Pac-10 Gets OK to Expand

[irafreak]

Beebe didn't even make that call. He was just the one announcing it.

[Cob Mob]

This is a pretty big story up here in Seattle. The local ESPN radio station spent the majority of the last two weekdays drooling over the media markets the PAC-16 would cover, given the recent TV problems of the PAC-10.

 

I do not think that they know the history of Texas and their conference troubles in the SWC and Big XII. The Texas PR department have definitely won so far in making Nebraska look like the bad guy in the whole expansion rumors.

 

It's ok. I'm completely ready to be made the bad guy in this.... for a while. UT has single handedly borked up two major conferences. I don't expect the Pac 10 to deny UT what they want because if you look at it from the Pac 10's standpoint, they have their backs to a wall. However, they'll soon find out what everyone else who's been around Texas knows, they'll be sorry in about 6 years.

 

USC won't be able to stand up to UT, they'll own that conference worse than they do the Big 12 right now, and the rest of the old Pac 10 will be screaming bloody murder. The biggest problem in this scenario is that the teams that you want to see Texas play, because they're spoilers who'll upset you now and again..... will ALL be in the North, and Texas will only have to worry about playing one of them in a championship game. Oregon, Oregon St, Washington (if they get it together), Cal can bite you in the butt, and USC and UCLA have the potential..... But UT will be allowed to dominate all the subservient chumps they've been jacking over for a century in addition to..... Arizona and Arizona St.

 

As for being made out to be the bad guy, get ready for the UT spin machine. I'm not to worried though, it won't take long for the rest of cfb to see what UT does to a conference. Time is on our side.

[hack]

I do not think that they know the history of Texas and their conference troubles in the SWC and Big XII.

 

no direct link because of the language, but when i think of texas i think of this song.

 

they can't change. they are who they are. so far the whornes are two-for-two in wrecking conferences. i have no doubt that they'll go for the hat-trick.

[hack]

Cu getting knocked out for baylor....dammmmmnnnnnnnn

 

"History repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as farce"?

 

the only reason why baylor and texas tech are both in the big xii is because there are some mighty powerful boosters in texas politics that are willing to go to war to over their alma mater. it would seem that history has indeed repeated itself.

 

what really is cruel about this is that colorado has dreamed of finally hooking up with pac-10 for decades and they get shafted so baylor can pretend to be a real football program.

 

aw, well. enjoy the mountain west, boys! *waves "buh-bye!" to the buffs*

[huKSer]

Cu getting knocked out for baylor....dammmmmnnnnnnnn

 

"History repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as farce"?

 

the only reason why baylor and texas tech are both in the big xii is because there are some mighty powerful boosters in texas politics that are willing to go to war to over their alma mater. it would seem that history has indeed repeated itself.

 

what really is cruel about this is that colorado has dreamed of finally hooking up with pac-10 for decades and they get shafted so baylor can pretend to be a real football program.

 

aw, well. enjoy the mountain west, boys! *waves "buh-bye!" to the buffs*

Denver Post has an online poll. Don't know if this is revisionist history but:

 

Stay in Big 12 18%

Go to Pac 10 34%

Go to MWC 48%

[TheCheshireCat]

Well at least then Dan Hawkins can be competitive... maybe.

[HUSKER 37]

Here are two more links:

 

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091537

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2012048210_scott_gets_authority_to_pursue.html

 

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/colleges/articles/2010/06/06/20100606pac-10-commissioner-gets-authority-pursue-expansion.html

 

Pac-10 commissioner gets authority to pursue expansion

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO - The Pac-10 concluded its meetings Sunday by giving commissioner Larry Scott the authority to pursue any possible expansion, while not committing the conference to adding any more schools.

 

Scott addressed the chancellors and presidents on the final day of the weekend meeting about possible expansion scenarios and was given permission to move ahead with the process without having to go back to the board for approval.

 

 

"What direction that process takes still could go in different directions," Scott said. "Everything from remaining as we are as a Pac-10 that has some very bright days ahead of it, to a bigger conference foot print. I have the authority to take it different directions depending on various scenarios and discussions we will have."

 

The conference will decide its future plans by the end of the year before negotiating a new television contract for the 2012-13 academic year.

 

The Pac-10 administrators arrived in San Francisco this weekend to a report that the conference was ready to invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor from the Big 12 to create a 16-team megaconference.

 

There has also been a report that Baylor could replace Colorado in that scenario or the Pac-10 could choose to keep the status quo or add only two teams in a smaller move.

 

"We probably have contemplated or are contemplating almost everything you've read about," Scott said. "The Pac-10 is in a very fortunate position. We have tremendous prospects exactly as we are. We also have some potentially exciting opportunities regarding expanding the footprint of the conference."

 

Scott, the former head of the Women's Tennis Association, took over the conference last July. In February, he said the window for possible expansion would be until the end of 2010 before the conference negotiated a new television deal. Since then, speculation has grown about if the Pac-10 would choose to expand, and if so, what teams it would seek to add.

 

The Pac-10 had perhaps been the conference most resistant to change in recent decades. While all of the other five major football conferences had either expanded or swapped teams since the start of the 1990s, the Pac-10 has been in its current format since adding Arizona and Arizona State in 1978.

 

With five pairs of natural rivals, the Pac-10 has been able to hold down travel time and costs and play a full round-robin in football and home-and-homes against each team in basketball.

 

A major motivation for the expansion talk is to increase revenues for the schools under a new media contract that begins in the 2012-13 academic year. Negotiations will start early next year and could lead the development of a Pac-10 network similar to what the Big Ten has successfully done.

 

Pac-10 teams make considerably less from television and bowl deals. Big Ten schools reportedly receive about $22 million each from television and bowl deals and SEC school each get at least $17.3 million. Pac-10 teams, meanwhile, reportedly only get about $8 million to $10 million each from the conference deals.

 

Scott said the reason for expansion would be that it could create "exponential" growth in terms of money and exposure.

 

"I can't say for sure sitting here today that there are options that will achieve these goals where the Pac-10 can stay true to its DNA and its special values," Scott said. "But there are some very exciting possibilities out there. That's why we're investing so much time and effort."

 

 

 

Posted comments:

 

 

LumberjackMarkJun-06 @ 2:47 PM

I'll believe it when I see it. Be nice to add some good Big 12 schools, but I'm not convinced it gonna happen. Not yet.

 

 

FredCDobbs Jun-06 @ 5:20 PM

The last thing we need is a Pac West/East or North/South. We don't get to play every team in the Pac now (football). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

 

 

mfking64 Jun-07 @ 12:27 AM

actually, yes we do get to play everyone in football

 

 

ASUdudeJun-06 @ 2:55 PM

More revenue, more people in stands more quality competition. Hopefully this happens.

 

 

pantera3800Jun-06 @ 3:08 PM

I'm thinking it will happen for sure. Just hope we get some great new teams. 2, 4 or 6 of them. Hopefully we will get teams that make since for the fans, the rest of the PAC, and naturally revenue.

 

Tillman42Jun-06 @ 3:22 PM

This story is getting bigger and moving faster almost on a daily basis. With the tv contracts expiring soon, the conferences will have to make decision fairly quickly, within a couple months. Very interesting times for college sports. The Big12 can't be happy with Nebraska or Misouri right now. By June 15th, we will know what their intentions are, stay in Big12 or leave to the Big10.

 

 

 

JoeAmericaJun-06 @ 3:31 PM

Add BYU and Utah and be done.

 

KEEP ALL THAT TEXAS CRAP OUT!

 

 

There are 2 replies to this comment. Expand Collapse . Munch Jun-06 @ 4:23 PM

BYU and/or Utah would not be competitive in the PAC-10.

 

 

AZclass Jun-06 @ 7:01 PM

No way to BYU!!

 

 

Mark2006Jun-06 @ 3:41 PM

For the Pac-10 to make any big money in the future and have a great TV contract with ESPN/ABC, they need to pick up the power schools of the Big 12: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

 

BYU/Utah are not a big money maker and they can't play on a Sunday schedule which affects the basketball, softball and baseball season schedule.

 

 

AZcowboy82Jun-06 @ 3:45 PM

So the PAC-10 does not want Baylor what a joke. Baylor has a larger enrollment then Stanford and the majority of their Alumni live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I wounder which area has bigger sports viewing area Dallas/Fort Worth or the Bay Area! Take Baylor and leave Colorado!

 

 

There is 1 reply to this comment. Expand Collapse . AZclass Jun-06 @ 7:03 PM

Baylor?? No way. A small Baptist college in Waco, Texas. How is that better than Colorado??

 

 

MRMRJun-06 @ 3:47 PM

adding the six teams from the Big12 is a bad idea if youre ASU fan. We will fall into the abyss but not as far as AU

 

 

MunchJun-06 @ 4:13 PM

The PAC-10 will have to look in the midwest(which is east as far as I'm concerned). The only team I can see in the west that's good enough to be in the PAC-10 is Boise State. They could go after Nebraska, Oklahoma & Texas, but continuing with the name Pacific Athletic Conference would be a stretch. LOL...

 

 

persianprofJun-06 @ 4:15 PM

Come on, Joe America! Don't be so negative about Texas and Oklahoma! This is going to be great! This conference is going to rule the USA. Inland: ASU, UofA, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado/Baylor. Pacific: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, UCLA, USC, Stanford. Wow! This is going to be fantastic. And JoeAmerica, I can assure you that whichever Arizona team you support, you'll be welcomed in either Texas or Oklahoma!

 

 

persianprofJun-06 @ 4:19 PM

Come on, ASU fans! Stop being so negative about your university! You will not fall into the abyss. Where does this nonsense come from? There are probably high school football players in both Texas and Oklahoma right now thinking about playing for ASU or UofA - if this merger happens - and I have no doubt that it'll happen. Don't think for one minute that every high school football player in either Texas or Oklahoma only wants to play football in one of these two states. That's not the way it works. ASU and UofA are two fantastic universities and will draw a lot of recruits from these two states.

 

 

rvb12345Jun-06 @ 4:29 PM

BS. Texas is great........

 

PhilipTortoraJun-06 @ 4:35 PM

This could be the week that dominoes start to fall in the college football expansion game. If Nebraska and Missouri head to the Big Ten, the landscape of college sports is quickly going to change dramatically.

 

http://philiptortora.blogsp...

 

reclineJun-06 @ 5:08 PM

B.S. Oklahoma is better!

 

Beach10Jun-06 @ 5:37 PM

I don't care for the idea of "mega" conferences. I think 12-team conferences like the SEC and Big 12 work out pretty good. Two 6-team divisions work out well for scheduling. In football, each SEC team plays everyone in their division (five games) and play 3 teams from the other division. Each team has one team in the other division that they play every year (Auburn plays Georgia, Alabama plays Tennessee, etc). They play two teams each year on a rotating (2 year) basis. It seems to work well for them. With 16 teams, it you could go almost a decade without playing some team from the other division. This doesn't seem like a "conference".

 

And, I know other conferences are talking about becoming "mega" conferences also. Maybe all the conferences should just merge and become one big "mega" conference...

 

 

Munch Jun-06 @ 5:50 PM

They have all merged into one big "mega conference"... It's call the NCAA.

 

AZclassJun-06 @ 7:07 PM

Bad Idea. Arizona and ASU will be put in an Easter Conference, which will be dominated by Texas schools. Our contact with Texas increases and our contact with the west coast diminishes. Not a good thing. The Arizona schools, in effect, will be the ones being moved!! Besides, I don't want to listen to a bunch of loud-mouthed Texans. Give me the Oregon or Washington schools over Yee-Hah Texans anytime.

 

 

persianprofJun-06 @ 7:42 PM

Honestly, AZclass, the last time I heard anyone from Texas go "Yee-Hah" was in an old Roy Rogers movie in 1948. The people you'll meet in Austin, Waco (provided it's not Boulder), College-Station, Lubbock, Norman, and Stillwater don't talk that way. Now, they will yell, "Hook'em Horns" or "Guns Up" or the like but not "Yee-Hah!" I promise! If this merger takes place, it'll be a good thing for both conferences. Don't forget that Texas Tech and ASU and UofA had rivalries in the Border Conference long before your great teams joined the Pac-10. We'll rule the western half of the United States!

 

 

suncusserJun-06 @ 8:33 PM

I was a student in a Southwest Conference School when the going rate for a good running back was about $10,000. I hope we don't get into that mess again with all these Texas Schools.

 

 

IH8UA2Jun-06 @ 9:44 PM

Its funny how no one wants Bozo State.

 

GO DEVILS & UGLY SOFTBALL!

 

SportsJunkyJun-06 @ 10:29 PM

This is going to happen. Thank goodness the PAC 10 is waking up and embracing the large network contracts. The quality of play in the Big 10 cannot compare year in and year out to the PAC 10. Look at the revenues: $22 million to the Big 10, $17 million to the SEC - which in my opinion has the best football product year in and year out, and $8 million for the PAC 10. This is all about advertising and size of markets. While I think Utah and BYU have accomplished alot respectively and play an exciting brad of football, their markets are weak. With Texas and Oklahoma and even Texas A&M, you are tapping into some healthy TV markets. The only way you are going to get Texas and Oklahoma is by adding Oklahoma State and A&M. Baylor & Texas Tech would be nice additions but not "essential". Colorado would add the Denver market and be a natural fit. By having Texas and Oklahoma we should be a $18-$20 million conference year in and year out. Classic in conference matchups with Texas and Oklahoma playing USC, Oregon - ASU. This would be great. It will happen, take it to the bank. It will also open up some recruiting venues in Texas to second tier schools like ASU.

 

[muddy_dawg]

As lifetime Husky, I would welcome Texas et al to the Pac-16 or whatever they want to call it. At this point I realize that there is currently one super conference: The SEC. Yes, they have a good ratio on Nat'l Titles the last few years as well as ESPN all over them, but top to bottom, they aren't as competitive as the other major conferences. What they do have is massive mounts of TV revenue. The Big Ten has the most lucrative TV deal. The Pac-10 has been the stick in the mud of college athletics for over twenty years now and we've paid for it in abysmal nat'l exposure and a joke of TV network in FSN, so I welcome a change to make us more competitive (in all sports, not just fball and bball).

 

Some fans in the PAC-10 are quaking in their boots at the thought of adding half the Big-12, but the top three football schools, USC, UCLA and Washington have the ways and means to compete and will step up to the challenge.

 

Personally, as a closet Nebraska fan, I'd rather have Neb and Colorado in the PAC than Texas and A&M, but I'd also like to have Miami and Michigan instead of Washington State and Oregon so whatever.

 

 

P.S. before any inquiries about 0-12 seasons pop up, forget about it. The days of woeful mismanagement are over and I'll see you on 09/18!

[HUSKER 37]

Shaggy Bevo:

 

Texass and their "Entourage"

 

On clingy Baylor:

Baylor doesnt add a single thing other than political expediency, if that, while taking a share of the tip jar at the keg, despite never bringing any beer to the party ever.

 

 

http://kentsterling.com/2010/06/07/b...-need-to-know/

 

 

BIG TEN EXPANSION – TEXAS TO THE BIG 10: THE LONGHORN AND/OR THE LEPRECHAUN? HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

June 7, 2010, 4:13 pm

 

By Pauly Balst, Former Guest Columnus Emeritus

 

Just spent some time catching up with friends that work at the Big10 network. They are privy to nothing, but it sounds like kentsterling.com and posters are all correct to some extent.

 

Unnamed sources confirm Notre Dame has deferred its secret pre-emptive non-invitation to the Big 10 to see what the University of Texas does. Its all about making the pie bigger. And ND is the consolation prize, they just dont know it yet.

 

Here’s why. The B10 network is the game changer. It has been wildly successful because of two syllables – Comcast. Its growing into a huge honey pie, making the pie bigger for all. They are raking in the dough, and upgrading everything at the network itself. B10 is the only one with the national appeal and power to negotiate with business partners from a position of strength. Other conferences have (or can have) networks, lord knows the cable bandwidth is there. But they largely have to pay to have content carried, whereas Comcast et al (other cable networks) pays the B10 Net. Its blurry, but I believe technically the schools actually pay the B10 Net too, and the net result is a dividend back to the schools, since they own it. Comcast pays 50 cents per household or something.

 

Why the Big 10? Its logical if you think about it this way: how many SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, Big East alums are there? And, how many truly reside nationally, compared to the Big 10? How many Florida, UCLA and North Carolina alums live in Chicago? Not many comparatively. How many B10 alums live in Florida, New York, Texas and California? Tons. Hoards. The Big 10 has huge, old schools that have been scattering alumni hither and yon for decades, well over a century. The Big 10 institutions are leaders in statewide multi campus approach, so a Wisconsin – Whitewater has an affinity with Wisconsin Madison, and who’s counting, and alum is an alum. Alternatively, a lot of the states, and therefore the flagship schools in other conferences, are small, were small, or grew recently in comparison as the population shifted (Wash State, LSU, Alabama, Az, Az State) and therefore have limited national appeal. If you grew up in Youngstown OH and went to Ohio State, are you going back to Youngstown? Not likely. If you grew up in southern California and went to school in CA, you heading to Cleveland? No, you’d likely stay in CA. As a result, on any given Saturday, a lot of people in California want to watch Michigan because they or their parents or family are from there, whereas not many in the midwest or east or even outside CA (or even inside truth be told) want to watch Cal.

 

Only the B10 can have that appeal nationally, its possible if not likely only the B10 can pull it off and get Comcast to pay them. Ergo, the economic weakness regionally, becomes the strength nationally.

 

B10 wants to add a 12th school immediately to get the championship game in football, and will likely add 3 or 5 in total and move to 14 or 16. By charter, the only schools eligible are some sort of designated level 1 research institutions, there are only 60 or so in the US, and 11 are already in the B10. The additional criteria are first tier academics (more than anyone would think-including being the best at something), incremental TV market, football, basketball and women’s athletics powers.

 

So when you look at it, the B10 likely does not make sense for Notre Dame today, they have their own football gig, the B10 adds little geographically in TV dollars incrementally to ND, academically a wash vs others. But the Big East needs ND for the same reason, the Chicago market.

 

Inversely, the B10 doesn’t really need ND, ND adds little incrementally tv wise or geographically, academically its a wash, and there is a football conflict with NBC.

 

Here’s the punch line you have to understand: the B10 net and network contracts in sum now pays more per school to the Big 10 than the exclusive ND NBC contract and the Big East dividends pays ND (how much does Seton Hall add to ND in hoops revenue? Not much). And sources indicate unless something changes, the NBC contract will not be as lucrative for obvious reasons (i.e. they haven’t been very good if you havent noticed).

 

So oddly, ND would get less joining the B10 as the exclusive football TV contract would end, and, the B10 would essentially be subsidizing ND since ND doesn’t add much to make the pie bigger. Arguably a lose-lose.

 

But to complete the loop, GE now owns a minority stake in NBC. GE has a lot of key execs that are ND alum, including the Vice Chairman, which benefitted ND historically, when the majority of NBC was owned by GE and the contract was inked. However, GE sold a portion of NBC, they just sold a controlling interest to?……………Comcast. Thats the same Comcast cheerfully in bed with the Big 10 and printing money. That will work against ND this time around, obviously. Comcast, unlike NBC under GE, is not a not-for-profit institution.

 

Opinion Research shows the B10 has a lower profile among both sub 25 year olds, and people who don’t appreciate the business side of the for-profit amateur athletics industry. In other words, Urban Meyer and Tim Tebow are cooler to youth than Jim Tressel and Terrell Pryor (no surprise there). But from a prestige, revenue, respect, on and off the field success, business acumen, national alumni base, true national draw, revenue generation, etc., anyone involved with athletics will tell you the B10 is the pinnacle and anyone and everyone else is a distant 2nd. No one is even close.

 

And Jim Delaney, Chairman of the B10, is the most powerful man in college sports. Period.

 

So when you look at the options, Texas and the Big 10 are mutually logical. The B10 gives Brand Longhorn the largest megaphone, tv pipeline and national exposure in college sports across the time zones with B10 Network. Huge incremental exposure outside the core brand geography, into the densely populated midwest initially, then the NYC market in the second phase. So joining the Big 10 totally makes sense for Texas. UT wants to cleave Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech, etc., from their coattails, and have the state to themselves. Then you look at the other deliverables, what does the Big 12 or Pac 10 do for Texas? Give them more of the nighttime TV football starts that they all complain about now? What do they deliver that they don’t have already, especially outside TX? Ownership of the Stillwater and Omaha markets? The LA Coliseum has no pro teams for a reason, too many other things to do in CA.

 

Texas gives the B10 a gigantic incremental and wired Comcast TV audience in Texas. The Big 10 Network allows Brand Longhorn to dominate Texas, and share with no one in the state of Texas. Plus, there are hoards of B10 alum living in TX. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, all are huge TV markets, and UT dominates them. UT is an enormous school with alumni everywhere too, outstanding athletics and research academics. Texas fits the Big 10 more than the Big 12, Baylor fits the Big 12 more than the Big 10.

 

Both Texas and the Big 10 win, and win big, in that scenario.

 

Through that prism, Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pitt, other rumored candidates make far, far less sense. Missouri and Nebraska, which deliver St Louis/Kansas City/Omaha markets are nice, but really head fakes away from the big enchilada sitting in Austin. DFW alone likely spills more viewers than those markets combined, and that’s before you look at future growth.

 

In the 16 school scenario, Syracuse and Rutgers are the chosen. By grabbing the NY market, and the nations largest TV audience in a sweeping pincer movement, its game over. Think UT Trustees would like Brand Longhorn playing the ‘Cuse at the new Meadowlands stadium and dipping the ‘Horn into the metro NY TV pie? Of course.

 

So if Texas joins the Big 10, Notre Dame may acknowledge the existence of the denied speculative non-invitation to join the Big 10 too, because the Big East comes apart. If not, who cares. It’s all about Texas.

 

Discussions on academics and student athlete experience and class week travel are quaint references to a bygone era. If the Big 10 lands Texas, these kids’ll be pampered and flying charter on B10 Network airlines with tutors on board to compensate for the extra 45 minute flight. They’ll get over it.

 

The Big 10 network is shaping up to be a very big deal. They are basically cutting out the middleman.

 

Texas or bust.

[knapplc]

Through that prism, Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pitt, other rumored candidates make far, far less sense. Missouri and Nebraska, which deliver St Louis/Kansas City/Omaha markets are nice, but really head fakes away from the big enchilada sitting in Austin. DFW alone likely spills more viewers than those markets combined, and that’s before you look at future growth.

 

I like how he spends the first several paragraphs of his article explaining why the diaspora of Rust Belt denizens to southern climes means the Big 10 can market their network to Florida et al, but then turns around and makes this statement (in bold) about Nebraska.

 

Hey, sparky - we have a bazillion alumni spread all over this country, too. Get a clue.

[HUSKER 37]

Through that prism, Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pitt, other rumored candidates make far, far less sense. Missouri and Nebraska, which deliver St Louis/Kansas City/Omaha markets are nice, but really head fakes away from the big enchilada sitting in Austin. DFW alone likely spills more viewers than those markets combined, and that’s before you look at future growth.

 

I like how he spends the first several paragraphs of his article explaining why the diaspora of Rust Belt denizens to southern climes means the Big 10 can market their network to Florida et al, but then turns around and makes this statement (in bold) about Nebraska.

 

Hey, sparky - we have a bazillion alumni spread all over this country, too. Get a clue.

 

 

It would be interesting so see if Nebraska would have one of if not THE highest per capita (especially of student population) of this phenomena, but even if it was somehow double anyone else (probably impossible) we still would never have the same numbers.. I.E...There's a lot more alumnai of places like Texas or tOSU than there are of Dear Old Nebraska U.

 

Top-10 Colleges in America by Student Population:

Ohio State 50,995

University of Minnestoa 50,949

University of Texas at Austin 50,337

Arizona State 49,171

University of Florida 47,993

 

UNL 22.988

 

 

 

Granted, We also have fans that went to other small colleges or didn't ever go to college, but so do the others...and their humongous populations.

A local (PHX) radio DJ I met is one of the biggest Buckeye fans I've met..but he went to Ohio U.

 

ASU has a student population of over 49K, but probably fewer Sun Devil fans than our number of current students being Husker Fans..But the others? The numbers are probably too much to overcome (Especially Texas)..Then multiply that by several years.

[husker_99]

This is a pretty big story up here in Seattle. The local ESPN radio station spent the majority of the last two weekdays drooling over the media markets the PAC-16 would cover, given the recent TV problems of the PAC-10.

 

I do not think that they know the history of Texas and their conference troubles in the SWC and Big XII. The Texas PR department have definitely won so far in making Nebraska look like the bad guy in the whole expansion rumors.

 

It's ok. I'm completely ready to be made the bad guy in this.... for a while. UT has single handedly borked up two major conferences. I don't expect the Pac 10 to deny UT what they want because if you look at it from the Pac 10's standpoint, they have their backs to a wall. However, they'll soon find out what everyone else who's been around Texas knows, they'll be sorry in about 6 years.

 

USC won't be able to stand up to UT, they'll own that conference worse than they do the Big 12 right now, and the rest of the old Pac 10 will be screaming bloody murder. The biggest problem in this scenario is that the teams that you want to see Texas play, because they're spoilers who'll upset you now and again..... will ALL be in the North, and Texas will only have to worry about playing one of them in a championship game. Oregon, Oregon St, Washington (if they get it together), Cal can bite you in the butt, and USC and UCLA have the potential..... But UT will be allowed to dominate all the subservient chumps they've been jacking over for a century in addition to..... Arizona and Arizona St.

 

As for being made out to be the bad guy, get ready for the UT spin machine. I'm not to worried though, it won't take long for the rest of cfb to see what UT does to a conference. Time is on our side.

 

You can't be serious in saying that USC can't stand up to Texas. If Texas joins the Pac-10 they won't be able to do whatever they want cause 1. they are joining an established conference. The Big 12 was newly formed. Now if the Big 8 simply expanded we probably wouldn't have these problems with Texas. 2. USC backs down to no one and with them joining i don't see the now current members taking crap from newbies. Texas and OU are the only schools that matter to the Pac-10. Baylor, TT, Ok St, and A&M aren't significant in any way.

[HUSKER 37]

This is a pretty big story up here in Seattle. The local ESPN radio station spent the majority of the last two weekdays drooling over the media markets the PAC-16 would cover, given the recent TV problems of the PAC-10.

 

I do not think that they know the history of Texas and their conference troubles in the SWC and Big XII. The Texas PR department have definitely won so far in making Nebraska look like the bad guy in the whole expansion rumors.

 

It's ok. I'm completely ready to be made the bad guy in this.... for a while. UT has single handedly borked up two major conferences. I don't expect the Pac 10 to deny UT what they want because if you look at it from the Pac 10's standpoint, they have their backs to a wall. However, they'll soon find out what everyone else who's been around Texas knows, they'll be sorry in about 6 years.

 

USC won't be able to stand up to UT, they'll own that conference worse than they do the Big 12 right now, and the rest of the old Pac 10 will be screaming bloody murder. The biggest problem in this scenario is that the teams that you want to see Texas play, because they're spoilers who'll upset you now and again..... will ALL be in the North, and Texas will only have to worry about playing one of them in a championship game. Oregon, Oregon St, Washington (if they get it together), Cal can bite you in the butt, and USC and UCLA have the potential..... But UT will be allowed to dominate all the subservient chumps they've been jacking over for a century in addition to..... Arizona and Arizona St.

 

As for being made out to be the bad guy, get ready for the UT spin machine. I'm not to worried though, it won't take long for the rest of cfb to see what UT does to a conference. Time is on our side.

 

You can't be serious in saying that USC can't stand up to Texas. If Texas joins the Pac-10 they won't be able to do whatever they want cause 1. they are joining an established conference. The Big 12 was newly formed. Now if the Big 8 simply expanded we probably wouldn't have these problems with Texas. 2. USC backs down to no one and with them joining i don't see the now current members taking crap from newbies. Texas and OU are the only schools that matter to the Pac-10. Baylor, TT, Ok St, and A&M aren't significant in any way.

 

So..

You're saying USC controls the PAC?

Based on what? Their FB team being in the top 10 most of last decade?

 

If you're just talking Football, there's a lot of apathy in the PAC.

[husker_99]

This is a pretty big story up here in Seattle. The local ESPN radio station spent the majority of the last two weekdays drooling over the media markets the PAC-16 would cover, given the recent TV problems of the PAC-10.

 

I do not think that they know the history of Texas and their conference troubles in the SWC and Big XII. The Texas PR department have definitely won so far in making Nebraska look like the bad guy in the whole expansion rumors.

 

It's ok. I'm completely ready to be made the bad guy in this.... for a while. UT has single handedly borked up two major conferences. I don't expect the Pac 10 to deny UT what they want because if you look at it from the Pac 10's standpoint, they have their backs to a wall. However, they'll soon find out what everyone else who's been around Texas knows, they'll be sorry in about 6 years.

 

USC won't be able to stand up to UT, they'll own that conference worse than they do the Big 12 right now, and the rest of the old Pac 10 will be screaming bloody murder. The biggest problem in this scenario is that the teams that you want to see Texas play, because they're spoilers who'll upset you now and again..... will ALL be in the North, and Texas will only have to worry about playing one of them in a championship game. Oregon, Oregon St, Washington (if they get it together), Cal can bite you in the butt, and USC and UCLA have the potential..... But UT will be allowed to dominate all the subservient chumps they've been jacking over for a century in addition to..... Arizona and Arizona St.

 

As for being made out to be the bad guy, get ready for the UT spin machine. I'm not to worried though, it won't take long for the rest of cfb to see what UT does to a conference. Time is on our side.

 

You can't be serious in saying that USC can't stand up to Texas. If Texas joins the Pac-10 they won't be able to do whatever they want cause 1. they are joining an established conference. The Big 12 was newly formed. Now if the Big 8 simply expanded we probably wouldn't have these problems with Texas. 2. USC backs down to no one and with them joining i don't see the now current members taking crap from newbies. Texas and OU are the only schools that matter to the Pac-10. Baylor, TT, Ok St, and A&M aren't significant in any way.

 

So..

You're saying USC controls the PAC?

Based on what? Their FB team being in the top 10 most of last decade?

 

If you're just talking Football, there's a lot of apathy in the PAC.

 

USC has been good in football longer than the last decade. I'm saying that Texas won't have as much power as they have now. They won't be able to go in and do whatever they want like in the Big 12. Pac-10 won't roll over like everyone for Texas like they were able to in the Big 12.