Good point about UT, though I think with the big 2 from Texas the SEC money would be well beyond what the SEC is currently earning. That might make up for some of the losses due to greater travel distances. I think the SEC would probably form a Western conference with UT, A&M, Vandy, LSU, Arkansas, and Tennessee (Miss St. is left out because the SEC would have to have a couple of openings for the Texas teams to join). Eastern conference would (or at least should) be Bama, Auburn, UGA, UF, Ole Miss, and UK. UT would only have three eastern games. I guess the travel costs would spike, but I think the new conference TV deal and the ratings would through the roof. OU couldn't afford to drop them from an OOC schedule for recruiting purposes, so they could keep that rivalry going if they wanted. I suspect they'd make more money this way, and the SEC would probably restructure the conference payouts to accomodate them, with division winners taking home a higher share of conference proceeds or something similar to that. Maybe bowl teams getting a higher cut.

Maybe you're right about the costs. I also wonder about Tennessee, Arkansas, etc., getting greater access to Texas recruits. Not sure how much that would hurt UT and A&M. But I'm sure the tv deal and the title game would bring ungodly money into the conference, since most years you'd have Tennessee or Texas playing UF or Bama in the SEC title game (on bad year, Auburn vs. A&M or Arkansas would still be big). And in hoops with Texas becoming a national power, you'd have Texas lined up against UK in the SEC title game, barring upset. God knows UK needs the competition.

Zebbie, Mizzou wouldn't be giving up trips to KU if they played them OOC. Mizzou would be giving up trips to ISU, NU, OU, Ok St., to go to OSU, Minn, PSU, Mich, Wisc.
With the exception of ISU though, I don't think there's too much of a difference in travel to OSU, Minn, PSU, etc than there is to NU, OU, etc.


While I'm not sold on UT going to the SEC, I have heard some rumblings from UT fans that they are not happy with the Big 12's tv contract. In fact, these same UT fans said that the tv contract is what might cause them to bolt for the SEC. Now there's something to think about. FYI Zebbie, the University of Texas is in the same time zone as the half of the SEC (Central). I believe TTU is on Mountain, but UT is not.

And don't forget a few other things....

BU/Tech politcal lobby is what sealed the deal in terms of getting into the Big12. Though not as powerful now as it was when the Big12 was formed, the Speaker of the House is a Tech grad... We have several other Sr. legislative members.

Tech is is a big game for ut & aTm. Tech is a bigger rival in basketball for ut than aTm, especially in women's ball and with the addition of Bob Knight. Lubbock, though 9 hours from CS and 7-8 from Austin is only five from DFW. Plus it has Southwest Airlines. That's closer than most SEC teams. OU & oSu are reasonable drives for a good portion of the state.

BU is an easy win and 90 miles away from aTm & UT.

The main reason for ut & aTm's discontent with the SWC was that Rice, TCU, UH, SMU were poor draws, yet when ut & aTm would go to those respective schools, that would be their biggest game.

Also, ut & aTm were losing recruits b/c the state's best were leaving for better conferences. Now ut & aTm have put together classes that are heads & shoulders above what they used to do.

I think attendance will improve as the Big12 matures. Just about every program has added at least $30 million worth of stadium upgrades.

I hope the Big12 lasts for a long, long time. I think every school has benefitted since its inception. Sure, some have reaped more than others. Actually, I think this would be a wildcard.... Neb. to the Big10. Geographically, it would be a good fit, tho I have heard that Neb. is not academically strong enough for the Big10. Neb. has not recruited Texas as well as it could have and has slipped quite a bit in terms of football. they might be a little discontent with ut grabbing all the limelight.

No doubt. In fact, I expected to see a comment about this sooner or later. That may be the only thing keeping the Big 12 from completely disintegrating. However, I do see a few ways around this, but I'll save them for another post.


While Nebraska may not like UT getting so much press, the Cornhuskers don't really have a whole lot of options. The only way I see the Huskers getting into the Big 10 is if the Big 10 fails to get ND, Missouri, or Pittsburgh. (ACCNole has me convinced that UP is #3 on the B10's list. ;D ). When the Big Ten gets to that point, they will be desperate, like the SEC was back in '92, to get a member, any member, to reach 12.

RE: mizzou.... For the rev. generating sports, the extra miles might be justified, but not for women's golf or tennis... Big10 would be a push at best for them. They might get a little boost in academic affiliation, but they'd lose the Texas TV market and recruiting base.

Not sure why you think the Big12 is so destined to fall apart. Our TV contract is second only to the SEC. It's a pretty good fit geographically for everyone involved, especially the way it's divided into the north and the south. Just about every school's athletic budget has at least doubled since formation. We are very strong all the revenue generating sports. Can the Big12 disband? Sure. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could give reasons as to why each league may or may not stick together.

TTU is in Central Time zone. Only CU is in mountain. So they'd be giving up six games for eastern time zone. I don't think they'd be interested. As for ut fans not happy with the TV contract, I'm sure everybody in the Big12 would like to have the number one contract. With all the scandals going on in the SEC I doubt they would want to be affiliated with that league any time soon. On top of that, part of the reason ut even thought about going to the PAC10 back in the days of the SWC was because they wanted to be associated academically with the likes of Stanford, UCLA, USC etc.... They never even considered the SEC b/c they did NOT want to lower their admissions policy to their level. Indeed, part of the deal with the Big12 was that we'd only accept one partial qualifier. That was on UT's insistance.

I think that the Big 12 is set for as many years as there is a BCS. Everyone is pretty happy the way it is. Oh, Baylor is pretty weak in football now but that will change. Remember, Kansas State was once a doormat and they can definitely handle themselves now.

If the Big Ten does actually add a team it will likely be Pitt. Big rival with Penn State and inside the current boundaries. Of course, IMO Penn State and Pittsburgh should both be in the Big East but money talks.

If by some miracle the Big 12 should lose a team, I'd look at Arkansas as the replacement. Good attendance, great facilities, closer rivalries and shorter travel distance than most any possible replacement.

I think that the Big 12 is set for as many years as there is a BCS. Everyone is pretty happy the way it is. Oh, Baylor is pretty weak in football now but that will change. Remember, Kansas State was once a doormat and they can definitely handle themselves now.

If the Big Ten does actually add a team it will likely be Pitt. Big rival with Penn State and inside the current boundaries. Of course, IMO Penn State and Pittsburgh should both be in the Big East but money talks.

If by some miracle the Big 12 should lose a team, I'd look at Arkansas as the replacement. Good attendance, great facilities, closer rivalries and shorter travel distance than most any possible replacement.

JFin, big difference between K-State and Baylor. K-State is a public school and can use state funds to help with football. Baylor must rely on private donations. It's a lot harder to win at a private school than a public school. This is not only true at the college level, but at the high school level too. I know this because I used to attend a private high school (Grace Bible Academy), and if we dared to challenge one of the big public schools in Dothan in basketball (Northview or Dothan High), we would get blown out. Private schools tend to be MUCH smaller than public schools. Same goes for private colleges vs public colleges, although I'm sure there's some exceptions to that rule.


While I won't argue that Pitt could be a possibility for the Big Ten, I will argue with you JFin, that Pitt is the front runner for the 12th spot in the Big Ten. While Pitt is a state school (much like Temple), Pitt is easily dwarfed by a giant state school like Missouri. Also, the Big Ten could pick up some new markets like St. Louis or KC, but if they get Pitt, it would be like the Big 12 adding SMU should Colorado leave. Both are dumb moves, IMO. Just like Texas, TAMU, & OU carry the DFW market, PSU carries the Pittsburgh market. See now why I'm not too hot on Pitt to the Big Ten???


Ok, JFin, repeat after me: Arkansas is NOT going to the Big 12. Arkansas is not going to the Big 12. Not now, not ever. While Arkansas DOES want to renew some of its rivalries with former SWC mates, it really does want to be in the same conference as them again. As for Arkansas getting the shaft this year by the SEC, that's load of baloney for two reasons:
1. The SEC does not control who the bowls pick. Bowls with SEC tie-ins pick who they want. If Arkansas has gripes with SEC tie-in bowls, they need to send their gripes to the bowl committees of SEC tie-in bowls, not the SEC commissioner's office. Arkansas would have a legitimate gripe with the SEC front office if they won the conference title and got sent to the Music City Bowl. The SEC Champion is always supposed to go to the BCS. After that though, bowl selection is really out of the SEC's hands.
2. A couple of the teams that were picked ahead of Arkansas for better bowls, Auburn and LSU, played better OOC scheds than Arkansas did. To Auburn's credit, they actually scheduled at least one decent OOC opponent, Southern Cal. Turned out to be great matchup too!! Plus, Auburn is a great draw for any Florida bowl. I'm not entirely sure about this, but doesn't Arkansas not draw too well down in Florida??Also, to LSU's credit, they also scheduled one decent OOC opponent, Virginia Tech. LSU lost that game, but they did play a tough OOC opponent, and I'm sure the Cotton Bowl took that into consideration. Another thing that probably hurt Arkansas this year is that they got to go to the Cotton Bowl last year and they have faced Texas in the Cotton Bowl recently (back in either 2000 or 2001). Bowls hate rematches.
A much more likely candidate for the Big 12, JFin, is BYU, for reasons that I've already stated earlier in this thread.

I am not a BYU fan, so here are two things to remember in any "BYU goes here or there" scenario:

#1: The Big 12 frequently plays championship events on Sunday, as well as other games. BYU will not, under any circumstances, play on Sunday.

#2: The PAC 10 was formed from major research universities. While BYU is itself a Carnagie "Research Intensive-Doctoral" level university, the kind of research it does is not considered in the same class as that conducted by all of the schools of the PAC 10. That is the main reason their application has been rejected without dissent in the past, and will be again.

While everybody likes to think conferences are all about football, they were formed first for academics. That's why the president's call the shots, not the athletic directors. If you really want to have a legitimate discussion of conference realignments, you need to start thinking, and basing your discussions on what the President's say.

Two things, VOR:
1. College presidents rarely say anything about realignment. Has UL's president said anything about going to the Big East? No. Have the Big East presidents said anything about expansion? No.
Therefore, you could say that nothing is going at UL or in the BE.
2. If you will search this forum, you will find out I am very anti-BYU to the Pac 10, and very pro-BYU to the Big 12. While it is true that BYU will not play on Sundays, if the Big 12 truly wanted BYU, they would make accommodations for them. Same thing goes for the Big East and ND, although the BE has been making the wrong kind of accommodations for ND lately, and not the correct kind of accommodations. The move to eliminate the divisions in basketball is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Zebbie,

Great point about UT and academics. That (allegedly) was one of Mackovic's biggest problems recruiting at UT. I'm not stupid enough to think that UT doesn't sneak some meatheads in, but I think they probably have similar football recruiting standards to Notre Dame. Now that UT us winning big some alums will definitely try to finesse their way around those standards, but relative to most of the schools in the SEC, UT has pretty high standards even for its athletic programs. They'd be at a major disadvantage (or at least they'd claim to be) in the SEC. Ofcourse it's not like Oklahoma, Nebraska, or K State have academic standards for their football programs any higher than some of the worst teams in the SEC, but it's a safe bet UT would dnd some sort of reform if they ever joined the SEC, if only to put themselves in position to keep recruits in state.

Re: Big 12 disintegrating

I don't think it's highly probable that this will happen, but I do think that the two teams most likely to leave (aside from Mizzou or Iowa St. maybe heading to the Big 10) are the two teams that the Big 12 cannot afford to lose. If Texas and A&M go, they're done. The Old Big 8 could maybe go with a 10 member conference, and maybe they'd consider teams like CSU or TCU, but I don't think they'd survive as a 12 member conference.

DawgNDuck,

You aren't too far from my neck of the woods (I'm from the Redneck Rviera originally). Glad I've finally sold a few people on the possibility of the Pitt scenario, though like you said, there are negatives as well. Pitt could be the Big 10's Miami. Not as much of a draw on tv nationally as Miami, but still an interesting team and potentially a huge power program in both sports, but despite arguably being the best porgram in their home state, they are second fiddle in terms of fan support by a wide margin (similar to Miami having 1/10th the fan support of FSU or UF). Not a perfect analogy by any means, but my point is, Miami isn't a Texas or UF or even an FSU, but almost any program would be glad to have them. Pitt brings high level programs in both sports in a large market (even if it is PSU dominated). Pitt alone may not be ahuge Pennsylvania draw, but I think meaningful Pitt/PSU games would be a much bigger draw than the PSU/Mich St. COuld be wrong though, just a guess.

VoiceofReason,

In line with your point about Presidents calling the shots, they do keep some of the football folks in line, but often the tension between boosters and AD's on one side and President's on the other builds until a school has to choose one way or another, and if the decision bites the school in the butt, they do a 180 turn. I think some President's, like the prez at Miami, try to keep everyone happy to avoid this tension.

The President (he may be a Chancellor, forgot his title) at Pitt is from Big 10 territory and graduated from a Big 10 grad school. He seems to be trying to push Pitt into the future, both in sports and in academics. If he sees more room for development as an institution in the Big 10, he might go. The BE is a good fit for them right now in sports, but it doesn't offer much a to a school that might like to develop along Big 10 lines. Pitt may have different long range institutional plans than the Villanova's, Georgetown's, Miami's, etc. I think WVU and Va Tech would jump at the chance to join the ACC, but the ACC (most schools anyway) doesn't want them.

Re: Big 10 Expansion

From what I've heard Syracuse, Missouri, ND, Iowa St., AND Nebraska have all snubbed previous Big 10 invites. I don't think Nebraska will ever join, the style of play would kill them. The Big 10 can shut down the option. They'd be 7-4 every year. That's why I think it'll boil down to Pitt, or PSU leaving. That, or ND will shock everyone and join.

ACCNole, I did some searching on the so-called Penn State-Michigan State rivalry. In truth, I really believe it does not exist. I also read a great article about the Penn State-Pittsburgh rivalry. From what I heard, it sounded a lot like Alabama vs Auburn or at least Georgia vs Georgia Tech. Probably closer to the latter than the former. Most people in Ga agree that the Dawgs are the dominant in-state team, and GT is no Texas, UF, FSU, or even an Alabama. However, UGa and GT still hate each other, and a majority of the games are very, very good. Lot of emotion on both sides. I think PSU-Pitt is a lot like that. Big PSU majority, but the games are very competitive. PSU fans claim that the Big Ten won't allow them to play a non-conference game at the end of the season. That is baloney, because both Iowa and Michigan have played Hawaii before at the end of the regular season, and last time I checked, Hawaii wasn't in the Big Ten. I think the real reason PSU doesn't want to play this game is that it wants to separate itself from the rest of the schools in the state and create a UTn-like in-state monopoly. That's dumb, and just isn't going to work. Both the schools fight over recruits anyway, why not duke it out on the football field too?? I'm surprised Pittsburgh hasn't taken this matter to the state legislature. They could force Penn State to play Pittsburgh, since both are state institutions.

I agree that in state rivalries are grand - but I would have to disagree with you on two points - first, one school can dominate a state (eg. the University of Arkansas or Nebraska University) - also, at the UA, there has been mention many times of our playing Arkansas State University (Sun Belt Conference) - we have refused to do so - I think this is good in that we have nothing to gain from it - on the other hand, I think it would be fun to play them (ASU) in Little Rock and would enhance their program - one of our state legislators actually tried to pass a bill requiring such, but most people were ticked off and felt the govt. has no right to try to tell schools who they should schedule - I tend to agree with that, but as the legislature is the one to allocate the $, they could make the argument that keeping the money instate for another game would be a plus - Arkansan

Nebraska has been able to dominate Nebraska simply because no other schools in the state wanted to start football teams to compete with the Huskers, or starting a Div IA team was too cost prohibitive.
Same deal with Arkansas, until Arkansas State came along.


Hmm, really touchy issue here. No, I'm not an Ark St. fan, but I'm a fan of school similar to Ark St. :Troy State.
I'll just put it like this for now: the gate receipts from a Ark-Ark St. game would be a lot less than the gate receipts for a WVU vs Marshall game.

Nebraska has been able to dominate Nebraska simply because no other schools in the state wanted to start football teams to compete with the Huskers, or starting a Div IA team was too cost prohibitive.
Same deal with Arkansas, until Arkansas State came along.


Hmm, really touchy issue here. No, I'm not an Ark St. fan, but I'm a fan of school similar to Ark St. :Troy State.
I'll just put it like this for now: the gate receipts from a Ark-Ark St. game would be a lot less than the gate receipts for a WVU vs Marshall game.