The Colorado-Utah school thing was supposed to be done when the Big 8 and SWC merged. The Utah school (I think it was supposed to be BYU) got bumped for one of the Tech/Baylor appeasements. So, when the PAC-16 thing crumbled, the "obvious partner" for Colorado was Utah.

I suspect that if the "pair" thing is going to happen, and if CSU is eventually bound for the PAC, Utah will be paired with a non-Utah school.

I'm not entirely certain Utah's future in the PAC is a long one, and the unfortunate bit is...I think they would have been a better Big XII school anyway, and may have helped keep the old Big XII stable.

PAC12 does have a tradition of having members in "pairs". CSU could get there at some point. USU would have a couple of decades of development to do. BYU isn't going to change enough for it. In a super-conference situation, OU-OSU or UK-KSU is conceivable.

When the PAC12 alledgedly turned down a petition from OU-OSU right before the B12 got more stabilized, one wonders if that was a regretable mistake on the PAC12's part? Outside of a compliant Texas being a part of it, OU-OSU is a pretty good combo, noting that little else would be appealing in-between.

Well, it's the intentions of the incoming schools. Was the PAC the Oklahoma schools' endgame? What happened if Texas never followed them, and Oklahoma held the rest of the conference hostage with the Texas game, which compromising in ANY way was not going to happen?

I know tk is likely to disagree, but I think the PAC wants more say in who they get rather than being held by the schools wanting in. That's the price of doing business with Texas and Oklahoma. You're getting additional schools you wouldn't take on their own. To some extent, that's fine...but if expansion does have a ceiling, do you turn out other schools, like Kansas, Air Force, Hawaii, or Colorado State who could become very good PAC-like schools for institutions who are more just "happy to be here" and contribute little to the field. I don't think the PAC wants OSU and Tech. One might be acceptable if need be...two is no longer going to happen.

Apply it to the Big XII, and it's why they likely won't expand. We kind of knew West Virginia is only there because it's the best place they can actually be, but no other school is like them in that respect who wouldn't have their own demands (BYU) who add value to the conference. Who's of worth that you'd actually WANT in your conference? The Big XII has made that clear: Pitt, Arkansas, Air Force, BYU, FSU, and Clemson. None of them are biting, and the door isn't open to the remaining SWC schools or Tulane (yet).

The PAC12 turning down OU/OSU had a lot of different factors going into it.

The 4 Cal schools didn't really want 14 because it would make it extremely difficult for them to play each other every year.

One of either Utah or Colorado would be pushed to the North meaning no annual trips to LA.

And most of the other schools would rathers play more games in Cali than travel to the state of Oklahoma.

NTM that OkSU's academics are sub par (like OrSU, WSU, and ASU) and OU's are not exactly that great either (just got tier 1 status and not AAU), and they just added Utah (also not AAU) so the smarty schools like Cal/Stanford weren't crazy about it.

What's this about the Texas/OU holding the conference hostage? Do you mean them waiting on Texas to join or the annual Red River fb game in the Cotton bowl. If you mean the fb game, every year USC and Stanford play ND, CU plays CSU, and Utah was supposed to play BYU or Utah St (though they seem to be trying to get out of them). I don't think OU/TX would be hard to schedule around.

I actually agree with you TBC nearly 100% except when it comes to Texas, Texas could join any conference it wanted IF it let go of the LHN. They can also pretty much take any combo of schools to go with them (except religious schools) and while OU/OkSU is a good catch for the SEC, they wouldn't (and weren't) ever really considered to the B1G w/ OkSU (and even if they ditched them OU alone would probably not get in w/o Nebraska) or PAC (OU might get in by themsleves but not w/ OkSU and w/o Texas).

Similar to how UNC can join any conference it wants (SEC/B1G/B12) and could name its tag-alongs be they Duke/UVA/FSU/GATech and possibly even NCSU (though its iffy for the B1G) or how NDfb could join the B1G or ACC and name another school they want like UConn (ACC) or BC/Pitt (B1G).

These are what I call the super elite of conference realignment, its a very slim list of schools that have this kind of power which includes the three I listed above (Texas, ND, UNC) plus USC/UCLA, tOSU/Mich, Florida/Georgia, and maybe Alabama.

The next tier down consists of the second tiers that are still valueable by themselves, but most likely could not get a conference to take them and some less inferior tag-alongs which includes, Oregon, Oklahoma, A&M, LSU, Tenn, UVA, FSU, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn St.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

It's a couple of things, much of which you covered. The PAC would be getting two "non-academic" schools, they would be inseparable, which would complicate/disrupt rivalries and other scheduling (the CA games thing), and the Red River game's place on the calendar would probably be untouchable. To some extent, that can't always be. I suspect OU/OSU would be protected, too, and that only adds to scheduling issues.

...and yes, I think Texas is the prize. I think the "get" of Oklahoma is expecting Texas to follow. That's not a guarantee.

To that extent, I don't think OU's worth it. The price tag is too high. OU itself might be feasible...but not them AND State.

I agree that Texas can go most anywhere. I don't think the Big Ten would take them with Tech, though. However, I don't think Texas-B1G is ever happening, either, so ttfwiw.

If and when the XII implodes...some of the schools will get left in the dust...

Texas: anywhere it wants w/o LHN or go independent
Texas Tech: really only PAC if they allow a tag-along with Texas; if not, Mountain West?
Baylor: Mountain West
TCU: Mountain West or SEC if they want the Dallas market? Can't possibly say Texas A&M covers the entire state
Iowa St: B1G IF AND ONLY IF they're okay with 2 teams in Iowa; if not, Mountain West?
Kansas: B1G or possibly PAC?
Kansas St: NOT B1G. PAC or Mountain West?
Oklahoma: possibly PAC or SEC if desperate (should and could be 1 or the other)
Oklahoma St: really only PAC if they allow a tag-along with Texas; if not, SEC or Mountain West?
West Virginia: NOT B1G...only options for a power conference are ACC (very unlikely) or SEC (that's a bit of a stretch as well)

Iowa State is one of those schools I look at now and think must be in THE worst position in the country. Their football program has been a historical doormat, but I wonder how much of that was due to Nebraska and Colorado out-recruiting them. When both those former B12 programs began to decline, then split, I noticed an upswing in success there. Coincidence? Probably...but who knows, you know?

They are perpetually left out of virtually EVERY realignment hypothesis I've ever read. Even those stories some years back about the Big XII dissolving and the remnants being absorbed by the Big East...even those stories had Iowa State locked out. And I think even Marinatto, when he dug his own grave by publicly airing the B12's issues by telling schools to "call me" if things weren't working out, I don't think even he mentioned the kids from Ames by name. Obviously, with Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri, it would be easy to forget about Iowa State, but it's not like ISU is a clown college.

Part of me thinks that if the Big XII dissolves, Iowa's political system will demand a spot for ISU. But, even if they get it...they'd go right back to being a doormat; "Nebraska's enhancement game." Is there ever a chance, if they can sustain a competitive and successful football and basketball program, that maybe the PAC would consider them if the B1G won't?

As we are aware of, the PAC likes to have 2 schools/per (bar Cali), but they went ahead and paired Utah/Colorado. I could imagine a scenario where (if football were on a continual upswing), the PAC possibly pairing Kansas St and Iowa St if it came down to it. Iowa St really is in a rut, unfortunately.

My preference would be the SEC & B1G are done with expansion for awhile. If either goes to sixteen and beyond, I believe the focus turns to potential breakups. The more visiable schools are offered incentives to break from the others. More traditions and rivalries are lost in the pursuit of new and more lucrative TV contracts. It'll be an ongoing saga. I believe in playing compatible "neighbor" schools when feasible. More additions can mean big changes within for conference schedules, across all-sports, and not all of them shall be pleasing.

ISU best hope may be that the B12 remains together.

WVU is "out there", geographically, as it pertains to the B12. I don't think WVU would have done much for the SEC; and frankly, the SEC had more desirable options, beyond just considering recent athletic success. However, WVU could have done a lot for the ACC athletically. WVU was a natural rival for a multiple number of ACC schools and had a history with most of them external to the ACC.

I don't see much the B12 can do in "bridging" to WVU. There's Cincy, and that's about it; and they are probably low on the B12 radar. I don't see ACC schools heading to the B12 either unless the ACC implodes.

Beyond the money factor which is not an extreme difference considering all variable and what may result from future negotiations, any of the ACC schools would have to consider also:
(1) Distances; loss of traditional and convenient rivalries; attendance & travel concerns; recruiting impacts.
and some B12 schools that are really not that appealing to go there or host.
(2) Getting into a GoR agreement that could negate better offers later.
(3) Going into a conference where Texas is the center of attention and power, but not sure what UT, and possibly OU, could do later. B12 has had their own defections--and still recently.
The ACC has had internal dissention, but would it be jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

I may be wrong, but if the B12 seeks to expand, they may need to look to their adjacent west with schools such as Colorado State and BYU, maybe UNM. As to eastward, the SEC & B1G would have to devastate the ACC; unless the B12 would consider Cincy, and Tulane & Rice types.

Fox wants Florida in its market for the B12 that means FSU and Miami and if not those two then USF and UCF.

The SEC wants VaTech and Nc St.

The B10 wants UVA and UNC and likely Ga Tech and Duke.

Essentially the B12 would have a lot of choices if they seek to expand, but right now they don't come from other major conferences. Expansion shall come down to whether or not the B12 wants to re-instill the CCG by required expansion, and how the playoff and big bowl situations go for the B12.
I have seen of couple of reports that WVU has complained about travel, distances involved, and the physical isolation from the rest in the B12, and that is understandable. But WVU is thankful they escaped the BE. There's no great solution on that right now.
Bowlsby appears quite conservative on expansion, and he may be influenced from sources within the conference to be particularly so. The number 10 works nicely otherwise, if there wasn't a numbers game for TV going on everywhere and the inconsistency could yield potential drawbacks.

The USF/UCF to the Big 12 rumor is most likely just a rumor. It does however make a lot of business sense based on the direction the other power conferences may take including the Big 12 with future expansion.

The Big 12 commissioner has stated the conference may take the same path as the Big Ten with expansion and expand with schools that could grow into the existing type of schools for athletics (i.e. Rutgers and Maryland could grow into Big Ten type of schools). Both USF and UCF have a lot of potential and are large state supported schools that could potentially grow into Big 12 type of schools especially for football.

If in fact FOX TV wants to gain access to the Florida TV markets and if they match the current payouts for the 10 Big 12 schools, it would make good business sense to expand regardless if the shares did not increase as long as the shares did not decrease in value per school for the Big 12 to gain access to Florida by expanding with both USF and UCF.

I know a lot of folks believe that Florida State and Clemson will never be admitted to the SEC based on U of Florida and U of South Carolina. I have a entirely different theory on this decision which would be based mostly on a business decision and not necessarily on which school or schools may not want a competitor school included.

The SEC network will most likely not be able to use the same business format as the Big Ten and will probably be very similar to the Pac 12. The Big Ten is probably the only conference that was successful in getting cable companies to charge subscribers for the network regardless if the customer wanted the Big Ten network or not. This model will be very hard to duplicate because the Big Ten was first in and customers realize this fact and is the reason the Pac 12 is not on Direct TV at the moment.

If the Pac 12 type model is used for the SEC network, it would make better sense to have Florida State and Clemson admitted to the SEC compared to Va Tech and North Carolina State. Florida State and U of Florida together would help promote the launch of a local SEC network channel for the sunshine state for example similar to the Pac 12 Arizona channel.

So if Florida State and Clemson are waiting on the SEC and the Big Ten strikes again on raiding the ACC, the Big 12 would be well positioned to close any future ACC targets in Florida to replace Florida State by taking UCF and USF as future Big 12 Florida schools.

The Big 12 could easily use the zipper concept to split schools into divisions for football and retain most rivalries and keep U of Texas happy in the process as well. The following cross over rivalries would work for regular schedules and keep most current Big 12 rivalries in place for TV benefits.

Oklahoma…………………………..Texas
Oklahoma State………………….Texas Tech
TCU……………………………………. Baylor
Kansas State……………………… Kansas
WVU…………………………………. Iowa State
USF…………………………………… UCF

Article out of Lafayette(previously posted in another thread)discussing league expansion and mentioning that conferences "like" the Big 12 and SBC,that currently have no FB Champ game "may" receive less money under the new playoff scheme.Details are expected to be released later this spring.Link at http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20 ... ck_check=1

Since this site doesn't keep their articles up for more than a month or two I'm posting the quote here.

"Moreover, it will soon be announced that conferences must have 12 football-playing members in order to fully realize all potential financial gains from the new playoff and preferred bowl system — money that would seemingly offset concerns about a larger distribution pool.

Having less than 12 for football, in other words, will mean a smaller piece of the money pie."

First I've read of this, not sure if the writer fully understands what he's talking about here. The Big 12 has a bid to the Sugar Bowl and will receive the same pay as the SEC/PAC12/B1G. Maybe it has something to do with the playoff distribution but even that seems like a stretch. More likely he's talking about the non-AQs leagues than the Big 12 but this quote is so vague its by no means a certainty. Great find freak, if this is true hope we hear something more about it soon.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I'm with you, I don't think he understands entirely. That would be huge breaking news if it was true with wide reaching implications. I got really excited thinking s*** was about to hit the fan, but I don't think so.