Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Missouri (pending on Texas) would bring the Big 10 up to 15? Would would get the lucky 16th spot? Rutgers? Kansas?

Rutgers most likely. Well them, Pitt or Syracuse. Someone out East.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Rutgers most likely. Well them, Pitt or Syracuse. Someone out East.

I would love to see Pitt or Kansas. Seems like a much better fit than Rutgers.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Missouri (pending on Texas) would bring the Big 10 up to 15? Would would get the lucky 16th spot? Rutgers? Kansas?

The 15th and 16th spots (if Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Texas all line up) would be between A&M (almost a certainty if Texas is in), Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and Missouri.

As for a reach in this roller coaster: I saw on another messageboard that Kansas (!!!) could get the call to replace Maryland in the ACC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Yeah, this is what I alluded to earlier when I said every message board guy thinks they know where their school is going.

Well yeah, but in my case it's an expectation that GT will end up in the SEC strictly based on the premise that there's really nothing I'd want them to do less than that.

[henry296]

Heard a talk show host suggest the that the ACC should make a play to be the ultimate basketball conference and go for Kansas, UCONN, Syracuse and Kentucky or Pitt.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Poor Baylor. I'd like to think of it as karma for hiring Kenneth Starr, but I will actually feel sorry for them if they don't find a decent BCS home in a new B12/MWC hybrid.

Personal dislike aside, Ken Starr wasn't really a bad choice. He did a solid job out here as Dean of Pepperdine Law School

[MrBug708]

Interesting comment from Colorado

The coach said it's possible the Pac-16 would push for two automatic bids to the BCS, one for each division champion. That potential bonanza could open the possibility of the two division champs from one league playing for the national title, and it would eliminate the need for a conference championship game.

"The Pac-10 doesn't believe in a championship game," the coach said. "And coaches in the Big 12 don't like it anyway."

[kcchief19]

Couple of interesting developments ...

Nebraska is now downplaying all the reports. Sounds like a formality, with one of their regents explaining there isn't an invitation process in the Big Ten but rather an application process -- the Big Ten doesn't invite you, you have to apply and they act on your application. Could be -- who knows?

Interestingly, reports from the Missouri camp are strangely calm. While the fan base is in meltdown mode, the main beat writer in Columbia says no one in the athletic department seems overly concerned about today's developments. Mike Alden was in KC today and did some interviews with the talking point "we're a proud member of the Big 12." When pushed about today's developments, the radio reporter says Alden was "unaffected" by all the buzz.

I know some people think Missouri has been actively campaigning for the Big Ten but the reality has been the opposite -- the university has been very tight lipped about the process and no one has strayed from the talking points. That's very rare for Missouri, which usually leaks like a sieve.

An hour ago I was pretty depressed and really questioned where we go from here. Reading that the athletic department doesn't seem fazed, I feel better. The principal beat writer who covers the football team said the sense is that Mike Alden has an ace up his sleeve.

[MrBug708]

I just hope, for your sake, that the ace isn't CUSA or the MWC

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Interesting comment from Colorado

Assuming that article is correct and Colorado is the only school to get an invite from the Pac 10 at this point, is it fair to say that this is the Pac 10's way of telling the Texas people (state of Texas, not UT) they don't want and won't consider Baylor, and that whether or not Texas comes once they are invited, the Pac 10 is raiding the Big 12 anyway? That's what I take from that. If Texas is the big prize, why else would Colorado be the first to get an offer?

[kcchief19]

I will say this, the last eight hours has given me a new perspective on this whole deal. Given that this morning I was 80% confident my school had a home and then tonight feeling 99% percent confident when didn't, I have a new sense of sympathy for anyone who gets left out of the process.

Any school from the Big 12 that gets left out of a BCS conference will be in a world of hurt. I really hope it doesn't happen to anyone.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Interesting comment from Colorado

No way the Pac-16 would get two automatic bids.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Assuming that article is correct and Colorado is the only school to get an invite from the Pac 10 at this point, is it fair to say that this is the Pac 10's way of telling the Texas people (state of Texas, not UT) they don't want and won't consider Baylor, and that whether or not Texas comes once they are invited, the Pac 10 is raiding the Big 12 anyway? That's what I take from that. If Texas is the big prize, why else would Colorado be the first to get an offer?

I think Texas is still the big prize, but the Pac10 wanted to eliminate the idea Baylor was an option right away. As has been talked about earlier, they don't want a religious based school. I was worried Texas would be able to pressure the Pac 10 to taking Baylor anyway, it looks like that was misguided.

It may also be the Longhorns way of making the Pac10 office out to be the bad guy. Offer CU first, then we'll have to react. They can then tell everyone that sure, they would have loved Baylor to come with them, but the Pac10 had already made their decision and that was that.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I will say this, the last eight hours has given me a new perspective on this whole deal. Given that this morning I was 80% confident my school had a home and then tonight feeling 99% percent confident when didn't, I have a new sense of sympathy for anyone who gets left out of the process.

Any school from the Big 12 that gets left out of a BCS conference will be in a world of hurt. I really hope it doesn't happen to anyone.

I feel horribly for anyone who gets left out of this. There are some great programs and traditions that will be in a huge amount of trouble long term if this goes through. (now when it goes through, not if)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

SI

[vex]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

No way the Pac-16 would get two automatic bids.

Why not? The talent will be there.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

No way the Pac-16 would get two automatic bids.

If they keep them separate and don't add a championship game, they'd get two BCS bids

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

SI

I think people will feel bad for Kansas. Out of Nebraska, and those poached by the PAC-10, Kansas loses the most. I think they can rebuild and the teams would be solid, but it would be hard. Basketball will be fine because Kansas is the team of the Big-12 (basketball) and you can be elite in a weaker conference.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I will say this, the last eight hours has given me a new perspective on this whole deal. Given that this morning I was 80% confident my school had a home and then tonight feeling 99% percent confident when didn't, I have a new sense of sympathy for anyone who gets left out of the process.

Any school from the Big 12 that gets left out of a BCS conference will be in a world of hurt. I really hope it doesn't happen to anyone.

Well, and that's what I've been saying all along. Kansas- we'll probably land on our feet somewhere (ACC? Huh?). Tho there's a distinct chance we don't (I guess I'm vaguely holding out for the Mountain West super conference to form). But, man, I really feel for Kansas State because without Kansas they get left out of it. And then there's poor Iowa State who nobody seems to want. Baylor still has a chance if the Texas regents get their way but they might be heading for a big fall

SI

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by vex

Why not? The talent will be there.

Even with Texas in a new pac-16 the SEC will have had more teams that have won the NC in recent years (and more NCs) with its original 12 than the new pac-16. Should the SEC get two automatic births as well? Or three?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I think people will feel bad for Kansas. Out of Nebraska, and those poached by the PAC-10, Kansas loses the most. I think they can rebuild and the teams would be solid, but it would be hard. Basketball will be fine because Kansas is the team of the Big-12 (basketball) and you can be elite in a weaker conference.

Yeah, you can be Memphis but it's a lot harder to be Memphis in CUSA than it is to be Kansas in the Big XII. You show up a lot in the non-con but then don't do much at all in the conference season, never being on tv and never being tested. That makes things almost impossible to compete against teams who are on Big Monday every other week, playing in a conference like the Big XII.

SI

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Even with Texas in a new pac-16 the SEC will have had more teams that have won the NC in recent years (and more NCs) with its original 12 than the new pac-16. Should the SEC get two automatic births as well? Or three?

Think about it though. If Texas and USC go undefeated in conference play and dont face each other, who would get the bid? Without a championship game, which the PAC-10 doesn't currently have, you'd need two auto-bids

[sovereignstar]

Any talk of Texas to the Big Ten makes me nauseous.

Does anyone have a barf bag?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Think about it though. If Texas and USC go undefeated in conference play and dont face each other, who would get the bid? Without a championship game, which the PAC-10 doesn't currently have, you'd need two auto-bids

I would imagine if the Pac-16 couldn't find a suitable way to pick a champion, the BCS would pick for them. No two auto bids, one would get the auto-bid (if the BCS was forced to make one champion, just use the formula I guess) and in your example the second highest would be an at-large.

The Pac-16 would not be so formidable on paper that they need special treatment in the current system. And not having a championship when you have a huge 16 team conference? Weak. Conference championships (the awards, not the championship games as much) are important. It is a moot point I think, I can't imagine a Pac-16 not caving into a title game.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Think about it though. If Texas and USC go undefeated in conference play and dont face each other, who would get the bid? Without a championship game, which the PAC-10 doesn't currently have, you'd need two auto-bids

Why not settle it just like any other tiebreaker? It could be determined by the BCS rankings or whatever other tiebreaking mechanism. So the tiebreaker winner gets the auto-bid and the other can get an at large.

If the Big Ten expands to 24, can they split into 4 divisions of 6 teams and get 4 autobids?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Think about it though. If Texas and USC go undefeated in conference play and dont face each other, who would get the bid? Without a championship game, which the PAC-10 doesn't currently have, you'd need two auto-bids

If that happens is the a realistic scenario where they don't both get in even if they only have one auto-bid?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If they keep them separate and don't add a championship game, they'd get two BCS bids

Well, my guess is that the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten would all go to 16 teams.

Besides, wouldn't the other conferences have to vote in favor of the two bids for one conference? Why would the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 vote in favor of giving another conference two bids if they don't get one?

Seems like the Pac-10 wants to have their cake and eat it too. I don't see the other conferences letting that happen.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Why not settle it just like any other tiebreaker? It could be determined by the BCS rankings or whatever other tiebreaking mechanism. So the tiebreaker winner gets the auto-bid and the other can get an at large.

If the Big Ten expands to 24, can they split into 4 divisions of 6 teams and get 4 autobids?

They could but that's why it makes sense that they'll press the NCAA for two AQ. Right now, the PAC-10 plays everyone so you can work in tiebreakers that way, but with unbalanced schedules with 16 teams, an AQ makes sense.

If you use BCS, two undefeated PAC-16 teams would almost certainly see one in the BCS Championship game and the other team gets the Rose Bowl, but you'd see way too much controversy then we've already seen.

If they can't get the AQ, then they'll either shoot for one of the at-large bids like everyone else or just add the Championship game for more money that way

[Honolulu_Blue]

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Well, my guess is that the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten would all go to 16 teams.

Besides, wouldn't the other conferences have to vote in favor of the two bids for one conference? Why would the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 vote in favor of giving another conference two bids if they don't get one?

Seems like the Pac-10 wants to have their cake and eat it too. I don't see the other conferences letting that happen.

They already have Championship games and the PAC-10 doesn't. That's what makes the situation unique. As for signing off, if they do then the chance is next to nil of it happen, but doesnt mean the PAC-10 wouldnt try.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

just add the Championship game for more money that way

At 16 teams you could argue a championship game is important for factors beyond money. When you can't round robin everyone in the conference, you need to find a way to settle the championship on the field. Or should no one care about being and earning the title of Pac-whatever champions?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

At 16 teams you could argue a championship game is important for factors beyond money. When you can't round robin everyone in the conference, you need to find a way to settle the championship on the field. Or should no one care about being and earning the title of Pac-whatever champions?

I think it's more of a grandstanding issue, but if you can get two AQ from it, why not try?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

They already have Championship games and the PAC-10 doesn't. That's what makes the situation unique. As for signing off, if they do then the chance is next to nil of it happen, but doesnt mean the PAC-10 wouldnt try.

Sure it's fine now with no conference title game, but that will likely change if you see the creation of four super-conferences (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and PAC-10) with 16 teams each.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

They could but that's why it makes sense that they'll press the NCAA for two AQ.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS.

[SackAttack]

I wonder if there's any chance Nebraska leaves, nobody else does, and the Big XII otherwise goes on as normal?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Sure it's fine now with no conference title game, but that will likely change if you see the creation of four super-conferences (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and PAC-10) with 16 teams each.

Seems like if there were 4 mega conferences, 2 AQ would be a given for all conferences

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by sooner333

The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS.

Sorry, I kinda meant that but was still thinking NCAA anyways

[MrBug708]

Chris Leval tweeted

One highly ranked TX Tech official tells me that sports like hoops/baseball could actually play in P10 sooner than '12. Not football though

[vex]

SEC? Pac-10? Big 12? Lots of options for Texas A&M - Andy Staples - SI.com

In a hotel meeting room in Scottsdale, Ariz., in April, SEC commissioner Mike Slive essentially promised that if the tectonic plates beneath the college sports' landscape began to shift, Slive's league would not sit on the sidelines.

It won't.

A source confirmed to SI.com late Wednesday that emissaries from the SEC initiated discussions with Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne months ago, and while the SEC is just one of several potential options for the Aggies, it remains an option heading into Thursday's meeting between Texas A&M and Texas officials. At the meeting, power brokers from both schools will discuss a last-ditch effort to save the Big 12, even if Nebraska's Board of Regents votes Friday to leave for the Big Ten. "It's on life support," the source said of the Big 12. "But people have come off life support before."

Officials also will discuss a potential invitation from the Pac-10 that also would include four other Big 12 schools. Presumably, they also will discuss the SEC's talks with Texas A&M.

What is unclear, however, is which other school or schools the SEC might also be interested in to keep an even number should it decide to expand. Last week, the league split a record $209 million among its 12 member schools. Slive has been tight-lipped in public concerning expansion, and he drew giggles last week during a press briefing following the league's spring meetings when he said this: "We have maximum flexibility in how we approach this issue ranging anywhere from nothing to something."
That narrows it down.

An SEC spokesman didn't return a phone call, an e-mail or a text message Wednesday night, and Slive declined last Friday to answer whether he or a representative of the league had contacted any schools about potential expansion. Late Wednesday, Texas A&M athletic department spokesman Alan Cannon said President Bowen Loftin is the only Texas A&M official authorized to speak about expansion. Still, it seems the SEC has been up to more something than nothing.

Slive didn't take the SEC to the top of the college sports world by doing nothing. It was his league's two 15-year contracts with ESPN and CBS (totaling more than $3 billion) that convinced the other leagues they needed to ramp up their revenue. Those contracts give the SEC security. It can still thrive as a 12-team league even if the Big Ten and Pac-10 supersize to 16, but a component of Slive's success is his ability to read the tea leaves. After years in the new landscape, would the SEC be positioned to command a plum deal when next it sits at the negotiating table?

Another executive we may have underestimated in this shuffle is Texas A&M's Byrne. Byrne said last week that the best move for Texas A&M is staying in the Big 12. His Texas counterpart, DeLoss Dodds, has said the same goes for the Longhorns. But even if Byrne joins the Austin contingent in saving the Big 12 or departing for the Pac-10, by making the Aggies an attractive candidate for the SEC, Byrne has altered the power dynamic in the Lone Star State. Texas, the nation's most lucrative athletic department, still holds most of the cards, but it isn't Dodds and the five dwarves. Texas A&M is a player in this.

It should be. According to data from the U.S. Department of Education, in the 2008-09 school year, Texas A&M ranked third in the Big 12 and 22nd in the nation in athletic revenue with $73.4 million. That figure would have placed the Aggies third in the Pac-10, fifth in the proposed Pac-16 and eighth in the big-money SEC.

That number will rise whether the Aggies stick with their Big 12 south brethren in the Pac-16 or strike out on their own in the SEC. Schools such as Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson have been tossed out as possible SEC targets. Those schools don't make sense, because the SEC already has a stranglehold on the markets they would deliver.
Texas is an untapped television market for the league, which already enjoys national distribution, but could make more money by guaranteeing more viewers. Though the Aggies wouldn't bring as many eyeballs as the Longhorns, significant chunks of viewers in Dallas (the nation's fifth largest television market), Houston (No. 10) and San Antonio (No. 37) would tune in to watch them. How many top-37 markets are currently in the SEC footprint? Just six. If the SEC does decide to expand, the change in membership number would trigger a clause that would allow the league to renegotiate its TV deals. Adding those markets, plus the markets of any other new member, would allow the league to command a higher price.
Texas A&M also is a member of the Association of American Universities. Only two SEC schools (Florida and Vanderbilt) are members. Plus, Texas A&M has grown from about 25,000 students in 1976 to about 47,000 now. That means more alumni than ever are about to enter their prime giving years.

Whether a move to the SEC would benefit Texas A&M's football team is questionable. The Aggies almost certainly would wind up in the SEC west with former Southwest Conference rival Arkansas. They'd probably have to play Alabama, Auburn and LSU every season. That's tough for any program. Still, the league would allow the Aggies to offer an interesting alternative to Lone Star State recruits enthralled by the SEC schools they grew up watching on television.

Such practical discussions are probably better left for another day. Byrne and Texas A&M president Loftin have options to examine. Do they help save the Big 12 by bringing new blood into the fold? Do they split from the Big 12 but stay with their in-state rivals? Do they split from their fellow Texas schools and put in jeopardy rivalries that date back decades?
If they choose the SEC -- and the SEC subsequently agreed to choose them -- entry would be simple. Texas A&M would need approval from nine of the 12 SEC presidents. It also would have to pay $50 in annual membership dues.

Judging by its recent revenue figures, A&M can handle the fee. But does it need to bolt or remain with its Lone Star brethren? The answer isn't clear.
Still, in uncertain times, it's nice to have options.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

[sooner333]

OU Athletic Director pretty much confirms Nebraska is leaving.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextr...aspx?blogid=13

Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione didn't try to his mask his emotions Wednesday night when he acknowledged Nebraska will most likely announce no later than Friday that it's leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten.

"I think it's over with them (Cornhuskers)," a dour Castiglione said in a late-night telephone interview. "It feels like somebody died.

"It's that emotional for so many people who put so much into creating the Big 12."

Castiglione was one of the league's architects when the Big 12 started forming in 1994. He was Missouri's athletic director when the Big Eight Conference morphed into the Big 12 -- starting competition in 1996 -- with four Texas schools.

OU's AD since mid-1998, Castiglione isn't ready to declare that the obviously serious blow the Big 12 will take in losing the Cornhuskers absolutely means the Big 12 is dead. Several media outlets have already speculated that without Nebraska's powerhouse football program and national reputation that the Big 12 can't survive.

"I'm not one of those people," Castiglione said. "I still think the Big 12 can be a viable league with 11 teams, and perhaps even 10."

Speculation remains that Missouri still might get the Big Ten invitation that Tiger officials were so self-assured about for the past few months. And rumors persist that Colorado will finally make the long-rumored jump to the Pac-10.

If the Big 12 dissolves, the Pac-10 also looks like the destination for OU, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech.

Baylor and Colorado continue intense talks in behind the scenes meetings, but not with each other. They are jostling for the final spot if the Pac-10 expands to a 16-team league.

Castiglione acknowledged that BYU and Air Force are two teams the Big 12 might look at if it can convince Texas to help hold the conference together.

While Castiglione also confirmed that the SEC has shown interest in the Sooners, OU's position is that it's going to stick with Texas wherever the Longhorns go because of the long history between the two schools.

"I think it would be a horrendous decision for OU and Texas to break up," Castiglione said. "We're going to stick together if it's at all possible."

Castiglione said he expected Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe to release some statement immediately after Nebraska's departure becomes official. Beebe, Castiglione and Texas AD DeLoss Dodds apparently remain unified in their desire to save the Big 12.

But what if the Pac-10 comes calling in the next few days with a very lucrative offer for OU to join what could be college football's first super conference?

"I don't know what would happen at this point. We just have to wait and see," Castiglione said.

One key factor that OU and Texas reportedly are worried about is the power they will lose in a 16-team super conference. Each will be just one of 16 votes instead of 12.

And then there's the natural factor that the current schools in the Pac-10 will remain loyal to each other and will have the numbers to win every vote over the six new members from the Big 12.

"If people thought they had culture problems in the Big 12 (Nebraska AD Tom Osborne felt that way)," said Castiglione, how are the (Big 12) schools going to feel if they go to the Pac-10? We don't know."

The power Texas stands to lose in an expanded Pac-10 has to be reason enough for the Longhorns to continue to seek ways to make sure the Big 12 doesn't disband.

"We worked really hard (with Nebraska) to try and make this work," a subdued Castiglione said. "But it apparently wasn't
enough."

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Seems like if there were 4 mega conferences, 2 AQ would be a given for all conferences

Could make sense. Thought you were arguing that only the PAC-10 would get only get the two bids.

[kcchief19]

Sounds like the place to watch tomorrow is the summit between Texas and Texas A&M. It would appear they are meeting to figure out what the hell they are going to do, and it sounds like there are numerous possible outcomes:

* Both go with their counterparts to the Pac 10
* A&M goes to the SEC and UT chooses between the Big Ten and the Pac 10
* Both go to the Big Ten.

Seems unlikely Texas will go the SEC and it also seems unlikely A&M fits in the Big Ten without UT.

Lot of fates will rest on that meeting.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Could make sense. Thought you were arguing that only the PAC-10 would get only get the two bids.

I think if they are the only team with 16 teams in at, in the form everyone suggests, you could make a case, decent at least, for giving them two bids. If there are four 16 mega team conferences, I would assume all four leagues get two bids. With 5 BCS games, that still leaves 4 for the others. One for the Big East, one for the MWC (if that is an option), and two at large bids. That would seem to make the most sense

[Groundhog]

(sort of) Interestingly, in my long-running FBCB career I was recently in the process of setting up the new teams and shuffling all teams back to their original conferences after nearly 20 years of limited conference movement, and the Big 10 was the only major conference that did not have a single team move in or out of the conference.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Sounds like the place to watch tomorrow is the summit between Texas and Texas A&M. It would appear they are meeting to figure out what the hell they are going to do, and it sounds like there are numerous possible outcomes:

* Both go with their counterparts to the Pac 10
* A&M goes to the SEC and UT chooses between the Big Ten and the Pac 10
* Both go to the Big Ten.

Seems unlikely Texas will go the SEC and it also seems unlikely A&M fits in the Big Ten without UT.

Lot of fates will rest on that meeting.

As a Kansas fan, what should I be hoping for? I suppose that both want to stay and we just pick up one school to keep the Big XII afloat. I guess I could always hope for Texas A&M to go SEC and Texas to go Big 10. But then where does that leave the PAC-10? I doubt they'd take anyone except Colorado in that case so you'd be left with, well, basically the Big 8 except trade Nebraska for Baylor and Texas Tech (*sigh*)

Yeah, this is just a clusterf@#% for Kansas no matter how things go

SI

[sterlingice]

If there are 4 megaconferences (or, really, 5- it's not like a mega-MWC would be any worse than the ACC in football if the SEC raided them), why not just then go to a 4, 8, or 16 team playoff? Either take the 4 mega conference champs and play a title game. Or maybe 4 or 5 autos + 4/3 "at large" ? Or even 8/10 autos + either 8 or 6 "at large" and do a playoff?

SI

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As a Kansas fan, what should I be hoping for? I suppose that both want to stay and we just pick up one school to keep the Big XII afloat. I guess I could always hope for Texas A&M to go SEC and Texas to go Big 10. But then where does that leave the PAC-10? I doubt they'd take anyone except Colorado in that case so you'd be left with, well, basically the Big 8 except trade Nebraska for Baylor and Texas Tech (*sigh*)

Yeah, this is just a clusterf@#% for Kansas no matter how things go

SI

I honestly don't know that I want to see the Big 12 stay afloat at this point. The power would still rely solely in Texas which is great for Texas, but will always irk someone in the Big 12. So thus at any point Texas or Texas A&M could leave and we're still in the same mess.

Kansas will end up in a BCS level conference so long as they can separate from KSU. And that seems to be more and more likely based on comments from everyone. I know KSU people in the government hate it, but the state of Kansas doesn't have the clout to force two schools onto a conference unless they are both quality schools.

[Solecismic]

For reference...

Total BCS At-Large Selections, 1998-2009:

Big Ten 9, SEC 7, Big XII 5, Notre Dame 3, Pac Ten 2, ACC 0, Big East 0, Others 6 (WAC 3, MW 3).

Something tells me the Pac-16's request isn't going to receive all that much consideration.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For reference...

Total BCS At-Large Selections, 1998-2009:

Big Ten 9, SEC 7, Big XII 5, Notre Dame 3, Pac Ten 2, ACC 0, Big East 0, Others 6 (WAC 3, MW 3).

Something tells me the Pac-16's request isn't going to receive all that much consideration.

Playing everyone does have its disadvanges. How many teams have made BCS games after losing their conference games? How many teams who didn't make their title game receive an At Large bid? UCLA and Arizona went 10-1 and they didnt receive an At Large bid. They've been screwed a few years and it wasn't because they werent deserving

Not saying your reasoning isn't sound, but there is always a counter point.