BREAKING NEWS!!!! Big 10 makes initial offer!!

[lebomb]

To Notre Dame, Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska!!!

http://www.810whb.com/blog/3534


The dominoes are about to fall.................................... :wakeup

[rjv]

i'd have no problem saying adios to the huskers and tigers.

[Blake]

If this is true, then imo,

99% chance Rutgers says yes.

50% chance ND says yes

20% chance Missouri says yes

5% chance Nebraska says yes.

[IronMexican]

Hoping ND goes.

[DMX7]

The report is that Rutgers would only get an invite if ND turned it down.

Still, to me, this is all just speculation. It was reported by only one radio station so far (and all the other reports use that as its source).

[Phillip]

lol utsa

[Marklar MM]

If this is true, then imo,

99% chance Rutgers says yes.

50% chance ND says yes

20% chance Missouri says yes

5% chance Nebraska says yes.

LMFAO.

100% Rutgers would say yes...they want in.
ND is <10%
Mizzou about 50
Nebraska a bit below Mizzou.

[samikeyp]

and here we go.

[DMX7]

UPDATE: A Nebraska spokeswoman has released a statement this afternoon, saying the Cornhuskers have not received an offer:

"We recognize the intense speculation about conference realignment and the possible impact it may have on Nebraska. Both Chancellor Harvey Perlman and Athletic Director Tom Osborne have indicated that the university would consider any opportunity that would advance the interests of the university.

"The University of Nebraska has not been offered any opportunity to move from the Big 12. We remain committed to the success of the Big 12 Conference. Until the Big Ten Conference makes and announces its decision on expansion, the University of Nebraska will have no further comment and we do not intend to continue to respond further to questions or speculations on this subject."


http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/report-nebraska-mizzou-invited-to-big-te.html

[Blake]

The report is that Rutgers would only get an invite if ND turned it down.

Still, to me, this is all just speculation. It was reported by only one radio station so far (and all the other reports use that as its source).

I think it's all speculation as well.

It could be true, but a blog from an obscure radio station isn't exactly the best source.

[Blake]

LMFAO.

100% Rutgers would say yes...they want in.

to me it's like how hand sanitizer kills 99.9% of germs. You leave that door slightly cracked incaseshit.


ND is <10%

I dunno. The football program has been swirling a bit and revenue is not guaranteed with stations like NBC once that contract is up, whereas Big 10 schools are sharing nice large sums of money.

I also don't think the Big 10 would officially offer and get shot down again unless they sent some feelers out first and though they had a real chance.

[Whisky Dog]

This is bs. Why would they offer Rutgers? Rutgers brings almost nothing to the table except a small share of NY area market. Makes no sense.

[Blake]

This is bs. Why would they offer Rutgers? Rutgers brings almost nothing to the table except a small share of NY area market. Makes no sense.

yeah I agree.

If they were to go after the NY market, even though they have sucked, it would seem to make more sense to go after Syracuse, imo.

..even then....

[NFO]

I also don't think the Big 10 would officially offer and get shot down again unless they sent some feelers out first and though they had a real chance.

I think that would be true if the Big 10 only asked ND. By asking Mizzu and Nebraska and ND with Rutgers being an option if ND declines I think the Big 10 is essentially saying its now or never ND and this is NDs chance to control your own destiny.

IF the Big 10 took Mizzu and Nebraska and the Pac-10 took Colorado that leaves the Big 12 kind of scrambling and who knows the Big 10s expansion could lead to 4 super conferences of 16 and ND might be at the mercy of going to a conference they did not want to be in.

[Blake]

I think that would be true if the Big 10 only asked ND. By asking Mizzu and Nebraska and ND with Rutgers being an option if ND declines I think the Big 10 is essentially saying its now or never ND and this is NDs chance to control your own destiny.

IF the Big 10 took Mizzu and Nebraska and the Pac-10 took Colorado that leaves the Big 12 kind of scrambling and who knows the Big 10s expansion could lead to 4 super conferences of 16 and ND might be at the mercy of going to a conference they did not want to be in.

what conference would ND not want to be in that they would forced to join?

[DMX7]

It's flawed logic to even think the NY market is up for grabs. NYC is where the NY market is most valuable and college sports will never be big there because pro sports rule the day there.

[Blake]

It's flawed logic to even think the NY market is up for grabs. NYC is where the NY market is most valuable and college sports will never be big there because pro sports rule the day there.

true. pretty much can say that about any town with an NFL team.

[NFO]

what conference would ND not want to be in that they would forced to join?

Not sure. Depends on if a 4 16 team conferences happens and what the NCAA requires/does. Purely hypothetical, nothing more than that.

The Big 10 obviously wants ND and the only reason the Big 10 asked them this time around in my opinion is that (a) they have sent out feelers and know there is a good chance that they will accept and (b) to force NDs hand, because if the Big Ten expands other conferences may expand and essentially end the Big East, which is where all of NDs other sports are at.

[Marklar MM]

The Big 10 obviously wants ND and the only reason the Big 10 asked them this time around in my opinion is that (a) they have sent out feelers and know there is a good chance that they will accept and (b) to force NDs hand, because if the Big Ten expands other conferences may expand and essentially end the Big East, which is where all of NDs other sports are at.

This.

[vander]

Is is just me? or does the Big 10 getting what they want here really skew/fuck up the college football landscape. and even if they don't, are they not acting like they're bigger than the BCS?

I mean, a conference like that, where half of the teams have bigger football programs that the top Big East school?

they would almost be in position to demand a second AQ or secede from the BCS and blow the whole system up...

:downspin:

thoughts anyone? I don't want to see this happen, I think this could really damage college football. the Big 10+1 should just add one team and be a 12 team conference, no need for this power play.

[Marklar MM]

Is is just me? or does the Big 10 getting what they want here really skew/fuck up the college football landscape. and even if they don't, are they not acting like they're bigger than the BCS?

I mean, a conference like that, where half of the teams have bigger football programs that the top Big East school?

they would almost be in position to demand a second AQ or secede from the BCS and blow the whole system up...

:downspin:

thoughts anyone? I don't want to see this happen, I think this could really damage college football. the Big 10+1 should just add one team and be a 12 team conference, no need for this power play.

$$$$ Same reason they made the BCS.

[vander]

$$$$ Same reason they made the BCS.

well obviously, but I think they're overplaying their hand a little,

IMO the BCS created the golden goose, and the Big 10 is potentially plucking some feathers here... for lack of a better way to say it.

[Marklar MM]

well obviously, but I think they're overplaying their hand a little,

IMO the BCS created the golden goose, and the Big 10 is potentially plucking some feathers here... for lack of a better way to say it.

Why wouldn't they?

[samikeyp]

this.

+1

[K-State Spur]

I'm not saying it won't happen. But that article is by Kevin Keitzman who is a radio show host in the KC area with a track record for being right about half as often as hoopsworld.

[chrisattsu]

It's flawed logic to even think the NY market is up for grabs. NYC is where the NY market is most valuable and college sports will never be big there because pro sports rule the day there.

It is about money and exposure of the Big Ten Network.

The BTN charges cable/sat providers in these Big Ten media markets $1 per subscriber, while only charging the rest of the country 10 cents per subscriber. If they can get into NYC/NJ it will mean a pretty big deal.

[Blake]

The Big 10 obviously wants ND and the only reason the Big 10 asked them this time around in my opinion is that (a) they have sent out feelers and know there is a good chance that they will accept and (b) to force NDs hand, because if the Big Ten expands other conferences may expand and essentially end the Big East, which is where all of NDs other sports are at.

I think you are underestimating ND's pull.

If they say no to the offer today and then change their minds 3 years from now, the Big 10 will still bend over for them......as would any conference.

[Blake]

well obviously, but I think they're overplaying their hand a little,

IMO the BCS created the golden goose, and the Big 10 is potentially plucking some feathers here... for lack of a better way to say it.

whose feathers are they plucking?

[DMX7]

It is about money and exposure of the Big Ten Network.

The BTN charges cable/sat providers in these Big Ten media markets $1 per subscriber, while only charging the rest of the country 10 cents per subscriber. If they can get into NYC/NJ it will mean a pretty big deal.

I know, but that assumes people are going to subscribe in that market and I just don't see Rutgers drawing more demand for that channel (regarless of market) than another more attractive school.

[Marklar MM]

I know, but that assumes people are going to subscribe in that market and I just don't see Rutgers drawing more demand for that channel (regarless of market) than another more attractive school.

Big10 network goes on cable in the Big10 school regions. Same as ESPN, etc. 70 cents a house(or whatever they agree upon). That's why they want to get into the New York/Jersey blueprint.

[dallaskd]

Rutgers is gone in a heatbeat. Nebraska is def no. Notre Dame and Mizzou are toss ups imo. TCU to the big 12!!

[DMX7]

Big10 network goes on cable in the Big10 school regions. Same as ESPN, etc. 70 cents a house(or whatever they agree upon). That's why they want to get into the New York/Jersey blueprint.

Worthless Comment of the Thread Award goes to this.

[lebomb]

I also heard the Big 10 wants Rutgers because they have a good academic reputation. :wakeup

[NFO]

I think you are underestimating ND's pull.

If they say no to the offer today and then change their minds 3 years from now, the Big 10 will still bend over for them......as would any conference.

Maybe, but in years past ND held all the cards with their (at the time) NBC contract, but since the Big Ten created the Big Ten Network, ND no longer holds all the cards. If the Big Ten were to pluck one or two Big East teams and another conference and mess up NDs other sports programs the leverage has shifted to the Big Ten, but ND still has some pull.




I know, but that assumes people are going to subscribe in that market and I just don't see Rutgers drawing more demand for that channel (regarless of market) than another more attractive school.

They don't have to subscribe if the Big Ten can get the channel on basic expanded cable. I don't think the Big Ten would ask a school if they didn't think they could get into the NY market, even if it is a pro sports town. Getting the channel on the basic cable expanded version is what they are after.

[Blake]

Maybe, but in years past ND held all the cards with their (at the time) NBC contract, but since the Big Ten created the Big Ten Network, ND no longer holds all the cards. If the Big Ten were to pluck one or two Big East teams and another conference and mess up NDs other sports programs the leverage has shifted to the Big Ten, but ND still has some pull.


I don't think so. If the leverage really has shifted that much to the Big 10, then Notre Dame joining the Big 10 would be a no brainer.

Even when the NBC contract expires, in one way or another, ND will be on national TV basically every week, collecting a nice paycheck.

Thanks to the BCS contract they set up, Notre Dame also gets guaranteed BCS money payout, even when they don't even go to a bowl game at all.

ND is still in the driver's seat and will be for a long time.

[NFO]

I don't think so. If the leverage really has shifted that much to the Big 10, then Notre Dame joining the Big 10 would be a no brainer.

Financially it is a no-brainer. However you have administrators and very influential alumni that want football to remain independent because of tradition no matter the financial benefits of joining a conference. Notre Dame views itself as a national brand and by joining a conference would compromise that.

I never said that the leverage shifted entirely to the Big Ten, only that the leverage has shifted towards the Big Ten as in where 10 years ago ND held all the cards, now that hold less than all.



Thanks to the BCS contract they set up, Notre Dame also gets guaranteed BCS money payout, even when they don't even go to a bowl game at all.

With the implementation of the most recent BCS contract in 2006, Notre Dame no longer gets a full BCS share for a BCS game ($14 million at the time, now $18 million) but settled for $4.5 million, the amount given to a second place team from a conference.Additionally, for the length of the four-year contract, the Irish would receive a 1/66th share of BCS money as the 66th team in the BCS – about $1.3 million – when they did not go to a BCS game.

For the last two years, here are the BCS conference’s profits and average per team:
ACC

* 2007-08: Profit — $19,263,649, Average/Team — $1.6 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $18,765,375, Average/Team — $1.56 Million

Big East

* 2007-08: Profit — $14,197,021, Average/Team — $1.77 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $15,526,656, Average/Team — $1.94 Million

Big Ten

* 2007-08: Profit — $24,394,305, Average/Team — $2.2 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $23,846,330, Average/Team — $2.17 Million

Big 12

* 2007-08: Profit — $21,706,427, Average/Team — $1.81 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $22,521,061, Average/Team — $1.88 Million

Pac-10

* 2007-08: Profit — $17,647,012, Average/Team — $1.76 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $18,766,786, Average/Team — $1.88 Million

SEC

* 2007-08: Profit — $28,991,720, Average/Team — $2.42 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $28, 362,667, Average/Team — $2.36 Million

(Source: NCAA Financials 2007-08, 2008-09)

Do you see any BCS team taking home $1.3 million—other than ND?

To make the same amount ($14 million in 2005) for a BCS appearance under the old contract, Notre Dame would need to appear in three BCS bowls in the four year contract (3 x $4.5 = $13.5 + $1.3 million for the fourth year = $14.8 million). With the conference champion’s share increased to $18 million, though, ND would currently need four BCS appearances in four years (4 x $4.5 = $18 million) to equal one year. The Irish settled for 25% of what they used to take for a BCS participation.

Since ND’s BCS appearance revenue has been fixed, the “rising tide lifts all boats” theory applies to all the other BCS teams except ND. The BCS contract with fixed amounts has been an anchor to Notre Dame, while the sea rises around them. Notre Dame could appear in a national championship game for 25% of what its opponent will get for their conference.

Notre Dame’s annual share is not only less than the average for each conference team, but is 1% of the total bowl revenue distributed among BCS teams. Some fans think 1% of bowl monies is too much to give Notre Dame.

In short, it is more profitable to be Duke, Iowa State, Indiana, Washington State, Syracuse, or Mississippi State than to be an independent Notre Dame. Independence for ND is certainly not about the BCS money.

Source: http://clashmoremike.com/2009/07/not...#ixzz0mvK1d8Rp



ND is still in the driver's seat and will be for a long time.

Nah, they are in the back seat with Morgan Freeman in the drivers seat. :lol

[Marklar MM]

Worthless Comment of the Thread Award goes to this.

Why? Because you don't have to subscribe to get the channel if you have a school in the Big10 in your region? Only thing the Big10 has to do is get a deal with the cable company and your ass is paying for it.

[NFO]

Why? Because you don't have to subscribe to get the channel if you have a school in the Big10 in your region? Only thing the Big10 has to do is get a deal with the cable company and your ass is paying for it.

Exactly.

[DMX7]

Why? Because you don't have to subscribe to get the channel if you have a school in the Big10 in your region? Only thing the Big10 has to do is get a deal with the cable company and your ass is paying for it.

I already have it. It's part of a tiered sports package. The only way most people will be paying for it though is if it becomes a basic cable channel, and it won't because having Rutgers in the Big Ten isn't going to make everyone in New York (my original point) want this channel. The cable companies are out to make money, they will drop this channel especially at $1.00 or whatever per subscriber if no one is watching it, and no one relatively speaking in New York will be.

[Marklar MM]

I already have it. It's part of a tiered sports package. The only way most people will be paying for it though is if it becomes a basic cable channel, and it won't because having Rutgers in the Big Ten isn't going to make everyone in New York (my original point) want this channel. The cable companies are out to make money, they will drop this channel especially at $1.00 or whatever per subscriber if no one is watching it, and no one relatively speaking in New York will be.

what state do you live in? And it is 70 cents.

[scottspurs]

Nebraska won't leave the big 12. Texas makes everybody else too much money.

[lebomb]

Ok...........who are the 5 elite teams in each conference?

Big 12

1. Texas
2. OU
3. Nebraska
4. Texas A&M
5. Missouri/Okie St.?


Big 10

1. Ohio St.
2. Michigan
3. Penn St.
4. Michigan St.
5. Wisconsin/Iowa?


................................. I dont know, but I can see the Big 10's top couple of teams bringing in at least as much money as Texas. *shrugs*

[fyatuk]

In 2007-2008, Texas ranked #1 in total athletic revenue with $120m. Ohio State 2nd at $118m. Michigan 4th at 99m. Wisconsin 5th at 93.5. Penn State 6th at 91.5m.

Big 12 didn't have another entry until #10 with OK State at 88.5m.

Of course, Texas churns out more profit than them (OSU has been losing money, etc).

What those teams add to another teams budget is different issue. In that, the Big XII likely can't compare to the Big Ten, since the Big Ten gives it's schools the most revenue of any conference.

[samikeyp]

If all 4 go, that would be 15 which would be an odd number...I wonder if they are counting on not all of them joining.

[DMX7]

Ok...........who are the 5 elite teams in each conference?

Big 12

1. Texas
2. OU
3. Nebraska
4. Texas A&M
5. Missouri/Okie St.?


Big 10

1. Ohio St.
2. Michigan
3. Penn St.
4. Michigan St.
5. Wisconsin/Iowa?


................................. I dont know, but I can see the Big 10's top couple of teams bringing in at least as much money as Texas. *shrugs*

Big Ten shares tv revenue equally, so it's a bigger payday for them in the Big Ten.


If all 4 go, that would be 15 which would be an odd number...I wonder if they are counting on not all of them joining.


Rutgers is only getting an invite if Notre Dame doesn't join, according to the report.

[NFO]

Nebraska won't leave the big 12. Texas makes everybody else too much money.

How so???

Texas made the most in the Big 12 last year with 12 million in TV revenue so Nebraska made less than 12 million in TV revenue last year. Each Big Ten team made 22 million in TV revenue last year. Last time I checked 22 was greater than 12. Just curious to your logic



If all 4 go, that would be 15 which would be an odd number...I wonder if they are counting on not all of them joining.

As mentioned, Rutgers only gets an invite if ND declines making it 14. If the Big 10 expands it will be to an even number (12,14 or 16).

[DMX7]

And according to the Big Ten commissioner, no offers have been extended to anyone and offers have not even been discussed.

[Blake]

Financially it is a no-brainer. However you have administrators and very influential alumni that want football to remain independent because of tradition no matter the financial benefits of joining a conference. Notre Dame views itself as a national brand and by joining a conference would compromise that.

I never said that the leverage shifted entirely to the Big Ten, only that the leverage has shifted towards the Big Ten as in where 10 years ago ND held all the cards, now that hold less than all.




With the implementation of the most recent BCS contract in 2006, Notre Dame no longer gets a full BCS share for a BCS game ($14 million at the time, now $18 million) but settled for $4.5 million, the amount given to a second place team from a conference.Additionally, for the length of the four-year contract, the Irish would receive a 1/66th share of BCS money as the 66th team in the BCS – about $1.3 million – when they did not go to a BCS game.

For the last two years, here are the BCS conference’s profits and average per team:
ACC

* 2007-08: Profit — $19,263,649, Average/Team — $1.6 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $18,765,375, Average/Team — $1.56 Million

Big East

* 2007-08: Profit — $14,197,021, Average/Team — $1.77 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $15,526,656, Average/Team — $1.94 Million

Big Ten

* 2007-08: Profit — $24,394,305, Average/Team — $2.2 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $23,846,330, Average/Team — $2.17 Million

Big 12

* 2007-08: Profit — $21,706,427, Average/Team — $1.81 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $22,521,061, Average/Team — $1.88 Million

Pac-10

* 2007-08: Profit — $17,647,012, Average/Team — $1.76 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $18,766,786, Average/Team — $1.88 Million

SEC

* 2007-08: Profit — $28,991,720, Average/Team — $2.42 Million
* 2008-09: Profit — $28, 362,667, Average/Team — $2.36 Million

(Source: NCAA Financials 2007-08, 2008-09)

Do you see any BCS team taking home $1.3 million—other than ND?

To make the same amount ($14 million in 2005) for a BCS appearance under the old contract, Notre Dame would need to appear in three BCS bowls in the four year contract (3 x $4.5 = $13.5 + $1.3 million for the fourth year = $14.8 million). With the conference champion’s share increased to $18 million, though, ND would currently need four BCS appearances in four years (4 x $4.5 = $18 million) to equal one year. The Irish settled for 25% of what they used to take for a BCS participation.

Since ND’s BCS appearance revenue has been fixed, the “rising tide lifts all boats” theory applies to all the other BCS teams except ND. The BCS contract with fixed amounts has been an anchor to Notre Dame, while the sea rises around them. Notre Dame could appear in a national championship game for 25% of what its opponent will get for their conference.

Notre Dame’s annual share is not only less than the average for each conference team, but is 1% of the total bowl revenue distributed among BCS teams. Some fans think 1% of bowl monies is too much to give Notre Dame.

In short, it is more profitable to be Duke, Iowa State, Indiana, Washington State, Syracuse, or Mississippi State than to be an independent Notre Dame. Independence for ND is certainly not about the BCS money.

Source: http://clashmoremike.com/2009/07/not...#ixzz0mvK1d8Rp



Good points. Helps reiiterate my thinking that it's 50-50 the Irish accept an invite.

With things crumbling around them, they should accept, but they are so goddamm arrogant they might not.

[Blake]

And according to the Big Ten commissioner, no offers have been extended to anyone and offers have not even been discussed.

I was watching ESPN today at Buffalo Wild Wings and they jumped on the story of the invitations to these schools.....

I couldn't hear what they were saying about the story though.....

[samikeyp]

Rutgers is only getting an invite if Notre Dame doesn't join, according to the report.

Thanks.....shows you how much I pay attention! :lol

:toast

[Biggems]

How about this conference

Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
USC
Oregon
Florida
Alabama
LSU
Ohio St
Penn St
Miami
Virginia Tech

[Pistons < Spurs]

Delany denies latest expansion rumors (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5181741)

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany e-mailed conference officials Tuesday to stamp out a rumor that four schools had already been offered a chance to join the league.

Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith confirmed Tuesday that Delany had quashed a report that the Big Ten had offered expansion spots to Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Rutgers.

Asked if there was anything to that speculation, Smith said, "Nothing. There's no truth to it whatsoever. Actually, Jim sent us all an e-mail telling us there's no truth to that -- which we knew. There's no extensions of offers that have been made, so that's not true."

The conference is looking at expanding from its current 11 members so that it can extend the reach of its lucrative cable network and add a league championship game in football.

The Big Ten athletic directors will meet May 17-19 in downtown Chicago. They will be joined by faculty representatives, senior women's administrators and the head coaches in football and men's and women's basketball. But Smith said the meetings were routine and nothing would be decided in terms of expansion.

"This is our normal meetings, the ones we have every year," Smith said. "Jim will probably give us an update on what the consultant has shared, and I don't even know if the consultant report is done. He'll give us an update and then move on doing what he's been doing. I think they meet with the [university] presidents in June or something like that. So the timeline hasn't changed, but there won't be any action next week."

[Blake]

How about this conference

Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
USC
Oregon
Florida
Alabama
LSU
Ohio St
Penn St
Miami
Virginia Tech

great list. :tu

although you forgot to add Notre Dame, Michigan and the Seattle Seahawks

[Blake]

To Notre Dame, Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska!!!

http://www.810whb.com/blog/3534


The dominoes are about to fall.................................... :wakeup

Great thread, leblog

:td

[Destro]

I teach at Rutgers. we currently get about 2million revenue per game. In the big 10 we'd get 22 million We are about 90% sure we will be in the Big 10 next season

[Blake]

We are about 90% sure we will be in the Big 10 next season

I am about 99.9% sure you wont be in the Big 10 next season.

[Arrowch4]

I'm not saying it won't happen. But that article is by Kevin Keitzman who is a radio show host in the KC area with a track record for being right about half as often as hoopsworld.


This is something me and a state fan can agree on. Kevin Kietzman also said "Dorian Lamb to KU and Josh Selby to UK. LOCK IT DOWN." This was from his highly credible sources. He is generally known as a jack ass up here in KC.

[Arrowch4]

if notre dame joins the big 10 i'm turning in my fan card


Your school is the head of Medusa when it comes to the problems with college football. I think they should be forced into a conference or the BB program should be tossed. I'm not trying to make you mad, but if you don't join you might be left out in the cold someday soon. The ND mystique is gone. they are not viewed as the elite program anymore.

[K-State Spur]

This is something me and a state fan can agree on. Kevin Kietzman also said "Dorian Lamb to KU and Josh Selby to UK. LOCK IT DOWN." This was from his highly credible sources. He is generally known as a jack ass up here in KC.

definitely one of my least favorite fellow alumni. the guy's a tool.

basically, he's the douche who talks all kinds of crap to fans of other schools - then when the cats lose he turns on them for making him eat his words.

i stopped listening (for good) after he spent an entire show talking about how k-state's bball road win at baylor was completely unimpressive.

[DarkReign]

great list. :tu

although you forgot to add Notre Dame, Michigan and the Seattle Seahawks

:lmao

[DarkReign]

Above and beyond the alignment/expansion issue, wouldnt an expanded Big10 basically force the NCAA into a playoff system?

Youd have the only 4 relevant conferences (SEC, B10, B12, Pac10) all with a playoff conference championship internally. Why wouldnt the BCS just institute a playoff seeding based on those 4 results?

Of course, that might make too much sense.

[Blake]

playoffs already make too much sense.

there could be 4 superconferences of 16 teams each, and the bcs honks would still figure out a way to squash playoff hopes for us and continue to send ranked teams 3-30 to meaningless bowl games.

[tsb2000]

I wish this all would hurry up so the dominoes would start falling. The sooner Utah gets into the PAC-10, the better!

[vander]

playoffs already make too much sense.

there could be 4 superconferences of 16 teams each, and the bcs honks would still figure out a way to squash playoff hopes for us and continue to send ranked teams 3-30 to meaningless bowl games.

:rolleyes:whine

over and over and over again they complain, while College football just continues to easily be the most interesting and successful sport, week in week out. yeah let's make the regular season meaningless and boring like college basketball... :bang

[Blake]

:rolleyes:whine

over and over and over again they complain, while College football just continues to easily be the most interesting and successful sport, week in week out. yeah let's make the regular season meaningless and boring like college basketball... :bang

incredible.....Boise St fan would be one of the last I would figure to be against a playoff system....

congratulations on your team's meaningless undefeated season.

[K-State Spur]

:rolleyes:whine

over and over and over again they complain, while College football just continues to easily be the most interesting and successful sport, week in week out. yeah let's make the regular season meaningless and boring like college basketball... :bang

and yet, college basketball has a far greater postseason deal than college football.

wonder why that is?

[vander]

and yet, college basketball has a far greater postseason deal than college football.

wonder why that is?

hardly a consolation prize, the two sports have been going in opposite directions in popularity, I can't understand why people would want the wildly successful sport to be more like the sport that's waning.

[Blake]

hardly a consolation prize, the two sports have been going in opposite directions in popularity, I can't understand why people would want the wildly successful sport to be more like the sport that's waning.

college basketball is hardly waning because of the tournament. There's a reason why they were seriously thinking of expanding to 90+ teams.

I can't even imagine how much more badass the tourneys would have been had Kobe, LeBron, Durant, KG, Carmelo, etc etc etc etc etc had stayed in college longer or had just gone to begin with.

[vander]

college basketball is hardly waning because of the tournament. There's a reason why they were seriously thinking of expanding to 90+ teams.

I can't even imagine how much more badass the tourneys would have been had Kobe, LeBron, Durant, KG, Carmelo, etc etc etc etc etc had stayed in college longer or had just gone to begin with.

:lol

LeBron, Durant, KG, Carmelo, etc are the reasons I don't like the NBA anymore.

though I don't watch much/any college basketball. If I did, I'd much rather watch a Duke team running a system to perfection than a team just riding Melo or Durant or some other gifted freak

and the expansion to 90+ teams reeks of desperation to me

[Blake]

:lol

LeBron, Durant, KG, Carmelo, etc are the reasons I don't like the NBA anymore, I'd rather watch a Duke team running a system to perfection than a team just riding Melo or Durant or some other gifted freak

eh.

That reeks of WNBA fan that says they like watching fundamental basketball over ESPN highlight dunks.

You also need to check how many Dukees are currently in the NBA.


and the expansion to 90+ teams reeks of desperation to me

maybe.......because the tournament is such a cool thing that they want to extend it.

by your argument, instead of extending it, should they get rid of it altogether and just invite the top two ranked teams to one NC game?

[vander]

maybe.......because the tournament is such a cool thing that they want to extend it.

by your argument, instead of extending it, should they get rid of it altogether and just invite the top two ranked teams to one NC game?

well, first of all, basketball is a very different beast than football, one great player can turn any small college into a contender, and second of all, when was the last time a team ranked 33-64, or 9-16 I guess, won the title?

seems to me that the field is twice as large as it would ever possibly need to be in order to find the best basketball team. the best basketball team always comes from among the top 32 regular season teams **GASP!**

so the whole first round is just a meaningless cash-grab that cheapens the product and diminishes the importance and competitiveness of the regular season.

NCAA BB would be well served to shrink the field to 24 teams, with 8 teams getting a buy. but it'll never happen, because they don't care about finding the best team, they care about the bracket spectacle and the interest generated by the gambling side of it.

[vander]

eh.

That reeks of WNBA fan that says they like watching fundamental basketball over ESPN highlight dunks.

You also need to check how many Dukees are currently in the NBA.



the only time I like a dunk is when it follows the defense getting broken down, Lebron or Howard just bowling people over on their way to the rim is quite boring. and no, I never watch ESPN highlights, unless it's a football-only show.

[NFO]

There's a reason why they were seriously thinking of expanding to 90+ teams.

Yeah and those reasons are dollars and nothing more.

I believe the highest seed to win the tournament was a 6 seed in 1985 (Villanova), so what would be the point in expanding the tournament from 65 to 96 or whatever they were thinking about? I can bet you it wasn't because they thought that the extra teams added had a chance to win the tournament, but that it meant more games and more advertising revenues and so on and so on.

[Blake]

well, first of all, basketball is a very different beast than football, one great player can turn any small college into a contender, and second of all, when was the last time a team ranked 33-64, or 9-16 I guess, won the title?

seems to me that the field is twice as large as it would ever possibly need to be in order to find the best basketball team. the best basketball team always comes from among the top 32 regular season teams **GASP!**

so the whole first round is just a meaningless cash-grab that cheapens the product and diminishes the importance and competitiveness of the regular season.

NCAA BB would be well served to shrink the field to 24 teams, with 8 teams getting a buy. but it'll never happen, because they don't care about finding the best team, they care about the bracket spectacle and the interest generated by the gambling side of it.

:lol **GASP!**

you are still for a 24 team playoff system in basketball where those top 8 teams have a decided advantage.

there's little difference between that and a football playoff....

but a 24 team playoff system will never happen for football because of ridiculous university presidents that honk the current bowl system.
They seem to like the guaranteed money of the lousy exhibition games at the end of the year.

[Blake]

the only time I like a dunk is when it follows the defense getting broken down, Lebron or Howard just bowling people over on their way to the rim is quite boring. and no, I never watch ESPN highlights, unless it's a football-only show.

figured.

[Blake]

Yeah and those reasons are dollars and nothing more.

I believe the highest seed to win the tournament was a 6 seed in 1985 (Villanova), so what would be the point in expanding the tournament from 65 to 96 or whatever they were thinking about? I can bet you it wasn't because they thought that the extra teams added had a chance to win the tournament, but that it meant more games and more advertising revenues and so on and so on.

right. It adds more revenue because people love playoffs and upsets, even if they don't win the whole thing.

By your arguments, there's little reason to have playoffs at all. Just have ranked team #1 play ranked team #2 in every sport.

[NFO]

right. It adds more revenue because people love playoffs and upsets, even if they don't win the whole thing..

Perhaps. But look at the TV ratings when George Mason went to the final four. One of the worst TV ratings for a final four in the past quarter century. So saying people love upsets/Cinderallas is a bit of a myth.

Adding more teams doesn't necessarily mean better playoffs and more upsets. No one seed has ever lost to 16 seed, but a 2 has lost to a 15 seed, which tells me 64 is probably a good # for the NCAA tournament. Adding more would water down the tournament and make the regular season even more meaningless, espceially in terms of viewership. So the point to add more teams/games to the tourney would be for more money, nothing more nothing less.



By your arguments, there's little reason to have playoffs at all. Just have ranked team #1 play ranked team #2 in every sport.

Bad assumption. I like the playoff system for the NCAA tournament the way it is. I would like to see a playoff system for football, without taking away from the best regular season in all of sports. I would be in favor of an 8 team playoff for football. Top team from each BCS conference and the next 2 highest ranked teams, or something to that effect. Never said I would rank #1 vs #2 in every sport.

[Blake]

Bad assumption. I like the playoff system for the NCAA tournament the way it is. I would like to see a playoff system for football, without taking away from the best regular season in all of sports. I would be in favor of an 8 team playoff for football. Top team from each BCS conference and the next 2 highest ranked teams, or something to that effect. Never said I would rank #1 vs #2 in every sport.

I'm not assuming your likes or dislikes at all.

I'm saying based on your #6 Villanova argument, there's little reason to have a playoff system.

Luckily the powers that be in most every sport but college football don't look at that argument and like to see playoff systems, just like you.

[NFO]

I'm saying based on your #6 Villanova argument, there's little reason to have a playoff system.

I just used that argument against expansion of the basketball tournament because fact is that most teams that are ranked above a #6 seed have little to no chance of winning the tournament. I am fine with the 64 teams now, I'm even okay with the 68 I guess, I just didn't want to see a 96 team field like they were talking about potentially going too just because they had an out in the contract this year and the only reason would be for more games and money.

Like I said earlier is that I would favor a college football playoff, as long as it didn't compromise the regular season. For example the Texas v Tech game a
couple of years ago was a very meaningful game. If there was a large playoff for football the importance of that game might not have been as big because both teams would still have made the playoffs. If there is a limited amount of teams (I think 8 would be good) then that Texas v Tech game is still very important but may or may not have been the end all be all of one of the teams seasons.

[Blake]

For example the Texas v Tech game a
couple of years ago was a very meaningful game. If there was a large playoff for football the importance of that game might not have been as big because both teams would still have made the playoffs. If there is a limited amount of teams (I think 8 would be good) then that Texas v Tech game is still very important but may or may not have been the end all be all of one of the teams seasons.

A last second throw to Crabtree turned out to shoot down UT's shot at being the NC game. OU lost early in the season to UT so they get rewarded.

It's bullshit. A playoff system would have been the most fair thing to do, and the importance of games would remain in tact for home field advantage sake and/or playoff positioning, just like in the pros.

[vander]

A last second throw to Crabtree turned out to shoot down UT's shot at being the NC game. OU lost early in the season to UT so they get rewarded.

It's bullshit. A playoff system would have been the most fair thing to do, and the importance of games would remain in tact for home field advantage sake and/or playoff positioning, just like in the pros.

:lol you're basically just saying you want those games to have not mattered.

and the NFL is not a system to aspire to, not often does the best team win the SB. NFL needs to shrink it's playoff field. when teams can take 2-3 weeks off at the end of the season because they locked everything up, while elsewhere an 8-8 team gets into the playoffs, you have a serious problem.

[NFO]

the importance of games would remain in tact for home field advantage sake and/or playoff positioning, just like in the pros.

That is why the Colts who were 12-4 had to go on the road against the 8-8 Chargers 2 years ago. A lot of good it did them to win 4 more games, but I guess the pros have it all figured out like you say.

[Blake]

:lol you're basically just saying you want those games to have not mattered.

huh? Tech beating UT absolutely would matter for playoff implications.

If there were playoffs, the importance of many otherwise meaningless games would rise a great deal.

Suddenly, the Tech/Baylor game after the OU loss becomes HUGE for Tech to stay in an 8 team playoff hunt.


and the NFL is not a system to aspire to, not often does the best team win the SB. NFL needs to shrink it's playoff field. when teams can take 2-3 weeks off at the end of the season because they locked everything up, while elsewhere an 8-8 team gets into the playoffs, you have a serious problem.

If you have a problem with taking the weeks off, then blame the length of the season. Blaming the playoff system is stupid.

A wildcard team having a chance to win it all is exactly what playoffs are about.

Obviously you don't like playoffs much. That's fine, but don't try to say that the current system is fair because it's absolutely not.

[Blake]

That is why the Colts who were 12-4 had to go on the road against the 8-8 Chargers 2 years ago. A lot of good it did them to win 4 more games, but I guess the pros have it all figured out like you say.

I didn't say it was a perfect system, but it would be tough to say that a division winner should have to travel for a wild card game, even with a mediocre 8-8 record.

Honestly, I'd be for using the good bowls already in place such as the Alamo, Holiday, Gator etc for playoff games to lead up to the big game in one of the big 4 bowls.

[vander]

huh? Tech beating UT absolutely would matter for playoff implications.

If there were playoffs, the importance of many otherwise meaningless games would rise a great deal.

Suddenly, the Tech/Baylor game after the OU loss becomes HUGE for Tech to stay in an 8 team playoff hunt.



If you have a problem with taking the weeks off, then blame the length of the season. Blaming the playoff system is stupid.

A wildcard team having a chance to win it all is exactly what playoffs are about.

Obviously you don't like playoffs much. That's fine, but don't try to say that the current system is fair because it's absolutely not.

college football has 120 teams of extremely varying means/budgets, yet it still manages to crown the right team more often than the NFL which has only 32 teams of pretty much equal budgets.

CFB FTW!
Meaningful regular seasons FTW!
God, if only the Chargers had won the SB on their 8-8 season, :lol maybe some changes would have been made

[Blake]

college football has 120 teams of extremely varying means/budgets, yet it still manages to crown the right team more often than the NFL which has only 32 teams of pretty much equal budgets.

huh? in the history of Super Bowls, which team was wrongfully crowned the champ?

I can give you a number of teams that have gotten screwed out of a shot at the title in college football, including Boise St.

and honestly, 120 teams in the FBS is a joke. Midlevel teams that are usually ranked 30-120 will never ever have a chance to win it all in the current system.


God, if only the Chargers had won the SB on their 8-8 season, :lol maybe some changes would have been made

The Giants won it all as a #5 seed 10-6 wild card, beating #4 Tampa Bay, #1 Dallas and #2 Green Bay all on the road before beating undefeated New England in the SB.

Did the NFL not crown the right team here?

[lebomb]

huh? in the history of Super Bowls, which team was wrongfully crowned the champ?

I can give you a number of teams that have gotten screwed out of a shot at the title in college football, including Boise St.

and honestly, 120 teams in the FBS is a joke. Midlevel teams that are usually ranked 30-120 will never ever have a chance to win it all in the current system.



The Giants won it all as a #5 seed 10-6 wild card, beating #4 Tampa Bay, #1 Dallas and #2 Green Bay all on the road before beating undefeated New England in the SB.

Did the NFL not crown the right team here?


WOW................ I actually agree completely with Blake for once. WTF???

College football is the only bullshit system there is. Not one person can name a single other sport that has a champ decided on popularity, and not a playoff system. Please name one other sport. *waiting* :rolleyes

[NFO]

I didn't say it was a perfect system, but it would be tough to say that a division winner should have to travel for a wild card game, even with a mediocre 8-8 record.

I think that year was the exception not the rule, but I think even the NFL should change there playoff format because a team that played a tougher schedule and won 4 more games than one team having to play on the road is kind of unfair to the team that won the 4 extra games.



Honestly, I'd be for using the good bowls already in place such as the Alamo, Holiday, Gator etc for playoff games to lead up to the big game in one of the big 4 bowls.

I like that theory too for regions, but I think they may be asking a lot of the fans to go to X amount of neutral games for playoffs. I think if there ever is a playoff at the Div I level that will would be a similar format to those in the lower divisions of football and still use the bowls for the meaningless games for other teams.

[Blake]

I like that theory too for regions, but I think they may be asking a lot of the fans to go to X amount of neutral games for playoffs. I think if there ever is a playoff at the Div I level that will would be a similar format to those in the lower divisions of football and still use the bowls for the meaningless games for other teams.

The travel is definitely the biggest obstacle, imo.

Getting rid of the worthless conference championship games would help cancel out one of the playoff road trips for Big 12 or SEC teams....

[vander]

huh? in the history of Super Bowls, which team was wrongfully crowned the champ?

I can give you a number of teams that have gotten screwed out of a shot at the title in college football, including Boise St.

and honestly, 120 teams in the FBS is a joke. Midlevel teams that are usually ranked 30-120 will never ever have a chance to win it all in the current system.

this is hardly true, but even if it was, it wouldn't be the fault of the BCS, the BCS put a BSU team with one of the easiest schedules in all of college football at like #6 if I remember correctly. if it weren't for so many other great undefeated teams this year, BSU might have gotten there, and it would have been a massacre, BSU wouldn't have stood a chance against any of the other top teams, because BSU wasn't as good as thier BCS ranking. in a tournament of say 8 teams, BSU and TCU would both have lost their first round game, the BCS is kinder to midlevel teams than a tournament would be.

The Giants won it all as a #5 seed 10-6 wild card, beating #4 Tampa Bay, #1 Dallas and #2 Green Bay all on the road before beating undefeated New England in the SB.

Did the NFL not crown the right team here?

absolutely, everybody capable of critical thought knows NE was the better team and would have beaten the Giants 4 out of 5 times, or in a series, or whatever. Wild Card teams in the Super Bowl is a joke, a disgrace.

[NFO]

Wild Card teams in the Super Bowl is a joke, a disgrace.

How so. Those wild card teams have to win 3 road games. If it is such a joke/disgrace then the higher seeds should have done something about it, like beat the team it was supposed to beat.

[samikeyp]

how so. Those wild card teams have to win 3 road games. If it is such a joke/disgrace then the higher seeds should have done something about it, like beat the team it was supposed to beat.

+1

[vander]

How so. Those wild card teams have to win 3 road games. If it is such a joke/disgrace then the higher seeds should have done something about it, like beat the team it was supposed to beat.

"any given sunday" a game can be decided on one big fluke play, an average team can suddenly play the game of their life, the refs can blow a game... every week in the NFL, an obviously lesser team beats a better team, that's the nature of football and that's why the regular season needs to play a greater role, reward the teams that play well for 4 months, not just 3 straight weeks.

the way it is now is a joke, there would be no substantial difference if they cut the regular season to 8 games, the 4-6 deserving teams would still get in, and 6-8 undeserving teams as well.

what they ought to do is expand the regular season to 18 or 20 games, and cut the playoffs to 8 teams, maybe even 6. then teams would actually be fighting for their lives all season long, and the bad teams would be out of the race quickly, which would make for much more active trade deadlines, like it is in baseball.

also get rid of the pre-season

[NFO]

"any given sunday" a game can be decided on one big fluke play, an average team can suddenly play the game of their life, the refs can blow a game... every week in the NFL, an obviously lesser team beats a better team, that's the nature of football and that's why the regular season needs to play a greater role, reward the teams that play well for 4 months, not just 3 straight weeks.

So if a wild card team wins three road games and the Super Bowl you are going to blame that on "one big fluke play, an average team can suddenly play the game of their life, the refs can blow a game." So what if a wild card team wins the Super Bowl. The NFL is set up to help the top seeds make the Super Bowl with the re-seeding after each round, so if a wild card team makes the Super Bowl and wins I have no problem with it.




the way it is now is a joke, there would be no substantial difference if they cut the regular season to 8 games, the 4-6 deserving teams would still get in, and 6-8 undeserving teams as well.

If you look at the turnover between teams in the playoffs in the NFL it is over 50% from year to year in the past 5 years. The NFL is a league of parody so there is a competitive balance. Changing the games played would not likely make a huge difference in the results from year to year. Besides no way is the money making machine going to give up extra games. They might expand the season but the NFL is not going to cut games.



what they ought to do is expand the regular season to 18 or 20 games, and cut the playoffs to 8 teams, maybe even 6. then teams would actually be fighting for their lives all season long, and the bad teams would be out of the race quickly, which would make for much more active trade deadlines, like it is in baseball.

also get rid of the pre-season

[Blake]

this is hardly true, but even if it was, it wouldn't be the fault of the BCS, the BCS put a BSU team with one of the easiest schedules in all of college football at like #6 if I remember correctly. if it weren't for so many other great undefeated teams this year, BSU might have gotten there, and it would have been a massacre, BSU wouldn't have stood a chance against any of the other top teams, because BSU wasn't as good as thier BCS ranking. in a tournament of say 8 teams, BSU and TCU would both have lost their first round game, the BCS is kinder to midlevel teams than a tournament would be.

absolutely, everybody capable of critical thought knows NE was the better team and would have beaten the Giants 4 out of 5 times, or in a series, or whatever. Wild Card teams in the Super Bowl is a joke, a disgrace.

I usually don't like to heckle people for their opinions, but that's just horrible.

Saying BSU wouldnt stand a chance when Utah went in and beat Alabama in the Sugar just a year and a half ago is just stupid.

So is saying wild card teams being in the Super Bowl is a joke.

[vander]

frankly,

the previous 2 posts display a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football, and how easy it is for a mediocre team to get hot and win a few games in a row, and how hard it is to consistently win, week in and week out.

watch a few more seasons of pro and college ball, you might start to catch on...

[MajorMike]

You know the way for the conferences to kill the BCS?

P10 and B12 make the B16.
SEC robs the ACC and makes a 16 team SEC.

The two conferences sign a multi billion dollar TV deal for the SEC champ to meet the B16 champ in a new Bowl Jan 1 (much like the Rose has an outside deal). No way in hell they wouldn't be declared the MNC winner by the AP.

That's your ballgame; no one is going to give a flying poo who won the ACC or Big Easy or B10/1/whatever they end up being. BCS dies and the other confs band together to force a playoff, which they just got left out of.

[NFO]

You know the way for the conferences to kill the BCS?

P10 and B12 make the B16.
SEC robs the ACC and makes a 16 team SEC.

The two conferences sign a multi billion dollar TV deal for the SEC champ to meet the B16 champ in a new Bowl Jan 1 (much like the Rose has an outside deal). No way in hell they wouldn't be declared the MNC winner by the AP.

That's your ballgame; no one is going to give a flying poo who won the ACC or Big Easy or B10/1/whatever they end up being. BCS dies and the other confs band together to force a playoff, which they just got left out of.

I'll be watching out my window for a pig to fly by.

[Blake]

frankly,

the previous 2 posts display a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football, and how easy it is for a mediocre team to get hot and win a few games in a row, and how hard it is to consistently win, week in and week out.

watch a few more seasons of pro and college ball, you might start to catch on...

frankly, this post is not any kind of argument for or against playoffs. All you did was describe sports in general.

You are the first person I have ever heard anywhere say that the Giants winning the Super Bowl was a joke because they were a wild card team.

That's just funny. :lol

[Blake]

That's your ballgame; no one is going to give a flying poo who won the ACC or Big Easy or B10/1/whatever they end up being. BCS dies and the other confs band together to force a playoff, which they just got left out of.


I'll be watching out my window for a pig to fly by.

or flying poo

[NFO]

or flying poo

If that is the case. I should close the windows, just in case.

[DesignatedT]

looks like mizzou and nebraska have until friday to make a decision on this.

[lebomb]

frankly,

the previous 2 posts display a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football, and how easy it is for a mediocre team to get hot and win a few games in a row, and how hard it is to consistently win, week in and week out.

watch a few more seasons of pro and college ball, you might start to catch on...


So you are saying all other sports, including pro sports teams have it wrong besides college football? :lmao

[LOL texans]

If Nebraska leaves, then it will be U.T. and Oklahoma owning the confrence from here on out till forever. No other team in the conference has staying power. And shut the fuck up aggay fan. I can already see you all posting that you think your team is also in the mix with the the Longhorns and Sooners.

[Kermit]

If Nebraska leaves, then it will be U.T. and Oklahoma owning the confrence from here on out till forever. No other team in the conference has staying power. And shut the fuck up aggay fan. I can already see you all posting that you think your team is also in the mix with the the Longhorns and Sooners.

If Nebraska leaves, there will be no Big 12.

[Blake]

If Nebraska leaves, there will be no Big 12.

pretty much this.

the Big XII North already sucks ass enough as it is....losing Nebraska would kill the league as a whole.

[tlongII]

I think you gotta go with a Pac/Big -16. USC would usually rule the Western Division and Texas would usually rule the Eastern Division. That would make for a hell of a conference championship game.

[DesignatedT]

I think you gotta go with a Pac/Big -16. USC would usually rule the Western Division and Texas would usually rule the Eastern Division. That would make for a hell of a conference championship game.

Travel has to become an issue here. Imagine traveling from college station tx to washington state. that's just insane. Football wouldn't be such a big deal but how about other sports like tennis and soccer where they play away games during the week on tuesdays and wednesdays.

Just doesn't make sense. I would prefer the big 12 stay together but if the "pac 16" is the other option, I hope A&M finds there way to the SEC.

[NFO]

Travel has to become an issue here. Imagine traveling from college station tx to washington state. that's just insane.

BC to Miami in the ACC seems to work. Although I do not know what their respective athletic budgets net profit/losses are and how travel affects that.

The Big 12 is hard for travel because some of the schools are in more remote type areas, which does affect travel. For teams out of major markets like Austin, travel is not as big of a deal.

A lot probably depends on the type of TV deal that is made that might offset any potential large travel costs.

[Blake]

Travel has to become an issue here. Imagine traveling from college station tx to washington state. that's just insane. Football wouldn't be such a big deal but how about other sports like tennis and soccer where they play away games during the week on tuesdays and wednesdays.

Just doesn't make sense. I would prefer the big 12 stay together but if the "pac 16" is the other option, I hope A&M finds there way to the SEC.

eh. I think the travel might be overblown a bit.

Hawaii seems to make it work.