In football the Big Ten is falling behind not the Pac 10. Its a monkey see monkey do. SEC goes to 12 boom Big 12, MAC, BE 16, WAC failed 16. Conference title game makes $$$ brings in recruits. Count on the the Big 10 going to 12 within 2-3 years after the Pac 10 does, if they do. The Big Ten wants to be 12. ND just refuses to join.

Houston 3rd largest market in the US isn't in the Big 12 They don't have anyone in Dallas either. Why not Houston or TCU, maybe Colorado St. Arkansas seems like a pipe dream. BYU just seems too far west and I think would get a no vote from the other schools. Everyone has a boner for BYU cuz they're good right now. Big 12 is the Big 8 plus the SWC, Houston, TCU were SWC.

Panther, put your money where your mouth is. BYU gets in I'll stop posting, any of my 3 get in you stop posting. Houston, TCU belong in the B-12 just as much as BYU or Colorado St. PS the no sports on Sunday should kill any thought of BYU in the B-12 too. They couldn't even play in the Conf championship in bkball, its been on sunday forever! Comparing SDSU to TCU & Houston is like comparing Jamarcus Russell to Drew Brees and Peyton Manning.

How is the Big 10 falling behind? They can't win a big game, they bitch about the long layoff while others are playing a conference title game. Their arch rival conference just went to 12 leaving them as the only BCS conference w/ under 12. (BE is weird they have 16/8 FB) Remember this is all IF the pac-10 goes to 12. Like I said before the B-10 has been trying to get to 12 with ND. Then they finally started looking into Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse BEFORE the Pac-10 said anything.

Colorado would leave the Big XII in a heartbeat if it meant more revenue. And it could...

The Big XII is getting $60 million each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, an average of $5 mil each
The Pac 10 is getting about $43 mil each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, about $4.5 mil each

But the Big XII is paid out by appearance, not split equally. So Colorado, which doesn't get a ton of national games with their program down, could jump ship, because...

The Pac 10's deal is up first, after 2011. The Big XII is up after 2016. The Pac 10 could really drop the hammer on the Big XII if they can get a deal lined up and steal a Big XII market. There's actually talk of the ACC and Pac 10 becoming joint partners in a national TV network for their two conferences.

Let's say that happens. They'd definitely want Denver and it's 2.5 million people (#21 market) to get the biggest TV coverage possible.

Then, in theory, it would be between UNLV (#30 Las Vegas, 1.8 mil) or Utah (#49 Salt Lake, 1.1), with Utah probably getting the nod because so many Las Vegans are transplants and Utah would bring almost the whole state making them a wash.

Of course, there is absolutely ZERO reason why the should not take a shot at the big dog. Someone who could bring in
over 14 million households to their network, including the #4, #6 and #36 markets. That's of course, Texas.

Would Texas listen? I think they could

There's also the caveat of ESPN's new LA branch. Does anyone think that an ESPN West channel is out of the question?

Imagine ESPN launching a new Pacific time zone channel. If the Pac 10 were smart, they'd be calling ESPN and advocating it left and right. The Pac 10 could cash in on that, and Colorado/Texas would really help that channel spread a bit east to the Central time zone. Texas might jump because of the new TV deal bringing in much higher revenues for the next five years, being the marquee member of the league TV wise (their home games could also be on ESPN/ABC's East stations) and

Then the domino would be what the Big 12 does. I'd think they'd have to target Notre Dame/Illinois first, then look at Utah, Colorado State, etc.

Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.

I wonder if UC ever did move to the Pac 10, if the WCC would try to capitalize on that as well by adding Denver. You'd have more TV eyes used to west coast games with the Colorado exposure and Denver could likely get in front of the next tier of eyeballs.

Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.

Penn St was 1992. I'm saying if the Pac 10 Expands then the Big will go to 12. If they don't they still might. I believe I added Colorado St. w/ Texas. My point is the Big 8/SWC made the B12 if not Houston, TCU, Colorado St. then who They won't get all crazy with the footprint like the WAC. What do they add? How bout schools that can play football better than most of the B-12 north and Baylor, Texas A&M. Why argue for a school like BYU who you say isn't in the pic because of religion? That's like me saying Boise St. belongs in the Big East. they're good enough but it aint gonna happen why waste time posting it. Big 10 forever down? They aren't bottom but they aren't near the top. No I don't see it changing for a while. Yeah yeah USC plays UCLA in dec. is that really equal to Alabama vs Florida, NO. If you have the top 2 play at end it really helps give the winner a shot at the title. Not just blind hope that UCLA will be in 2nd to USC in Dec. Ohio St. vs. Michigan in Dec would have helped them none last year.

While both Colorado and Texas "turned down" the Pac-10, the world was quite different.

Texas didn't so much turn down the the Pac-10, as much as they flirted and nothing ever came about. They looked at it, and thought it desirable. However, Stanford was opposed to Texas, and the Pac-10 needed unanimous approval, so there was never an invite from the Pac-10.

The Southwest Conference featured all the Texas teams except UTEP; and Texas' impending departure from the SWC turned political. The upper echelon of the state governors office and legislature were mostly Baylor/Tech grads, including a state senator on the finance committee. They threatened to slash funding for Texas and A&M if they left the SWC without Baylor and Tech.

One difference is that now Baylor & Tech would have their future still secure. The Big XII would not be in danger of dying like the SWC was without Arkansas, Texas and A&M. Don't get me wrong, there'd definitely be flack. But not the same political flack as before. Of the Texas State legislature, seven Texas alums equal the number of alums of Tech, A&M and Baylor combined. And those 14 are less than number of members who attended other schools. The head of the finance committee now is a Pan Am grad.


The dollar value for a Texas/Pac-12 TV deal is too great for the Pac 12 not to TRY (if they felt additional teams were necessary for TV).

Texas would be a GREAT way to give the Pac-10 an "eastern television" tie. The Big XII's main advantage over the Pac-10 in TV revenue is the fact that the time zones make it difficult for the Pac-10 be a national product for ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/ESPN. Texas would give them potentially four football and eight men's basketball CONFERENCE games that can easily on East Coast Prime Time TV.

But basically, Texas and the Pac-12 can work, and help the Pac-10 rise above the Big XII and closer to the SEC/Big Ten in terms of revenue.

The big question is "does Texas need the Pac-10?"

Well, quite honestly, Texas is doing quite well because the Big XII has a TV revenue sharing policy that distributes money to the teams on TV the most. That's Texas. However, as a whole, the Big XII TV picture is neck and neck with the Pac-10 for third place. The Big Ten/SEC TV deals have created a substantial gap between those two and the other four "power conferences."

The SEC is at about $15-17 million per school in their new billion dollar deal with ESPN/CBS
The Big Ten is at about $14 million per school with their new deals with ESPN/CBS/Big Ten Network
Notre Dame is at $11-13 million between NBC and their Big East hoops deal.
The ACC checks in at $7 million or so.
The Pac 10, Big 12 and Big East are all at about $4-7 million

That's got the ACC and Pac 10 considering a Joint TV network so they can get the channel on both coasts and the time zones will allow plenty of coverage.

The ACC and Pac 10's TV deals are up after 2010-11. The Big XII has to wait until 2016.

So basically, now is the pretty much the ideal time for the Pac 10 to pounce. Do I think Colorado would go to the Pac-10? Maybe. Do I think they go if Texas is ready, willing and able? Heck yeah.


While both Colorado and Texas "turned down" the Pac-10, the world was quite different.

Texas didn't so much turn down the the Pac-10, as much as they flirted and nothing ever came about. They looked at it, and thought it desirable. However, Stanford was opposed to Texas, and the Pac-10 needed unanimous approval, so there was never an invite from the Pac-10.

The Southwest Conference featured all the Texas teams except UTEP; and Texas' impending departure from the SWC turned political. The upper echelon of the state governors office and legislature were mostly Baylor/Tech grads, including a state senator on the finance committee. They threatened to slash funding for Texas and A&M if they left the SWC without Baylor and Tech.

One difference is that now Baylor & Tech would have their future still secure. The Big XII would not be in danger of dying like the SWC was without Arkansas, Texas and A&M. Don't get me wrong, there'd definitely be flack. But not the same political flack as before. Of the Texas State legislature, seven Texas alums equal the number of alums of Tech, A&M and Baylor combined. And those 14 are less than number of members who attended other schools. The head of the finance committee now is a Pan Am grad.


The dollar value for a Texas/Pac-12 TV deal is too great for the Pac 12 not to TRY (if they felt additional teams were necessary for TV).

Texas would be a GREAT way to give the Pac-10 an "eastern television" tie. The Big XII's main advantage over the Pac-10 in TV revenue is the fact that the time zones make it difficult for the Pac-10 be a national product for ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/ESPN. Texas would give them potentially four football and eight men's basketball CONFERENCE games that can easily on East Coast Prime Time TV.

But basically, Texas and the Pac-12 can work, and help the Pac-10 rise above the Big XII and closer to the SEC/Big Ten in terms of revenue.

The big question is "does Texas need the Pac-10?"

Well, quite honestly, Texas is doing quite well because the Big XII has a TV revenue sharing policy that distributes money to the teams on TV the most. That's Texas. However, as a whole, the Big XII TV picture is neck and neck with the Pac-10 for third place. The Big Ten/SEC TV deals have created a substantial gap between those two and the other four "power conferences."

The SEC is at about $15-17 million per school in their new billion dollar deal with ESPN/CBS
The Big Ten is at about $14 million per school with their new deals with ESPN/CBS/Big Ten Network
Notre Dame is at $11-13 million between NBC and their Big East hoops deal.
The ACC checks in at $7 million or so.
The Pac 10, Big 12 and Big East are all at about $4-7 million

That's got the ACC and Pac 10 considering a Joint TV network so they can get the channel on both coasts and the time zones will allow plenty of coverage.

The ACC and Pac 10's TV deals are up after 2010-11. The Big XII has to wait until 2016.

So basically, now is the pretty much the ideal time for the Pac 10 to pounce. Do I think Colorado would go to the Pac-10? Maybe. Do I think they go if Texas is ready, willing and able? Heck yeah.

Conference networks are the way to go to make up revenue. I'm not sure if Texas BY ITSELF would be able to get any newly created Pac 12 network in Texas for the REVENUE that they want. Texas has a huge state and national following. I'm sure the Pac 10 would have done their homework in order to determine this. If the Big 12 loses the state of Texas, they are in big trouble as they lose 33% of the conferences TV sets. They would only have KC, St. Louis and possibly Denver (if TA&M is invited over Colorado) as big media markets.