I came across some pages from the old website, ncaasports.netfirms.com.

These were the old "Scenarios" pages I created that led to the creation of CollegeSportsInfo.com.

From September 2000:

Take a look...

http://web.archive.org/web/200502090457 ... m/idea.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/200502090457 ... /ideaa.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/200502090457 ... /ideab.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/200502090457 ... /ideac.htm

_________________


@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 amazing thing to look at there is how everyone assumed geography meant a hell of a lot more than it really does.

The biggest factors in the ACC expansion fallout was simply: Market size, football competitiveness, and basketball competitiveness.

Geography hardly mattered.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

Very true, though I'm wondering if some conferences aren't wondering if they should have factored in geography a slight bit more, considering the gas situation last summer and the economic problems now.

Turns out geography HAS played a bit of a part. Some logical moves based on other motives did go through where geography was a benefit.

Colorado and Utah to the Pac-10 for example. Miami and VA Tech to the ACC...only the BC addition made less sense based on geography. CUSA made their Texas focused change. Big Ten went with bordering Nebraska, although their 1st choice was Notre Dame. Even now, SEC is adding TAMU, not far from LSU.

The kicker would be a Pac-16 with Texas and Oklahoma schools. THAT would really put the geographical aspect aside.

_________________


@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.

You were pretty big on UTEP back then. Scenario B looks like your best. But you were like me, I never really considered Nebraska to the Big 10. But looking back I don't know why I didn't. It seems to obvious now, they are a perfect fit.

But anyway, my question to you, does UTEP get a serious look still?

For the MWC, sure, if they lost schools, CUSA lost schools, or MWC went to 16. Gotta think that UTEP would make the move if TCU hadn't left, same with Houston. Instead, both passed citing lack of interest. But, gotta think if 16 happened across the board, that the MWC would need to do something to make a play to keep up (since they likely wouldnt' lose any schools to BCS conferences).

As for 10 years ago, the Big 12 was new and strong. Colorado and Nebraska were the powers, more so than Texas an Oklahoma. So if never looked like they would be so raided other than Missouri, which does fit in better with the Big Ten.

Fast forward a decade and wow. Things change. Big 12 is still stronger than two other BCS conferences yet it's the one poised to fold. Go figure.

_________________


@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.

No, I meant UTEP to the Big 12 (assuming of course the Big 12 survives). You made good points back then. And even though their attendance is down a bit lately, it's still very good. Not to mention, if they got into the Big 12, their attendance would shoot up again. If Texas won't give up their network, bringing in UTEP, BYU, and Air Force would be pretty good. Boise could join now if Missouri left too.

At this point, who knows if there will even be a Big 12 next week.

_________________


@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.