It would be very easy for the SEC, Big Ten, Pac Ten, and ACC to put the Big Twelve, Big East, and Mountain West out of business:

SEC: Take Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to bring them up to 16.

BIG TEN: Take Kansas, Missouri, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, and Syracuse to bring them up to 16.

PAC TEN: Take Boise State, UNLV, BYU, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico to bring them up to 16.

ACC: Take Connecticut, Rutgers, West Virginia, and Louisville to bring them up to 16 teams.

That would leave the Big Twelve with 5 teams, the Big East with 1 team, and the Mountain West with 5 teams.

First, regarding Texas, I see geography and distance getting underplayed too frequently. Not all sports teams travel to meets/competition via commerical airlines and charter flights. If Texas is so "academic" as professed, cutting into student-athlete class time has to be an elevated concern. Athletes missing a considerable number of classes is a problem/concern on many campuses from all divisions. While such does not get leaked to the media often, and most may not even care about class-time factors; it's a school's faculty that express the alarms, at varying levels. This is evident even though many ballplayers are placed in accommodating majors and classes with "friendly" professors and have a network of tutors, skills specialists, and advisors at their disposal. Many AAU schools are no exception.
Second, due to weather variations, certain sports such as baseball would be highly impacted. Seasons have different starting dates due to weather conditions; and a school will access adaptability/compatability for all its sports, not just football.
Third, if the right bridge schools are brought along (not necessarily an easy task in itself), Texas may be more compatible with the Pac10 than the B10 in certain dimensions. I still think chances are high Texas makes no move. However, if Texas did move without Texas A&M, it would be no suprise to see Texas A&M, soon afterwards, ending up in the SEC, particularly if the Big10 and/or Pac10 reach beyond 12. Adding TA&M to the SEC west, and someone like WVU to the SEC east, would not be particularly shocking if expansion senarios unfolded a certain way. The B10 and Pac10 may just do the "12 thing", and both the BE and B12 survive with replacements from the pecking order.

Good to see you posting, akwart!

I love your SEC lineup...makes sense for that conference
For the Big Ten, I think Nebraska or even Iowa St would be better fits than Cincy. And I think Rutgers might be a stronger candidate than Pitt.
For the Pac-10, Utah and Colorado make sense for everyone. After that, I don't think there are 4 schools that fit the Pac-10 model. I actually think they'd make a stronger push for Kansas, Nebraska, and that region than say Boise St. BYU and New Mexico certainly come into play when talking about the Pac-10 expanding by 6.
ACC: I think a move to 14 would be the first move...with UConn and Pitt (or Syracuse, Rutgers depending on which of the 4 schools are available). After that, it's up in the air. Is it in their best interest to go to 16 with Louisville and WVU? Maybe if they feel they NEED to goto 16.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

SEC,

Oddly enough, the travel issue would simply put Texas on par with many of the other conferences. For instance, LA to Washington St. is 1400 miles. Uconn/Syracuse to USF is a trek. Even Missouri to Texas A&M is. Texas in the Pac-14 would have some fairly quick trips like to AZ, AZst LA, SF, Ut and Co. In the Big Ten, Penn St. and Mn. are the longest trips.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Point true, indeed, Quinn. Some schools such as Hawaii & Miami will do more than their share of travel regardless of the conference in which they are affiliated. Washington State too, Colorado somewhat, in terms of any BCS conference. BC, USF, LA Tech, and perhaps a few others made their choices because, in weighing all options, the alternatives were seen as less desirable. That does not mean they don't have internal complaints when it comes to travel. LA Tech has been open about it at times.
Western schools don't have much of a choice, but there are certain closer clusters (CSU, AF & WY, maybe even UNM, using the same I-25 interstate) & (BYU, UTAH).
Texas which have close, traditional rivals, would consider this factor deeply in the decision-making process, assuming they would be asked.
One of the great positives for the B10 and SEC, is that membership is regional, connected, and include other rational commonalities. I am not so sure the B10 intends to deviate from that.

All true, sec.

Look at the Hawaii example. They spent $2 million on travel last year. So if they moved from Conference A to Conference B and would make $4 million move a year and total travel costs would be $2.5 million, they'd profit by an additional $1.5 million. That's alot of drachma!

So geography seems so irrelevant these days. LA Tech is in the WAC, a non-BCS conference, but remain there over the Sunbelt. If they were bleeding money due to that decision, they'd be out.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

That's a good point. Driving to Lubbock would be longer (time wise) than flying to Seattle.

Texas flies most of its teams anyway. And flights to LA, San Fran, Phoenix, Seattle are easier than Lincoln, Lawrence, and Ames.

The easy Texas trips are to Baylor and Texas A&M; they would certainly play the latter regardless of conference affiliation.

Texas to the Big 10 would mean trips to small airports (generally).

Report from Badger country(previously posted in another thread) where Barry Alvarez says Texas is NOT on initial list of Big Ten expansion candidates.Link at http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/84822917.html

Article(previously posted in another thread) out of Dallas with comments from Big 12 Commish regarding trying to keep league members happy so they don't end up in other conferences.Link at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 12cc0.html

well I hope they keep Texas happy but I hope Colorado isn't otherwise the PAC 10 won't expand. Is there any Chance the PAC 10 would pull a Big 10 and just add Utah and wait for Colorado to change their mind, if they don't just settle for the next best thing?

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

The last thing we need is another 11 team conference.

The trend I've noticed in the media, from the radio phoners I've done the past 2 weeks, is that there is a very large sense of failure by the B12 leadership. It was very noticeable on the calls to College Station, Grand Junction CO, and Austin. And it's easy to agree. The TV contract being low despite having such a high "A list" school like Texas, and the inequality in revenue sharing. I wonder if it were a $78 million contract but split an even 12 ways if that would be the case. But when the "little guys" are making less, it's easy for them to show displeasure.

The questions the B12 schools need to ask is are they better to work together in solidarity now, or to find the best deal for each school? Even with the SEC having a TV deal, there's still nothing to stop them from starting a network to highlight other sports. It's not like EVERY basketball and football came are televised right now. And expanding to 14 or even 16 with the Texas and Oklahoma combos might be something they consider. The Pac-10 obviously has interest in Colorado. Missouri a fit for the Big Ten. But then there are Nebraska and Kansas. Either sschool would be a decent fit in the Pac-10 (if CU joined) or the Big Ten (even without Missouri, but Missouri would seem to top the list).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. And it does seem like the Pac-10 NEEDS a TV network of their own to stay on par. Without the income, it would be hard to put together an invite to potential #13-#16 schools that owuld be on par with the SEC or Big Ten.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

a great question. I wonder if adding just the SLC/Utah market would be enough of a revenue boost for it to make sense. You gotta figure the Pac-10 will get "estimates" on their worth for a new TV deal as 10 members, as well as scenarios with Colorado, and Utah. So if the revenue per school were to go up with only Utah, I'm sure they'd do it. But that's the big question: would the Pac-10 be better off with just 10 schools vs 11?

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

The plan would still be 12. But lets say in 2012 Utah is added and by 2014 Colorado still says no they take whoever the next best option is.

I hope Colorado and Utah just say yes and join.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Good point, Fresno.

Even if a school is targeted, and hopes to say yes, it could be a couple of years or so till there is the transition.

Colorado and Utah seem to be the prime targets. Assuming the B10 goes first with expansion, and at least one B12 is selected, it may give Colorado even more motivation to head for the PAC10.

The PAC10 currently have all their schools in "pairs", including when Arizona & ASU were added. Of course, there is nothing to prevent them from doing the additions different. Since expansion is in the air for the PAC10, it would seem prudent for them to go ahead and do "12" rather than add just one, and have to make more adjustments later. Also by going to 12, it puts them in line per numbers with most other BCS conferences, and gives them options for the championship game and divisional play. Financially, it seems 12 provides the threshold for more financial options, i. e. bowl deals, and CCG.

If Texas is really that powerful, could they structure a revised B12 around themselves? Perhaps, if a solid core remains intact. The PAC10 and B10 may just look at B12 north schools, and the PAC10 may just look at Colorado. And if the B10 just added one, it could be a BE school.

The B12 could end up being more homogeneous and lose little in the overall scope of the changes. If all current Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas schools are held onto, and they only have to replace 1 to 3, very workable replacements could be found.