the agony and the ecstasy” of sports!

    GO PIRATES!

    TH”

    Sorry for the long post, but who knows if this will be up in an hour.

    • Vincent says:

      Terry Holland making his pitch to get ECU somewhere...

    • Phil says:

      I believe the thing keeping the ridiculous Big East hybrid conference together was that a large (for the Big East, anyway) amount of the TV money was held in an escrow account and any team leaving before a certain day would forfeit their share of it.

      From what I understand there is a date this summer that ends that escrow and the football teams could split more easily.

  122. Hangtime79 says:

    Got passed another article from Waco this afternoon:

    State’s top politicians not making pitch to help Baylor stay in Big 12
    http://www.wacotrib.com/news/States-top-politicians-not-making-pitch-to-help-Baylor-stay-in-Big-12.html

    Neither Dewhurst or Perry getting involved. Very interesting though and something that I didn’t know was that UT and aTm tried to jump both in ’85 and ’89, but were told to settle down.

  123. Vincent says:

    The Big Ten will soon be entering the Mountain Time Zone (think far west Nebraska), just as the ACC is technically in the Central Time Zone thanks to far western Florida.

  124. Faitfhful5k says:

    Welcome the Big Ten, Nebraska.

    Start your campaign to get BTN on basic cable right now!

    • Huskerhydes says:

      You don’t understand the state if you think a campaign would be necessary!! Any cable company that didn’t automatically add would be bankrupt.

      • jlb1705 says:

        We said the same thing in Ohio. It took two years. Cable companies suck. I hope you guys do better with that than we did.

      • Faitfhful5k says:

        I hear ya. But we had to fight for it. Those cable companies are stubborn and hopefully you will have it a lot easier.

        That first year they stuck it on a sports tier here to basic cable in Wisconsin. There was a massive flight to DirecTV. Others, like me, would call and bitch at the cable provider before heading to a sports bar… or heading outside with the radio to do yardwork. The cable companies refused to budge all year.

        Season two it was shifted to basic tier and all has been golden since then. Good luck!

        • Faitfhful5k says:

          stuck it on a sports tier in Wisconsin. (Correction)

          It is hard to resist paying the price for a sports tier when you might miss games. But the consumer pressure in Big Ten company came about when we mostly refused to pay. Lost accounts and consumer complaints were the pressure applied to get it on basic.

        • Huskerhydes says:

          I hear and understand you. Lived in Cincinnati for a few years and I am just saying that you don’t understand Nebraska. I understand cable companies are stupid, but they are not retarded.

          BTW I just heard all yes votes at NU regent meetings. Application coming your way, now lets get the electronic Big Ten vote done today.

          See ya in 2011. We are coming in droves to your stadiums!!!

        • Husker Al says:

          Huskerhydes is on the money. The cable companies simply have no choice, and if they are smart it will be in place by this football season.

          Because so many fans shell out $30 to watch NU play teams like Florida Atlantic, our PPV games net NU more TV revenue than games on FSN Unless there is a Cablevision/YES type of negotiation, the BTN in Nebraska is a no-brainer.

    • SH says:

      You also get South Dakota! And probably North Dakota (if they are already lined up for those Minnesota games).

  125. Playoffs Now! says:

    Ambiguous potential stinkbomb tweet:

    http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

    B12 South schools (TX, TTech, OU, OSU) confirm to Orangebloods.com that with Neb move they go to B10. 2 minutes ago via mobile web

  126. willarm1 says:

    Sorry Kids had swim lessons, and if I brought the computer they would probably be dead.

    Is A&M meeting tuesday as well?

    What are the chances that U of M and ND under the lights is ND’s first Big 10 conference game?

  127. ChicagoRed says:

    KLIN Nebraska reports presser scheduled for 445pm today & satellite trucks in place.

    Regents exec session still going on, running late

  128. You have to love the camo chairs!! in the NBR meeting

  129. Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

    Wanna know why nothing from the Big 12 to the Pac 16 group has been announced?

    I heard, from 2 sources, that are saying the OU is trying to keep the Big 12 together. No for reals YO!

    The pitch from Oklahoma and AD Joe Castiglione is: Why should we go join a lesser football conference (the Pac-10)? Why don’t WE (the Big 12) go after their schools? You want Arizona and Arizona St? Then invite them over to us?

    If this is all about the Texas (the state) TV market…WE have that! We (the Big 12) is in the position of power if we stand together.

    Arkansas and OU officials have talked. Not sure what to make of that.

    Which is in line with the toe the conference line article from the Daily Oklahoman:
    http://www.newsok.com/ous-joe-castiglione-working-to-save-big-12/article/3467810

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      This by the way, may literally be “yesterday’s News”

      • John says:

        Might be last week’s news.

        Texas is telling everyone Nebraska killed the B12.

        Oklahoma is telling everyone Texas might kill the B12.

        If history holds we should expect Oklahoma to announce its headed to the SEC sometime on Monday.

        • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

          This was from phone exchanges yesterday.

          OU was pitching it hard. First to keep Nebraska in either the Big 12 or the Pac 16 group.

          BUT…OU wanted to keep the Big 12 together as of yesterday…even with out Neb, or with out Colorado.

          • John says:

            Who were they pitching?

            Texas?

            If UT wasn’t going to save the Big 12 with CU and Nebraska why would they save it now?

          • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

            @John- Yeah texas mainly, but mostly the Pac-16 group.

            Why did they (UofTexas) not save it and keep Neb and CU?

            But why should OU go to the Pac 10? For money that the league would get for getting texas? the Big 12..has texas already.

            OU was trying to get everyone, including Texas to stay in the Big 12. Yes, that includes A&M, yes that included Nebraska.

            OU doesn’t want to go to the Pac10. From an OU perspective, that’s a crappier football conference.

            OU was selling the Big 12 schools the merits of staying in the Big 12, and reforming it.

            And yes, the big key one in that would be Texas.

    • zeek says:

      So now Texas is going to backstab the Pac-10 and take off the Arizona schools?

      Somehow I don’t think the Pac-8 would complain (Stanford/Cal), and we all know that USC has been totally neutered for the next 6-7 years at least.

      For the next decade, the Big 12 teams are bringing most of the value. Just look at TV ratings and how full those stadiums are. There’s not much intensity in the Pac-10 outside of Southern Cal, and even USC is going to take a big hit the next couple years on the national stage…

      Still, I don’t see much coming out of that unless the Arizona schools are willing to bolt, and they may if they perceive USC as being weak…

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        Well, from what I heard, it was more of a “the Big 12 is better then they are” pitch, and a this could happen if we don’t fold type idea.

        The idea suggested is the Big 12 was the one in the position of strength..not the Pac-10

        If the Arizona schools now get the feeling they aren’t a part of the Pac-8 after 30 years…there might be some questioning of loyalty there.

  130. Blood & Steel says:

    So….12 teams in the Big Ten and 10 teams in the Big XII.

    Nice.

  131. jtower says:

    If this is all about the Texas (the state) TV market…WE have that! We (the Big 12) is in the position of power if we stand together.

    What’s this “we ” business?

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      “We” being the Big 12. Sure..if you are UT you can say by We you mean “Me”, but I think with A&M you are finding out that’s not necessarily the case.

      Tech, A&M, and even OU make up a part of that Texas TV market.

  132. michst8bball14 says:

    FredBird, Mike B, and others are dead wrong.

    PBC has better info than anyone out there. He isnt making any of this up.

    Texas to the b10 is a REAL possibility.

    Zeek doesnt think so, I do.

    I have been following this stuff just as much as him.

    This is the only thing we have ever disagreed on.

    But trust me, PBC is not getting a load of B.S.

    the things he said re: chip brown are 100% accurate.

    He has been wrongs so many times already, I cannot believe him anymore. He has 1/2 the scoop. He has said Texas and b10 have never had any contact which is 100% false as we saw from the emails from osu.

    This is just giving texas an easier platform (less pressure) to negotiate with the b10. It is very simple.

    It may not happen, but it is a real possibility. It depends on what comes out of the meeting.

    Are you trying to tell me that if they were all on the same board and knew where they were going, that they would be having to have yet another meeting? That’s absurd.

    There is much negotiating and infighting going on with Texas and b12/b10/Pac10.

    Everything is still very much up in the air and all 3 are realistic possibilities.

    • zeek says:

      Sure, they are.

      But the odds of Texas going to the Big Ten are still low.

      For me to believe that there’s a > 50% chance that Texas lands in the Big Ten, I need to see OU and A&M split off.

      If OU stays with Texas, the odds are heavily in favor of them going west.

      Yes the situation is still developing, but it is not very fluid and things are not really in flux.

      • Mike B says:

        @Zeek FWIW, Chip Brown’s recent tweet mentioned TT, UT, OU, and OSU to P10, but nothing about aTm.

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, but Texas and OU are enough to hold the Pac-16 together.

          Those USC penalties have exposed just how desperate the Pac-10 is to get Texas/OU/A&M (well even minus A&M, Texas is still worth so much $) before the next media contract.

          Think about it, if you’re negotiating with Fox, how does it look when Fox knows that USC is gutted for the next few years…; they sure as hell aren’t going to be paying as much for that if a full quarter to half of the next 15 years are going to have mediocre USC…

          • GreatLakeState says:

            Exactly. Which is why I would LOVE to know was Texas’s thought process was.
            They are going to a (now damaged) Pac10, pinning their hopes on the success of a speculative network while dragging along three undeserving mouths to feed.
            They could have gone to the Big Ten with all the stability, academic bonafides, tradition and money they could ever hope for. Basically, with USC down the drain, UCLA and Stanford (sort of) are the only draws.
            If they aren’t also allowed to keep their Longhorn network I can’t imagine what their incentive is.

          • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

            @GreatLakeState

            Which is about what OU was pitching yesterday to the group.

            Not the Big 10 part…but a let’s just replace CU and Neb and go on.

    • Mike B says:

      @msubball – Sorry if I’ve given the impression I don’t believe PCB. I’m agnostic. We’ll see what happens Tuesday.

    • Hodgepodge says:

      I have doubts about the PBC stuff. It just doesn’t strike me as being totally in the loop. Basically, what he is saying is that DeLoss Dodds is totally out of the loop in the decision-making process at UT. I suppose it could be that Dodds is deliberately leaking false info to Chip Brown, but I can’t figure out what purpose that would serve when silence would work better. Although it should absolutely not be Dodds decision, having Powers keep Dodds totally out of the loop is begging for a huge problem at UT going forward. The simpler explanation is that Dodds IS in the loop and is feeding Brown truthful information (for whatever reason).

      The other thing that bothers me is PBC’s insistence that if Texas does go to the PAC-10 (or SEC), then they stabbed the Big Ten in the back. Basically, he can’t lose. If he’s right, he’s right. If he’s wrong, then it’s Texas’s fault– not his. He can still write the book he plugs continually because there will be nothing to disprove what he says.

      Believe me, I want PBC to be right, but there is just so much evidence to the contrary from a variety of sources.

  133. willarm1 says:

    Who has the Dirty Harry clip. When the dude says “I gotts to know!”

    Man I got’s to know.

  134. Gopher86 says:

    The Nebraska Board of Regents is addressing the public now. Looking to start in Big 10 in 2011. Listen at 1620thezone.com.

    Seeking CIC membership immediately. Expecting transition period before they get a full equity share in Big Ten Network.

    Will be sending in application effective immediately.

    • zeek says:

      Jeff Robb, World-Herald:
      TO: Weather, sounds odd to say. WE’re obviously not in the sun belt.

      I enjoyed that one.

    • Cornography says:

      Awesome. I was hoping for a 2011 start.

    • Minneapolis Husker says:

      Everyone should go to http://www.omaha.com/article/20100611/NEWS/306119977#live-blog-nebraska-board-of-regents-meeting

      for a live blog. Very interesting comments about the circumstances. Neither Colorado or Mizzouri would commit (or Nebraska). Nebraska’s Chancellor stated that all teams would have to commit all media rights to the conference. Texas refused.

      • Hangtime79 says:

        Man this just continues to make UT look like a total tool. Admin may want to goto B10 just to neuter the athletic department.

        • bad bob says:

          how in the world does that make UT look like a “total tool”???

          It’s self-serving, to say the least. They just want to blame Texas one last time for everything including making them hire Callahan. They always voted for the unequal splits, especially since it benefited them. Look, this was a great move for them, and if they’d just be honest and say they could not possibly have turned down that much money for a conference where they fit so well, I’d have a lot more respect for them. Bottom line, Nebraska brought a lot less to the Big 12 conference than Texas did, and if they don’t want to own up to killing it, it’s just another example of their inability to man up the last few years.

          They can ride the pity train about a clearly correct last second call for a few more minutes, but pretty soon they’re going to have to pull their weight or come up with reasons to whine about UM or tOSU or… anybody but themselves.

          At the end of the day, from everything I’ve heard, at the administration level, UT and UNL were very close and partnered very well. At the athletic level though, UNL came into the league as THE big dog. And when they diminished dramatically, they never really adjusted to BIGGER dogs. Blame Texas all they want to, but most of the crap they whine incessantly about came at the end of 11-1 votes. At some point, when you’re the 1 in that formula, maybe you need to rethink some things.

          I think and hope they’re going to be very happy and successful in the Big10. They historically have been great fans, and they need to return to that. Sometimes you just need a reboot, a change of scenery, and you can take a deep breath and make the changes you’ve been needing to make.

          • Albino Tornado says:

            Perlman was required to commit unconditionally to the Big 12, regardless of whether Colorado and Missouri left, and Texas (and all the schools in its orbit) refused to do so. Perlman then offered to commit provided a Big 12 Network was formed. Again, Texas refused.

            Nebraska in this case looked out for Nebraska; the other schools in the conference had already demonstrated that they certainly weren’t going to.

          • Husker Al says:

            I have trouble with your logic, bad bob. Perlman said NU would be required to commit to the Big12 even though Texas was talking to three separate conferences at the same time.

            Perlman asked if the league would be intact if NU stayed and either CU or MU left. He was told yes. But if both CU and MU left, no commitment was promised.

            But even if NU came back, the commitment was “for the foreseeable future” or until 2016. NU doesn’t have Texas’ geographic advantages and needed to consider the long term consequences of staying.

            The Big 10 is a good opportunity in any situation and NU would naturally consider any offer. But when fellow members are only willing to commit to four more years and unwilling to provide media rights for a conference network that benefits each school, Nebraska’s choice was made for them.

          • bad bob says:

            that’s just absolutely specious…
            Texas (note how it’s always them, and not “The Big 12″, just like all those times they voted 11 times against the poor huskers…) wanted Nebraska to commit, but they would not commit themselves??? Look, the whole commitment thing was based on whether the Big 12 would survive, and what they’d have available when they talked about future TV contracts. It was not ONLY for Nebraska, CO and MO. Everybody else was already willing to commit to it. Including Texas.

            And guess what? I completely agree that Nebraska should do exactly what’s best for Nebraska. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have a problem with their absolute classlessness when they did it. Instead of manning up and saying the money and prestige and stability and history and culture of the Big Ten was just way too attractive to turn down, they went on one last whining jag about bad ol’ Texas, and how they weren’t willing to harm their own interests to subsidize them more than they already do.

            Let’s face it, for all the whining about “unequal sharing”, Nebraska always voted against it. And in terms of how much everybody brought into the conference compared to how much they took, Texas is at the top of the “bringing it in” list.

            Nebraska has a proud history, but who was, in the end, the better conference-mate? If NU’d continued to be a power, without using academic non-starters, and in an age of more steroid awareness and scrutiny, the Big 12 would have been a much more stable and successful league. The south dominated to an unhealthy degree, and you can hardly blame them for making the north so weak. And for all the backbiting and non-collegial commentary, you’ll find all the juicy quotes coming out of the corn state, not the lone star. What has Texas ever said in public that was in any way harmful to the conference?

            You have one school who brings in an undue percentage of the money and credibility for the conference, and never publicly talks it down. You have another who bring in far, far less, and takes home basically just a little bit less, and complains constantly, about everything from really good business decisions to an undeniably correct call on the field, finds a better patron and leaves still complaining about everything. One is a partner I would choose. One is like a small kleptocracy at the UN using a venue and microphone paid for by the US to publicly blast the US…

            So look, I get it that the Big 12 years were not kind to the huskers. As I said, I hope the move is a reboot, and that they find happiness, prosperity and peace in the Big Ten. I hope they return to their old, great attitudes, and become, once again, Big Red, complete with enthusiastic, loyal and classy fans. That’s the Nebraska I always liked. Let’s just call the last few years of the Big 12 a big mistake, like the Callahan, West-Coast offense era. Something to forget about, something to learn from, and something the grow from. And truly, I hope that the Nebraska spirit returns in force. The reservoir of respect, affection and good-will that the Texas fanbase has always felt for Nebraska is still there, and I don’t think the last year has completely poisoned that.

          • Husker Al says:

            Wow, bad bob. You must have really needed to get that off your chest. Hope you feel better.

            The unequal revenue sharing was based on the previous TV contract with the idea that each school had access to that revenue if their teams rose to a sufficient level on the field. While that justifcation might be BS, schools accepted it.

            The LSN would totally destroy even that thin rationalization. There’s no chance for any other school to access that money, and the playing field becomes even more unbalanced. You talk as if NU were the only ones against the LSN, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

            Texas badly misjudged how other teams would react. Three schools immediately showed interest in leaving the Big12. A fourth (at least) may join the SEC now that the damage has been done.

            Texas was looking out for Texas. What’s the point of being in a conference when it’s everyone for themselves?

          • bad bob says:

            “What’s the point of being in a conference when it’s everyone for themselves?”

            says the team that looked out only for themselves…

            I think you misunderstand. I have nothing really to get off my chest. Texas will be fine, wherever they end up. And they’ll be a great addition to whatever conference they end up choosing. Hopefully Nebraska grows up a little, starts pulling its own weight and quits whining about other schools not taking care of it. That’ll be good for everyone – especially themselves.

            The reality is that I’ve always liked Nebraska, as has every Texas fan I’ve ever met until the last year or two.

            But at some point, the whining became really, really tiresome. Can you name me one thing that your fanbase got their panties all in a twist about that was a bad business decision? You guys just blamed Texas, and then blame every other team that voted the same way, and never once admitted that one reason the other 11 universities voted that way was that it was the best decision for the conference. For perhaps the first example, if you’d had your way on the academic qualifications side when the conference first formed, you would right now not have been acceptable to the Big Ten. You might not have liked it, but it was the right decision. So you can hold a grudge against Texas for insisting on it, but when you cash your first BTN check, you should secretly say a little thank you.

            The Big Ten was a great move for you, the perfect move for you, but don’t sit here and pretend you were thinking about anybody else in the whole process. You did what was good for you. For all the talk about Texas’ selfishness and ego, they’ve at least been trying to at some level take care of the other teams left. You can scoff if you want, and come up with a thousand reasons why they’re being forced to do so, but in the end, they’re doing it, and you didn’t.

            Live with it, deal with it, own it. Nebraska has nothing to apologize in making the move they did. But don’t pretend the finger-pointing even as you were walking out the door wasn’t absolutely classless.

  135. Big Ten Jeff says:

    What a wonderful press conference Harvey Perlman (UNL Chancellor) is giving. Very graceful, humble and appreciative of being a new member of the Big Ten. Makes me proud of both sides for engaging.

    • Gobux says:

      Do you have a link?

    • Scott C says:

      I’m glad Perlman addressed all the accusations against Nebraska that the Big XII breaking up is somehow their fault. One school leaving a conference doesn’t break up a conference; six does. The ultamatum givin to Nebraska when that Pac-10 invitation was out there actually caused Nebraska to contact the Big Ten. Truly interesting. I’m sure we’ll get more in the Press conference in two hours.

      • Bullet says:

        It has to do with financial viability. One school leaving was replaceable. But I’m sure everyone knew CU was leaving. So NU was #2, making financial competitiveness problematic. And Mizzou clearly wanted to leave. All 3 would be difficult if not impossible to replace and remain competitive.

        • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

          I don’t think CU or Nebraska leaving vs their replacement (BYU …and I dunno) would be that big of a factor.

          Yes, change, yes, less, but if it makes the Big 12 financially uncompetitive, then that means it was that way BEFORE the teams left.

          • Bullet says:

            With the new contract, it might have very well been financially competitive. W/O CU and Mizzou, most of the population outside Texas is gone. W/O CU and NU, the 2 northern powers are gone. I don’t think B12 members blame NU and CU (especially CU which had nothing to do with TV$). They were doing what they thought was in their interests and weren’t bad-mouthing the rest of the conference in the process. But with those two, it probably would have done as well or better than the ACC.

  136. Playoffs Now! says:

    http://twitter.com/Andy_Staples

    Nebraska made first contact with Big Ten. 10 minutes ago via TweetDeck

  137. M says:

    Not sure why I find this so funny:
    http://twitter.com/Huskers

    “Twitter links that may be of interest to #Huskers fans today? @bigtenconf @BigTenNetwork #Nebraska #LNK #OMA #Big10 #NU”

  138. StvInILL says:

    Just got back home and heard the News. Congratulations to Nebraskans everywhere. This anticipated announcement is really about a marriage that WILL work. My heart goes out to those in Missouri. I feel that this conference is the most logical second home for you but time will tell.

    • StvInILL says:

      Another thing you Nebraskans. Your going to have to change your abbreviation as the one you use is already taken. :-). Welcome once again UN.

      • ChicagoRed says:

        UNL would be preferred since its not “taken”, and used in Nebraska, thanks

      • M says:

        I swear this blog is half lawyers and half Northwestern fans.

      • doogie says:

        well frank, so much for this entry, can’t win ‘em all, eh?

        I didn’t see Nebraska in your discussion above. that’s OK.

        Narcissistic Texas likes Texas a lot and wants a stacked deck to run things and it won’t b able to that in the PAC 10. I think they’ll stay in the Big 12, and maybe make a few consessions to make some crabby missourians happy. It’ll be interesting if the B12 will add 2 or stay put.

        I think they should go for 6 and raid the Moutain West of TCU, BYU, UNLV, New Mexico, SDSU,and new-comer Noisy State. If Texas A&M leaves, add Utah.

        We’ll know Tuesday what God allmighty Texas wants to do. When Texas speaks, people listen.

        • K says:

          Frank has said all along that if the Big Ten was to expand at all Nebraska was the surest bet.

          The current post was post all the Nebraska to Big Ten info came out.

      • Bullet says:

        IU really is Indiana University. However CU is U of Colorado, KU is U of Kansas and NU is U of Nebraska at Lincoln. Its a B8 oddity.

  139. Art Vandelay says:

    Please for