Timeline for Tuesday, 9/20/11 through Wednesday, 9/21/11

11AM: Multiple Big East sources said they have been told by WVU officials that WVU rejected by ACC & SEC. This news led most to believe that Missouri would be the front-runner for the SEC #14 spot.

11AM: A reminder of some Monday news that didn’t get as much press…that JMU AD Jeff Bourne said he expects JMU to upgrade to FBS within 1-2 years.

1PM: A report by @chuckolivernews seemed to imply that the SEC had interest in Louisville for the SEC #14 spot.

2pm: A report out of Kansas City claimed that the SEC had decided on Missouri for #14 and had an offer for them. This would completely contradict the SEC process, where the conference requires a school to apply to the conference before they would extend an offer.

2:30pm: Some rumors surfaces that if Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. left the Big 12, that the proposed Big East merger would happen but that BYU, Boise St., Air Force and Houston would be included as well.

3pm: T. Boone Pickens explains that the Big 12 could be saved. This was the first sign that the Pac-16 was losing steam, something we’d later see as the Pac-12 opted not to expand.

3:30pm: Uconn continues to make it’s point in wanting to join the ACC.

4pm: Texas A&M makes it clear (likely in response to Pickens comments) that TAMU is joining the SEC, regardless of what happens in the Big 12.

4:30pm: As expected, the SEC disputes claims that they invited Missouri.

5pm: Big East planned meeting detailed for the evening. Uconn was not expected to attend and Villanova asked if they could attend. Uconn president would pass on meeting, but school would have representative.

6pm: Oklahoma remaining in the Big 12 gains more traction.  Based on comments out of Oklahoma, it was clear that Oklahoma at least had a strong sense that the Pac-12 would not be willing to expand to 14 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

6pm: Penn St. president goes on the record saying Big Ten, nor Big Ten schools are planning anything in regards to expansion.

6pm: Missouri announces public meeting for Thursday in Columbia, presumably to discuss the SEC, Big 12, etc.

6:10pm: As part of Oklahoma’s demands for remaining in the Big 12, they demand that commissioner Dan Beebe be fired.

7pm: Ground shaking, I know…LA Tech communicates with CUSA and Sun Belt

7pm: News of previous Big East plans comes out, includes Navy as football-only and Air Force as well joining.

8pm: It took a while, but WVU officials call the ACC and SEC rejections an “outright lie”.

8pm: Big East and Big 12 cancel any meeting between both parties under fear of legal issues. This was first step in dissolving of the entire merger concept.

8pm: Hold your hats folks, ECU formally applied to the Big East. The twitter universe is still laughing at this one with various hashtags.

8pm: The best in all covering things Pac-12, @jonwilner, reports that the the Pac-12 would have the votes for Pac-16 expansion. And he fully explains how: if Scott were to bring a formal vote on member schools, it would be only if all schools had agree to all Pac-12 demands. This was code that if Texas did not get on board with the Pac-12 TV network, there would be no vote.

8pm: Reports that the SEC had a plan that if Missouri joined with Texas A&M, that Auburn would move to the east division.

8pm: One of the best in realignment news, Pete Thamel, says Missouri is likely the only SEC #14 candidate and that the school would be in a tough spot…keep the Big 12 together after it almost fell apart 2 years in a row or preserve the schools future with a move to the SEC.

8pm: Pete Thamel also reports that no SEC divisional plans had been set, contrary to earlier reports.

8pm: with the Big East meetings occurring at this time, many in the Twitter universe recall how earlier in the day, Penn St. coach Joe Paterno referenced Rutgers as a Big Ten candidate if the conference ever did opt to expand.

9pm: More schools on the outside get some press. Wyoming tells the world what we already knew, that they are not in the position where other conferences are calling them about membership.

9pm: Mountain West confirms that they have had early discussions with Iowa St. The assumption is that the MWC was making a play for Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St. if the Big 12 imploded. TCU would likely have been brought back as well for a 14 school conference (with Baylor being left out).

9pm: Memories of what could have been…the Paterno proposed eastern football conference that would have have been comprised of the original Big East football members, likely ACC schools like GA Tech and Florida St., as well as possibly Notre Dame.

10pm: As mentioned above, the Pac-12 opted to remain at 12 members. The rationale is quite simple: the Pac-12 was open to adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech as the move would bring in 2 programs that would improve the football profile of the conference and improve the per-school revenue. But from the beginning, any expansion would need to involve fully equal revenue sharing. Texas was unwilling to modify it’s LHN network, so the Pac-12 passed.

10pm: With the Pac-12 off the table, Oklahoma will likely reach out to the SEC unless all it’s demands are met in the Big 12. This includes nearly full revenue sharing of the LHN and the removal of Dan Beebe. If the SEC were to include Oklahoma as #14, the state of Oklahoma might require Oklahoma St. as well. So if the SEC wanted OU, it might mean having to expand to 16. Missouri could always still be #16, but again, only if the Big 12 still implodes with an Oklahoma departure…which seems unlikely without the Pac-12 leverage.

Since Midnight: Big East schools have vowed to remain together following their meeting. ESPN reports that the conference will look at UCF, Navy, Air Force, and East Carolina. I’m not sure why Houston is not on ESPN’s list when Houston was high on the Big East radar for the #10 spot just weeks ago. Note that the same ESPN writer here claims ECU has the Raleigh market, despite ECU being on the other side of the state. Obvious issue with this unity pledge: it’s garbage. Uconn and Rutgers are not turning down the ACC if invited.

Since Midnight: Confirmation that the LHN was the deal-breaker in the Pac-12 decision to remain at 12 and pass on the Pac-16.

Since Midnight: report that Big East will be aggressive in expansion. Navy and Air Force at the top of the list and the conference will consider increasing the exit fee from $5 million.

Since Midnight: BYU is expected to be the #10 school added to the Big 12, assuming that Oklahoma does not pursue SEC membership.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011:

You’ll find most of the info from yesterday still holds but with a few additions.

* In addition to the Big East non-football schools discussing a split, the potential Big 12 remnants (should Pac-16 occur) and the remaining Big East football schools are considering a merger. There are multiple scenarios on the table:
1) Big East hybrid brings in all remaining Big 12 schools wich is expected to be a maximum of 5…would give Big East 12 for football and 20 for all-sports.
2) Big East football 7 merge with Big 12 5 under Big East umbrella without basketball-only schools
3) Big East football 7 merge with Big 12 5 under Big 12 banner (assuming the better Big 12 bowls for the time being)

* As mentioned on this site earlier, Villanova did officially apply to the ACC. Mentality is they don’t want to be left behind. Nova would upgrade to FBS football if need be, but would also love to join as a non-football member should a 15th school like Notre Dame join for non-football sports.

* The Big East has claimed that they will hold Pitt and Syracuse to the conference contract, meaning both schools will need to wait 27 months before leaving for the ACC. That’s 3 lame duck seasons and a $5 million exit fee. You can bet that the Big East and ACC lawyers will be negotiating, trying to find a way to get both schools out early for a set fee. ACC schools would likely contribute to the cause since the sooner they get those schools in, the sooner they can renegotiate their TV contracts by adding the Pitt and Syracuse value.

* Note that the Big East TV contract is up for renewal soon. It’s unlikely that networks will be willing to pay as much knowing that both schools and perhaps others will be leaving soon. So it would be wise for the Big East to try to milk the ACC for extra money via exit fees in return to letting the schools out early.

* If the Big East is planning to hold exiting schools to the 27 months, then one shouldn’t be shocked if the ACC invited Uconn and Rutgers sooner than later as they would need to plan 3 years in advance due to exit dates. Adding those 2 schools, 4 total, would give the ACC the majority of the markets/schools that the proposed new Big East TV contract would include.

* As expected, the Big East basketball school coaches want the hybrid to remain as for now, it means they compete against Uconn, Louisville, etc.

* The Mountain West has had preliminary discussions internally (and feeling out the school) about asking TCU if they’d like to remain in the Mountain West. If the Big East were to lose Uconn and Rutgers to the ACC and say Missouri was not part of the Big East/Big 12 merger, TCU might be wise to consider remaining in the MWC. Key will be if the MWC can get a BCS autobid, something the Big East/B12 merger will likely have. But if the group is: TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, USF and 1-3 CUSA schools, TCU might still find this group to be more appealing than remain/returning to the MWC.

* The Mountain West and CUSA are again discussing a football-only merger. The idea would be for the 2 separate conferences to combine their TV contracts for football, possibly staging some sort of championship game of champions. Note that the primary motive of the merger will be to gain a BCS automatic berth by claiming that it’s 1 spot for 24 schools, taking political heat off the BCS as it would give BCS access to those 24 schools.

* MWC might try to get BYU back if the conference had a BCS AQ.

* ECU, a school expected to once again be left out of the conference realignment shuffle by the BCS conferences, released a statement you’d expect from the former Iraqi Minister of Propaganda, proclaiming ECU is actively involved in what is happening now. That is not true if by “involved” they mean they have BCS options on their own.

* Both Oklahoma and Texas have granted authority to their school presidents to pursue Pac-12 membership. For Texas though, the regents would need to be back involved if a formal move to the Pac-12 were recommended by their president.

* Oklahoma made it clear that they are less interested in rebuilding the Big 12 due to the threat of litigation by Big 12 members, claim such threats should not be the basis of goodwill if trying to keep a conference member from leaving.

* The ACC has had discussions with Texas regarding all-sports membership, but one of the reported issues is that if Texas joined for all-sports (which is what the ACC seems to be demanding), the ACC would prefer Texas and Kansas, NOT Texas and Texas Tech.

* Uconn feels it has a better than average chance of joining the ACC.

* SEC is rumored to have less interest in WVU as previously thought.

Monday, September 19, 2011:

* As we know from yesterday, Pittsburgh and Syracuse will be joining the ACC

* Per sources, the ACC move came as a shock to the Big 12 schools, notably Texas, and has put the primary focus by Texas to be to join the Pac-12 (with Oklahoma, Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech) or to rebuild the Big 12.

* Per reports, the Texas and ACC discussions HAD been solely about Texas joining for non-football sports and going independent in football.

* Notre Dame has been another ACC option for non-football sports. The idea was to expand to 14 for football with Syracuse and Pitt, and to bring in Texas AND Notre Dame for non-football sports. The addition of Texas without Notre Dame for non-football sports is not high on the ACC wishlist.

* Per sources, the ACC is showing some flexibility with Texas joining with Texas Tech for all-sports.

* Per sources, the ACC is not willing to be flexible in regards to the Texas LHN, meaning the network revenues would need to be distributed evenly to all ACC members (making membership in the ACC less appealing to Texas).

* Texas had similar interest in the Big Ten, but the Big Ten has no flexibility in regards to the Texas LHN.

* Per sources, the Pac-12 will almost certainly expand to 14 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

* Pac-12 expansion to 16 would be likely approved by the Pac-12 presidents if Texas agrees to the Pac-12 TV demands in regards to the LHN.

* Texas is willing to roll-up the LHN into the Pac-12 TV regional model, but the holdup is in the distribution of revenue. The Pac-12 is holding to it’s demands that a school like Texas will not be permitted to keep more revenue and would need to put that into the “Pac-12 kitty” to be shared by all members. The rationale is that there are Pac-12 TV regional networks in places like Los Angeles that will generate more revenue that say, “Mountain” (Colorado/Utah) yet USC and UCLA have agreed to split the revenue evenly…so Texas would be required to as well if a power like USC is.

* According to Pac-12 writer Jon Wilner, Missouri IS indeed a target for the Pac-12.

* Kansas is a Pac-12 target to a lesser extent.

* Kansas and Missouri would only be considered for the Pac-12 IF Texas passes on the Pac-12 TV demands.

* The Pac-12 is considering a 4 school “Pod” system for alignment so that schools aren’t grouped into hard 8 and 8 divisions. The pods being the preference because each school wants access to California and schools like Arizona and ASU fear being cut off forever if grouped with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Colorado and Utah.

* Missouri and Kansas would be part of a pod with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

* The very mention and consideration of Missouri and Kansas as potential Pac-16 options are to put MORE pressure on Texas to take it or leave it (regarding Pac-12 offer). Because if Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Missouri and Kansas leave the Big 12, and Texas has then the ONLY option to rebuild the Big 12, Texas would be forced to be in a rebuilt Big 12 conference with a core membership of: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas St. and Iowa St. Even if they pulled a coup and brought in Louisville, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, TCU…it would be a vastly inferior TV product…especially with the risk that Rutgers and Uconn could still head to the ACC, WVU to SEC.

* The Big East basketball schools are considering a split from the Big East. The fear being that with the Big East down to 7 members, they will need to expand and the likely candidates would be less desirable basketball schools (since the Big East might need to bring in Baylor, Kansas St. and Iowa St. to get Missouri and Kansas without lawsuits from the other 3 mentioned schools.

* The Big East basketball schools are also positioning themselves so that if the core football schools leave for the Big 12, the non-football schools would not be forced to remain with less desirable basketball programs like USF and TCU.

* If the Big East non-football schools did split, they would likely target expansion candidates to 9 or 10 total members. Schools considered at the top of the list would include Xavier, Richmond, St. Louis, Butler, Dayton.

* There have been no developments with the SEC. TAMU has not officially joined until the Big 12 determines it’s own future and there are no threats of member lawsuits. If the Big 12 falls due to a Pac-16 creation, then the SEC would formally bring in Texas A&M for #13. There would be no rush for a #14, but if the Big 12 fell, Missouri would likely apply for the 14th spot, potentially even if the Pac-12 invited them, despite Missouri preferring Big Ten membership. WVU is also considered by many to be a candidate, but has much less to offer financially compared to Missouri in regards to TV market penetration.

* Over the next week of two, we could possible see:

Pac 14: Oklahoma & OSU joining
Pac 16: Oklahoma, OSU, Texas & Texas Tech joining
Pac-16: OU, OSU, Kansas and Missouri joining
ACC 14/16: Texas and Notre Dame joining for non-football sports
ACC 14/16: Notre Dame and Villanova joining for non-football sports
ACC 16: Texas and Texas Tech joining
ACC 16: Uconn and Rutgers joining
SEC 13: Texas A&M joining (confirmed)
SEC 14: TAMU and Missouri joining
SEC 14: TAMU and WVU joining
Big 12 Rebuilt: Texas, TTech, Kansas, Missouri, Baylor and Iowa St. adding 4 new members such as Louisville, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, BYU, TCU, Houston
Big East Reboot: 7 remaining schools bring in 5 remaining Big 12 schools for 12 football/20 school basketball conference
Big East Split: 7 remaining football schools bring in all 5 remaining Big 12 schools for 12 school all-sports conference
Big 12 Reboot: 5 remaining Big 12 schools bring in 7 remaining (or less is some leave) for reboot of Big 12 conference (would allow football schools to all leave Big East, causing a split from basketball schools)
Big East as Basketball-Only: 7 remaining Big East schools, all basketball members, bring in 3 other non-football schools, keeping the Big East brand.

That’s it so far…but it’s only 12:00ET today.

Jon Wilner, the guy with the pulse on Pac-12 expansion, is reporting that Texas is more likely to remain in the Big 12 and rebuild. This falls in line with much of the earlier ideas about the future of Texas. In the ideal world for Texas, they would be in a smaller conference, have more control, and be able to schedule more football games on it’s own LHN network.

This seems to be the mentality out of Austin, even if the Oklahoma schools leave for the Pac-12. Oklahoma and the Pac-12 have hoped that the threat of leaving by Oklahoma would be enough to get Texas on board without having to actively pursue Texas.

What is unknown at this time is how dedicated Texas would be if the Pac-12 instead opted for the Oklahoma schools but also 2 more Big 12 schools such as Kansas and Missouri. While a long shot, it would leave Texas with a group of Texas Tech, Kansas St., Baylor and Iowa St. to build around. Even a full 9 team absorption of the Big East football schools would not make this the most attractive option, nor a CUSA/MWC raid. Missouri is also a flight risk for the SEC or Big Ten.

The Texas/Big 12 news comes on the heals that Oklahoma too might be having second thoughts about fleeing the Big 12.

As part of the Texas A&M exit and proposed SEC entrance, the SEC required a number of legal steps that we are not used to seeing so publicly in conference realignment. The SEC, both legally and from a PR standpoint has not wanted to be the reason for the destruction of another conference. And that makes sense. So they requested written notification that once Texas A&M was no longer in the Big 12, that is the SEC invited them, the conference would be free from any litigation. The Big 12′s response: no problem. So not only did the Big 12 give consent, it’s written, signed and available for everyone to read.

The Baylor situation in a nutshell:

* All Big 12 schools signed off on freeing the SEC of any liability to the Big 12

* Balls started rolling and all of a sudden, the concept of adding a new 10th school like BYU, or adding (3) Big East schools to get to 12 (Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers) was suddenly replaced with the primary option that Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. would leave for the Pac-12…with Texas and Texas Tech likely following. Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St. would likely join the Big East with Missouri, assuming Missouri wasn’t also invited to the SEC.

* Baylor realizes they are the lone school left out of a BCS conference

But due to the  signed letters and timeline in place, it seems that the potential Baylor lawsuit would be tough to win. The legal threat would be against the SEC, as it is a private organization, and not Texas A&M. The “cause” of the potential lawsuit would be that Texas A&M joining the SEC would cause great harm to Baylor…not the Big 12, since all the other schools signed off…but specifically to Baylor alone.

But in the loss of a single school, the Big 12 would still be in a position of strength, compared to saw the WAC last summer who lost all but 5 football schools, falling below the NCAA membership minimums. The Big East was in a similar situation in 2003 when they lost 3 members to the ACC, bringing their totals to 5 members (they replaced them with Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF).

But there lies the problem with the Baylor mentality.

Texas A&M first left the Big 12, then were invited to the SEC as a to-be independent. But that move alone is a single school. The Big 12 remains at 9 members and has multiple options. The Big 12, at 9 members, can bring in a school such as BYU as a Texas A&M replacement to remain at 10. They could chose some other school for #10. And they also discussed the idea of bringing in (3) schools such as Louisville, Rutgers, and Pitt to grow back to 12. So the idea that the lone departure of Texas A&M would cost Baylor money is a stretch. But then you read between the lines…and the headlines coming out of Oklahoma.

* Oklahoma has made it public that they are focused on joining the Pac-12, leaving the Big 12, rather than pursuing a single TAMU replacement or a Big East raid to get to 12 members.

* And as Oklahoma goes, so does Oklahoma St.

* If those two schools leave, Texas would likely feel the pressure to remain on pace economically, and follow the two Oklahoma schools.

* And as Texas goes, so does Texas Tech

So now all of a sudden, instead of needing a single school, the Big 12 would be down to 5 total members.

It’s at THIS time that a Baylor lawsuit MIGHT have some merit. Because at this point, 4 more schools would have left and truly harmed the Big 12.

BUT…it STILL wouldn’t be a lock for a “winnable” lawsuit.

Not, when there is precedent set by conferences such as the Big East in the BCS that simply needed to add 3 members to be back in business. The Big East is still a BCS member today, even with the replacement schools they brought in all coming from non-BCS conferences (CUSA) and from FCS (UConn).

But then we come to the next round of developments: the Big East.

The Big East last summer, had discussions with some of the remaining Big 12 schools (Kansas, Kansas St., Missouri, Iowa St) and was set to invite them if the 2010 version of the Pac-16 had happened. Those same conversations are being had now as all Big 12 schools consider sailing smoothly through the chaos. The Big East would again welcome Kansas, Kansas St., and Missouri becoming a 12 school football conference, 20 for all sports. Divisions proposed include four pods of 5 schools based on geography for basketball, 2 divisions for football.

Missouri is considered to be an option for the SEC #14 spot as well.

So if Missouri were part of the SEC, then the Big East would likely include Iowa St. as there #12 school for the same division/divisional pod that Missouri would have been in.

And now back to Baylor.

If Texas A&M leaves, it’s a minor hiccup.

If Oklahoma/Oklahoma St./Texas/Texas Tech leave is a large problem.

If Kansas/Kansas St./Missouri and Iowa St. leave, that is the destruction of the Big 12. And THAT is the move that would give Baylor more rights in regards to a lawsuit.

So reading between the lines:

A few assumptions we can make:

1) If the Big 12 schools all signed off on Texas A&M joining the SEC, then we can assume that Texas A&M and the Big 12 have come to some resolution in regards to exit fees. The figure that Nebraska and Colorado were expected to pay was close to $30 million. Both schools negotiated the price to $9.25 million.

2) But if the Texas A&M exit fee is favorable to Texas A&M, then the reason could very well be the expected departure of other Big 12 schools. Those schools would not want to be too rash in their demands if in the coming weeks they too opted to leave.

3) Iowa St. is a school that seemingly has almost as few options as Baylor. Kansas and Missouri have more options. Kansas St. to an extent has drawn interest from the Big East with those two schools. But only if Missouri joins the SEC and frees up a 12th spot for Iowa St. is Iowa St. likely to be a Big East option. So what does Baylor know that is 99-100% accurate that Baylor feels the need to threaten legal action while Iowa St. doesn’t?

And as for the Conference Realignment Dominoes…

* Next step will be that Texas A&M formally accepts the SEC invitation…and the SEC will hold off on #14.

* Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. will even more actively pursue the Pac-12 and likely be invited.

* Once Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. make it known to Texas that they will be leaving, Texas will likely step back from their LHN demands and show a willingness to fold their network into the Pac-12 TV model.

There had been rumors of Texas pursuing the ACC that were debunked by ACC commissioner John Swofford.

The other option for Texas, one with no public supporters, would be if Texas joined the Big East as a non-football member and went independent in football. The move would allow the Big East to potentially split from the basketball schools and include the Big 12 remnants:

West: * Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Missouri, Louisville
East: * Notre Dame, Uconn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati,  USF

* Should Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas and Texas Tech opt for the Pac-12, marking the potential end to the Big 12, the SEC would be more likely to invite Missouri as their #14 school.

* The Big East would then invite Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St. to form a 12 football / 20 all-sports conference.

* Baylor would join the Mountain West conference or CUSA

* Pac-16 a possibility with Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.

* Big 12 survival plans: If no Pac-16 defection, Big East raid of 2-3 schools a possibility

* Missouri as SEC #14 candidate would add 4th Big East team to Big 12 sights

* Pac-16 defections from Big 12 likely means end to Big 12 with Big East absorbing “leftovers”

* Can Big 12 “survive” by just absorbing all Big East football members (Big East split scenario)

When Texas A&M first made it public that they were interested in pursuing the SEC, the college sports world realized that what had been avoided last summer (utter chaos) could once again be within reach. In an article a few weeks ago titled “Potential SEC Expansion and the Conference Realignment Dominoes“, I addressed some of the possible scenarios that could play out.

As time progressed, it appeared that even if Texas A&M were to leave for the SEC (they have since announced they are planning to in fact leave the Big 12), that the Big 12 would keep their union of merry men together, a team of 9, that would simply “consider” adding a 10th school as a replacement. Seems fairly simple: you lose a school, and you replace that school and everyone lives happily ever after. Schools like BYU and TCU were considered high on the list, as was Houston (to replace the lost Texas A&M market), as well as schools outside the current footprint such as Pitt, Air Force, etc. Of course the “big get” options were Notre Dame and Arkansas, but neither school is expected to give the Big 12 much thought.

On the SEC side, it did appear that eventually, a 14th school might be an option. Various sources claim though that if the SEC were to add a 14th school, said school would likely have to come from a state NOT currently represented in the SEC. So ACC schools such as Florida St., Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami were CONSIDERED to be “off the list”. And with ACC solidarity by the 4 North Carolina schools, they seemed as if they were not options. And with some very public comments out of Virginia Tech, it appeared that school too would be taking itself off the SEC list.

Then you have schools like Missouri who also claimed little interest in the SEC (although we all assume that is not the case and instead it’s an effort by the school to avoid the embarrassment they suffered last year when publicly courting the Big Ten only to be passed over).

Seemingly, all of a sudden, it appeared the SEC was down to only a few options such as WVU, Louisville (seemingly a school in an SEC state that had less resistance from SEC members). Not exactly homeruns for the nations superior football conference.

Regardless, it still appeared that all would be well. The SEC would expand to 13 and maybe 14 at some point. The ACC would remain as is. The Big 12 would add a single replacement. Not exactly anything drastic.

But now that might all be changing.

Now, it appears that the seismic, drastic changes could actually still happen. And the result might be that mythical beast we’ve spoken about many times here before: the birth of the Super Conferences.

So here’s where we are now:

SEC:

* The SEC appears to be set on adding Texas A&M as it’s 13th member.
* The #14 options are still all out there. If things remain as they are now, then Missouri or WVU could be the options.
* Depending on what happens with the Big 12, that could change the SEC strategy.

In other words, the “gentlemen’s agreement” of not adding schools in current SEC states might be scrapped if there were seismic changes. So the move to 14 might actually become a move to 16 if other conferences make a push to 16 before the SEC does.

The SEC might be the conference that starts the mass movement, but they might actually be reactionary in growing beyond 13 if other conferences like the Pac-12 make bold moves.

Big 12:

All seemed well. BYU, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Pitt, Air Force and even perhaps SMU (they want in the Big 12…no, really?) were notable candidates for the #10 spot.

The conclusion is now that the Pac-12 now has the richest TV contract in the country, a result of crafty business dealing by Scott with the ideal timing as broadcasters are spending large for access to live sports content. Fox and ESPN were the eventual buyers, but had the likes of NBC/Comcast, CBS and Turner looking to get in the game as well…and driving up the price.

But what makes this deal an even bigger coup for the Pac-12 is that they’ll get their roughly $225 million per year, about $21 million per school per year. And they’ll get their coveted Pac-12 network launched. But the key to the deal is that unlike the Big Ten Network, which is has a near equal revenue split between the conference and Fox (51% Big Ten, 49% Fox), the Pac-12 Network will be solely a property of the Pac-12. So all future revenues such as subscriber fees and advertising will go into the Pac-12′s pocket.

Here are some specs on the deal:

Price: $3 billion
Length: 12 years
Annual revenue: $225 to Pac-12
Annual per school: roughly $21 million per school
Conference Network: Pac-12 Network, fully owned by Pac-12, to broadcast a minimum of 350 annual events
Online Network: similar to ESPN3, will carry 500 annual events

Broadcasting:
* 5 prime time football games on ABC and Fox
* Football games will also be on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FX
* Basketball games will be on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and FoxSports regional networks
* ABC/ESPN and Fox will rotate the annual football championship game each year
* ESPN and Fox/FX will alternate the basketball conference tournament
* ESPN will also carry some of the Pac-12′s other olympic sports not on the Pac-12 network

Press Conference:

Highlights:
* Football will be on ABC and Fox, some primetime Saturdays.
* Pac-12 network will have football games as well
* Who gets what games is decided by Pac-12 at some point, not a real pecking order, more of a schedule. At beginning of season once schedule is out, the networks “draft” games like picks.
* Pac-12 Network: Pac-12 Media Enterprises is the official company they formed. Is both TV and Digital.
* All football games and basketball will be on TV (ABC/ESPN, Fox/FX, Pac-12 Network)
* Basketball: all games on TV: 68 on ESPN and Fox, all others on Pac-12 Network
* Women’s basketball likely the big component of Pac-12 network
* Pac-12 Media Labs: group of Pac-12 school members/alum will work on projects for the digital side of the network, bringing the schools into the process.
* Pac-12 Properties: will handle development and management of tournaments, etc

Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News takes a stab at the matter.

According to my sources, there is no indication that ESPN will be willing to pay what the Pac-12 wants or provide the exposure opportunities the Pac-12 is seeking. “ESPN has no place to put them,” one analyst said. Consider this: The Pac-12 is looking for a deal in the $140-150 million range, which, when combined with BCS and March Madness money, would push the league’s total revenue beyond the $170 million benchmark established by the CEOs last fall. (Until total revenue reaches $170 million annually, the league must make $2 million payments to USC and UCLA.) Now consider that ESPN signed a media rights deal with the ACC last summer that was worth about $155 million per year – except it wasn’t really $155 per year. Raycom, a regional network that has partnered with the ACC for decades, is paying about $30 million in sub-licensing fees. So in reality, ESPN paid $120 or so for the ACC, and there is no equivalent of Raycom in the Pac-12 footprint. Would ESPN pay $20-30 million more to be the primary Pac-12 right holders? No chance, according to industry sources.

If ESPN is out, one has to wonder if this will open the door for someone like Comcast/NBC, as FoxSports would be the only other option.

Many eyes have been on the Pac-12 divisional future. And it’s clear: it’s all about the money. Barring any last second lobbying, it looks like we’ll have a North-South split…and a California split:

North: Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., California, Stanford
South: Colorado, Utah, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona St.

At stake will be a future in which all 4 California schools, 1/2 of the original Pac-8, and if these 4 schools will continue to play each other every year in football, something that has happened every year since 1930.

Meanwhile, the 4 newest schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona St., and Arizona) come out as clear winners. It appears that these 4 schools will be able to align with the coveted Los Angeles schools, knowing that they will have 1-2 trips to LA every year. Meanwhile, there exists a chance that the Bay Area schools might not play both Los Angeles schools each year.

The Pac-12 ADs needed a simple majority vote to approve their recommendations to the Pac-12 voting presidents/CEOs. But the final vote will require a 75% approval or 9 of 12. So there still remains a chance that the California schools will be able to change some minds. Because if all 4 California schools vote against the proposed split, we’ll be at another impasse.

But whatever the final decision is, it’s clear it’s all about money.

All 10 schools outside of Los Angeles want to be in a division with an LA school. A proposed “zipper split” in which 1 school from each region would be in another division is losing steam due to how difficult it would be to manage.

Sacrifices will need to be made, but right now, it’s clear that the Los Angeles schools will be making the largest sacrifice along with the Bay Area schools. The Pacific Northwest schools in Oregon and Washington are making the next largest sacrifice as they have had traditional rivalries with all 4 California schools. The winners are newbies Utah and Colorado, along with Arizona and ASU, who look like they’ll be tied in with the coveted LA schools.

Meanwhile, it seems that the old adage of “what’s good for Schools X & Y is good for the conference” is no longer a factor.

The Pac-12 could go with a traditional split:

North: take the 6 schools most commonly associated with the region…
Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah and Colorado

South: the 4 California schools along with the 2 Arizona schools
Arizona, ASU, UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford

But instead it appears we’ll have something aimed to make the most money for the conference members…which will require robbing the California schools to fund the non-California schools.

Democracy in action.

We’ll have the final decision perhaps by Thursday.

Some comments by Texas A&M; president R. Bowen Loftin, saying Texas A&M; expects $20 million in 2012 or they might leave. In the piece by Brent Zwerneman,  Loftin says that the main reason Texas A&M; remained in the Big 12 and did not leave for the SEC was because of the $20 million annual revenue figure. If the Big 12 doesn’t deliver, Texas A&M; could revisit joining the SEC.

Now that conference realignment has taken a break, you’ve seen a number of different media outlets give out their basic grades of all the moves, including this site.

Joe Schad and Rod Gilmore did a segment on ESPN in which they gave out all their “grades” via a “winner” and “loser” column (click for video). In their eyes, virtually everyone was a “winner” with the exception of the Pac-10, Boise St. and the Mountain West conference.

And there was Johnette Howard of ESPN who believes that the Pac-10 messed up and that their timing was wrong.

When you look at the actual moves made, it’s hard to find any “losers”. 

The Pac-10 made a bold move by getting as far as they did in their courtship of Texas. Remember, the Pac-10 ideally wanted Texas and Colorado to expand to twelve schools. That combination would do more than just make the conference eligible for a revenue producing conference championship game. They’d be adding the Denver market as well as most of the state of Texas, a huge boost to the potential for starting their own television network.

But in order to get Texas, it meant the Pac-10 would have to make concessions. They’d have to include Texas A&M;, which would still be appealing to the Pac-10 as the school is a reputable academic institution in the AAU. But that would be enough to get Texas. The Pac-10 needed to invite three other schools of Texas’ choosing: Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

This is not to say that the Pac-10 would not be thrilled to have added all three Texas schools along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St., giving the conference that states markets as well.

But it was a long shot by the Pac-10 and the boldest move we’ve ever seen by a conference.

So when “Texas & Friends” ultimately passed on the Pac-10 to remain in the Big 12…no matter how thrilling the developments were for the Big 12 to remain together…it should not have ultimately come as a shock to anybody. The choice to remain in the Big 12 was simply a financial decision by Texas to reap the biggest reward (revenue).

So when the Pac-10 bold attempts to completely change the landscape of college sports fell short, they went with Plan B.

But Plan B was always the most realistic option: raid the Big 12 for Colorado, and add Utah from the Mountain West.

When a conference is able to get a school to leave it’s own conference, where it is generating more revenue, and leave for what is a lower valued conference….that clearly makes the move a “win” for the new conference. And that’s what happened. Colorado left the Big 12, where is was part of a much larger television contract, for the Pac-10. The hopes of the Pac-10 in creating a television network and adding the Denver market, was the carrot that enticed Colorado to make the move.

Utah joining the Pac-10 was a “gimme”. Any school in a non-BCS conference would jump at a chance for an automatic BCS bid. But Utah also gives the Pac-10 access into the growing Utah markets including Salt Lake City. And now the Pac-10 has a gigantic presence in the western markets of Los Angeles (#2), San Francisco (#6), Phoenix (#12), Seattle (#13), Denver (#16), Portland (#22) and Salt Lake City (#31) for ten of it’s schools. Tucson (#65) and Spokane (#75) for the final two schools.

Clearly, adding Denver along with Salt Lake City will have a positive effect on the Pac-10. Sure, it’s not Texas. But even the Big Ten was shut out of the Texas sweepstakes, despite their $20 million per-school payouts.

Joe Schad of ESPN has done a heck of a job covering all the realignment moves, perhaps better than anyone in the media. But his opinion on the Pac-10 moves seems based solely on the conferences’ failure to change the landscape by expanding to 16 schools with Texas. Had that option never reached the table, I’m sure he’d look at the Pac-10 raid on the Big 12 by luring Colorado as a bold move.

As for Howard’s article, it seems like a case of someone too wrapped up in what almost was, and not focusing on what was attainable and actually completed.

Luckily, upon completing this article, I came across another ESPN.com writer who had a more simplistic view of the Pac-10 moves. In his piece, Ted Miller laid it out there: sure, the Pac-16 would have been great (in volume of change/impact to the conference)…but Colorado and Utah made sense.

Remember folks, this wasn’t the Pac-10 adding WAC members San Jose St. and New Mexico St. What happened was that the Pac-10 added Colorado and Utah…and that makes them one of the many winners in this round of conference realignment.

A few conflicting reports already exist on the topic, but I posted on Twitter a few hours ago that Utah would indeed be the next member of the Pac-10. Sources claim that the school has met with Pac-10 official in California, and could announce as soon as Wednesday that they will be joining the current eleven school conference.

More details are expected on Wednesday.

Sources say that in adding Utah, the plan for the Pac-10 will be to bring both Utah and Colorado for the 2011 football season. The conference would then be permitted to host a conference championship game, as the NCAA currently requires conferences to have twelve members to do so.

There have been two different divisional alignment scenarios discussed. One would create true North/South divisions comprised of (North) Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., Utah and Colorado & (South) Arizona, Arizona St., UCLA, USC, Cal and Stanford. However, sources are now saying that the divisional alignment might be setup that would split the California schools into separate divisions. The rumored divisions would include: (North) Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford & (South) USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah and Colorado. You can bet the Cal & Stanford fans will be unhappy with that if it comes to be.

The loss of Utah from the Mountain West would be a big blow for the conference. Just a few days ago, it appeared as if in addition to adding Boise St., they’d potentially be in the position to add current BCS schools like Kansas, Kansas St., and Missouri. Boise St. will be a positive addition to the conference, but losing Utah might dampen the conferences hopes of gaining an automatic bid into the BCS, something that seemed like a lock with Utah and Boise St. in the conference together.