2010 College Football Thread

[Meacon Keaton]

Lane may be insane and overrated, but Monte is still one of the best defensive minds in the country.

[Meacon Keaton]

And Nebraska will be in the Big Ten next year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276551

[livid]

Lane may be insane and overrated, but Monte is still one of the best defensive minds in the country.

And regardless of his "sanity", Lane still knows how the NFL works since he's been around it his entire life.

And a few of the coaches on the current staff have NFL experience anyways so it not being the same as it was before is irrelevant.

[Meacon Keaton]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276668

Things are really coming together quick. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State are all going Pac-10. And Texas A&M may go SEC or PAC-10.

[GhostMachine]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276668

Things are really coming together quick. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State are all going Pac-10. And Texas A&M may go SEC or PAC-10.

The SEC commissioner has already said that there are no plans to expand and the conference is fine right where it is (yeah, right). But even if they do pick up A&M, they'd have to go after another team as well to balance things out. You can bet that the other team probably wouldn't be Baylor. Hell, I'd rather see them try and get Tulane back than pick up Baylor.

Personally, the only Texas teams I'd like to see in the SEC are Texas and Texas Tech.

Edited June 12, 2010 by GhostMachine

[sahyder1]

"Big Ten has 12 teams, Big Twelve has 10, PAC-10 has 11. That's 33 schools of higher learning who have trouble counting" - John Anderson on the 11 PM Sportscenter tonight. I seriously don't know whether this is easier or harder to explain to a casual fan then the BCS.

[naiwf]

ESPN's now reporting that Texas may not be leaving the "Big 12" after all. I don't see why they'd want to stay unless they simply enjoy being a big fish in a smaller pond.

[JStarr]

ESPN's now reporting that Texas may not be leaving the "Big 12" after all. I don't see why they'd want to stay unless they simply enjoy being a big fish in a smaller pond.

Of course. They want the gaudy undefeated record every year and get the yellow brick road to the title game every year. They're sure as hell not going to the SEC, as has been speculated.

They could own the Pac-Whatever, them and Oklahoma, just as well, until USC gets their scholarships back...unless Kiffin's jumped to Notre Dame by then and the Coliseum's been burned to the ground. This way, there's still one rival who's close to their level (sort of) and two of the longer league road trips have been taken out of the conference.

If they get a TV deal like Dan Beebe's telling everyone they will, the money will be there, they may still get the chance to build their own network, the conference stays in business for a while longer, and everyone's happy.

With the numbers of teams backward in these conferences, though, who's going to be the first to just sell out totally and peddle LEAGUE naming rights? The Budweiser Athletic Conference, anyone? (Initials are BAC, it's a perfect fit.)

[naiwf]

Texas officially declined an invite to the Pac-10/11/16 according to its Commissioner, Larry Scott. What a ridiculous turn of events. Texas pussed out because they didn't want to deal with increased competition and figured they'd just take a bigger piece of the pie in a weakened conference.

EDIT: A & M and Oklahoma have announced that they are staying too, which was obvious.

Edited June 14, 2010 by naiwf

[MyKILLv2.0]

So wait a minute.....the Big 12 has TEN teams, and the Big 10 has TWELVE? No wonder college sports are so screwed up.

[Lint]

The Big Ten has had 11 teams for quite a few years already

[naiwf]

The Big Ten has had 11 teams for quite a few years already

That's true, but there's no excuse for the Big 12 conference to have 10 teams and the Big 10 conference to have 12 teams. There really wasn't a problem with the Big 10+1, because there wasn't a Big 11 conference to get them confused with.

[HailtotheYo]

Texas officially declined an invite to the Pac-10/11/16 according to its Commissioner, Larry Scott. What a ridiculous turn of events. Texas pussed out because they didn't want to deal with increased competition and figured they'd just take a bigger piece of the pie in a weakened conference.

EDIT: A & M and Oklahoma have announced that they are staying too, which was obvious.

You might have a point with the 'pussed out' if this were ever about competition and the good of the sports landscape. But it isn't, and hasn't been for quite a while. Texas didn't puss out of anything. They made the absolute best choice in terms of what all of this is about ... money.

They get max money from the new Big 12 tv contract (which is actually more than with NEB/COL involved) and also get their own network. The conference itself is actually stronger now. Niether Nebraska or Colorado has been dangerous on the football field for a while, and basketball wise they were dead weight. Colorado doesn't even field a baseball team that competes in conference and Nebraska blows on the diamond. Outside of that, Colorado is a pro sports market and has never been all that great for college sports. The Lincoln market is no big loss either.

Add all that with the fact that you'd be talking about conference games in Oregon/Washington State ? That's just dumb, period. Vice Versa ... those guys going down to Texas/Oklahoma ... stupid. Logistically it's a nightmare. There's a reason conferences are geographically aligned for the most part.

[JStarr]

Texas officially declined an invite to the Pac-10/11/16 according to its Commissioner, Larry Scott. What a ridiculous turn of events. Texas pussed out because they didn't want to deal with increased competition and figured they'd just take a bigger piece of the pie in a weakened conference.

EDIT: A & M and Oklahoma have announced that they are staying too, which was obvious.

You might have a point with the 'pussed out' if this were ever about competition and the good of the sports landscape. But it isn't, and hasn't been for quite a while. Texas didn't puss out of anything. They made the absolute best choice in terms of what all of this is about ... money.

They get max money from the new Big 12 tv contract (which is actually more than with NEB/COL involved) and also get their own network.

Not to mention the max money from the almost-guaranteed unbeaten season and BCS title game trip each year from having to play only one conference foe with a pulse. UT has no interest in playing in a heavyweight league when they can just as easily gamble that there'll never be an extra undefeated team to punish them for weak scheduling.

The conference itself is actually stronger now. Niether Nebraska or Colorado has been dangerous on the football field for a while, and basketball wise they were dead weight.

Nebraska was pretty dangerous up until the last three seconds of the Big 12 title game last year, though. Essentially, the rest of the Big 12 just bent over and spread the cheeks for Texas, choosing getting raped over getting murdered.

Colorado doesn't even field a baseball team that competes in conference and Nebraska blows on the diamond. Outside of that, Colorado is a pro sports market and has never been all that great for college sports. The Lincoln market is no big loss either.

The one thing we've heard about, though, from these conference network talks, is footprint. Subscribers in states where member schools live garner a better rate from cable carriers than states outside the footprint. The Big 12 lost two states' worth of better rates. There's still good money there, but it would have been better if they hadn't had to watch two sailors dive overboard. This is the big reason that Texas A&M was actually getting somewhere in garnering interest from the SEC.

Add all that with the fact that you'd be talking about conference games in Oregon/Washington State ? That's just dumb, period. Vice Versa ... those guys going down to Texas/Oklahoma ... stupid. Logistically it's a nightmare. There's a reason conferences are geographically aligned for the most part.

If any of this were ever about logistics, the Texas schools (all of them, not just UT) going to the Pac-10 would have been laughed out of the room immediately. All this fat cash that everyone's drooling over would have been sucked back out from travel costs for schools' other teams, the ones that would have to make those trips and bring no money back with them.

Even with that, though, the geographic alignments are struggling to hang on right now. All we need is someone to make Texas a better offer, and the whole mess will start up again.

[HailtotheYo]

Nebraska was pretty dangerous up until the last three seconds of the Big 12 title game last year, though. Essentially, the rest of the Big 12 just bent over and spread the cheeks for Texas, choosing getting raped over getting murdered.

Which only goes more to my point. With ONE player Nebraska was able to reverse their trend and skate through to the title game. Texas played flat, boom a near upset. Until last year, it'd been what ... 8/9 years since they were Nebraska .... Same goes for Colorado.

I'm not at all saying that Texas wasn't the big cojon'ed bull in the room and that the other schools hinged on their decision. That absolutely was the case (save A&M possibly). As for all that Texas is though, they know what would happen if they just dropped or didn't do everything they could for their existing rivals. As weak as that sounds, it is true. That's how the politics of it work down there. While they were/are the top of the food chain they still need the rest of the conference/the other two big Texas schools.

The one thing we've heard about, though, from these conference network talks, is footprint. Subscribers in states where member schools live garner a better rate from cable carriers than states outside the footprint. The Big 12 lost two states' worth of better rates. There's still good money there, but it would have been better if they hadn't had to watch two sailors dive overboard. This is the big reason that Texas A&M was actually getting somewhere in garnering interest from the SEC.

Exactly, so what then does it say about those markets if the the rest of the Big 12 schools were able to negotiate a better deal without them, and decided to stay the course without them ? Outside of that, the conference is holding 80% from both schools as an 'early out penalty.'

That, and Nebraska is the #104 market (Y)

If any of this were ever about logistics, the Texas schools (all of them, not just UT) going to the Pac-10 would have been laughed out of the room immediately. All this fat cash that everyone's drooling over would have been sucked back out from travel costs for schools' other teams, the ones that would have to make those trips and bring no money back with them.

You don't think that was in the decision making process ? Let's be real here. These are the rough milages:

Austin to Eugene - 1679

to Corvallis - 1702

Pullman - 1539

seattle - 1769

LA - 1229

Berkeley - 1495

Stanford - 1481

With multiple teams making multiple trips every year ? That's horrid. I'm going to make a pretty safe bet that a good enough chunk of that $$$ was itemized right out of the equation when they looked at this.

Outside of that, the money they'd be getting from the (insert conference name here) wouldn't be as much as what they're getting now/in the future with the Big 12. That's just Texas.

Even with that, though, the geographic alignments are struggling to hang on right now. All we need is someone to make Texas a better offer, and the whole mess will start up again.

They're being tested yes. Right now though, what's the biggest conference road trip ?

Tulane to Hawaii is the longest I can think of. That however is and always will be a special case (Hawaii). Really, the only oddball in the WAC is Tulane as everyone else is West of Texas.

The Big East conference map really only has one that is 'out there' in South Florida.

SEC ? no issues

Big Ten ? with Nebraska, NOW they're off a little but it really isn't that odd at all.

Pac 10 ? the two arizona schools, however their big trip to Seattle, is the 3rd shortest that Texas would be making (outside of to the 'zona schools themselves).

MWC ? it looks odd on the map, but when looking at the locations of the institutions it isn't at all. the addition of Boise is right in line geographically as well. TCU to San Deigo St isn't as far as Arizona to USC.

Conference USA ? Yeah, it's spread a little but we're also dealing with the 'left overs' from the dead conferences. However, the divisions completely eliminate the distance issues they face. Even with the interdivisional play they're only looking at a couple of real trips a year.

I do think that eventually we'll see this stretch beyond practical means and go all in simply for the money. Oddly enough though, even with as much selling out that has been done, there are plenty of institutions (or groups of them) that are still looking at the overall picture. While there is an amount out there for them to completely abandon everything, we aren't quite there yet.

[HailtotheYo]

Dear Utah,

Look, let's be real here. The Pac-10 doesn't really want you. They'll settle for you, but don't really want you. You don't belong in the Pac-10. You belong right where you are. You don't need the Pac-10, as the addition of Boise St to the MWC is going to seriously push the envelope of the BCS.

Should you go to the Pac-10 you will be second, or even third fiddle. You'll always be treated as 'that school we brought in so we could get a network/better tv/a title game, and lots of other stuff we'll give you the minimum share of.' Don't do this to yourself. Have some pride, and more importantly, some balls. Stick with the MWC. Push the envelope. It is better for the whole of college football and easily better for you.

Thanks.

Also, LOL Jerry Jones. Arkansas isn't too much of a stretch, but ND for the big 12 ? oh wow.

[Lowerdeck]

Who else could have the Pac 10 taken though, to make a 12 team league - that would be more fitting than Utah?

[HailtotheYo]

They clearly weren't worried too much about that, with the Big 12 raid attempt. Now, I'm not blaming the Pac-10 for making this their second option. I think it's a smart play. I just don't want Utah to accept.

To answer the question though .... Fresno State.

[naiwf]

Dear Utah,

Look, let's be real here. The Pac-10 doesn't really want you. They'll settle for you, but don't really want you. You don't belong in the Pac-10. You belong right where you are. You don't need the Pac-10, as the addition of Boise St to the MWC is going to seriously push the envelope of the BCS.

Should you go to the Pac-10 you will be second, or even third fiddle. You'll always be treated as 'that school we brought in so we could get a network/better tv/a title game, and lots of other stuff we'll give you the minimum share of.' Don't do this to yourself. Have some pride, and more importantly, some balls. Stick with the MWC. Push the envelope. It is better for the whole of college football and easily better for you.

Thanks.

Also, LOL Jerry Jones. Arkansas isn't too much of a stretch, but ND for the big 12 ? oh wow.

You might have a point if this were ever about competition and the good of the sports landscape. But it isn't, and hasn't been for quite a while.

[HailtotheYo]

You might have a point if this were ever about competition and the good of the sports landscape. But it isn't, and hasn't been for quite a while.

LOL, which is exactly why:

"You'll always be treated as 'that school we brought in so we could get a network/better tv/a title game, and lots of other stuff we'll give you the minimum share of."

Was included in the letter. (Y)