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

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Uggh, I think I just threw up in my mouth...Utah to the PAC 10...I hate it, I hate it, I hate it....

You may have stated why before but I do not recall. So what is the reason?

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

You may have stated why before but I do not recall. So what is the reason?

BYU fan?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

BYU fan?

I was thinking Mac was a Utah fan. If not I have probably committed the ultimate insult so I of course apologize in advance.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Not only that, but I don't understand how it's suddenly a much crappier football conference when Nebraska hasn't been Nebraska for nearly a decade* and Colorado hasn't been good since the 5th down play (not true, but they've had 4 straight losing seasons and haven't been a national player since 2001).

I understand how fragile the conference is at this point. But where is this crap coming from that Nebraska and Colorado singlehandedly somehow made the Big XII more of a football power conference?

SI

*I know historically, they're a much better program but that's looking like a longer and longer time ago. Since 2003, they have 63 wins. Texas Tech has 62 and Mizzou 58 and both Kansas schools have been to a BCS bowl more recently than Nebraska.

Yeah I think the whole national coverage of the Big 12 has been very un-educated at best. UT/OU/KU/K-State/Mizzou/OSU/TT have all had a top 5 ranking/national title hopes since the inception of this conference. (K-State may be a bit of a stretch but they were a player for a few years there)

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

BYU fan?

Bingo!!

Although I should feel great for Kalani Sitake their DC who was one of my best friends in HS until he moved to St. Louis for his final two years....

Really, I hate the fact they will separate from BYU as far as conference games....the Holy War which is the final game for both teams every season usually is the game that determines who the conference champ is (although TCU has thrown a wrench in it every once and a while) and have made the games that more meaningful. Now, they will suck ass and be unimportant to most fans. I honestly now could care less about the game as much as I would if they stuck around.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Alan T

So if this is indeed over (or close to over), who ends up being the winners/losers here?

Winners:
Colorado - Got to go where they wanted, and did so without much sniping or controversy.
Texas - Get to be the good guys to keep Big 12 alive, get an easier path to the BCS and get more money out of it.
Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor - Get to stay in a BCS conference and don't get regulated to some second (or possibly third) tier conference.
Big-10: They didn't get the Notre Dame or Texas, but they did get a school that will add to their conference in Nebraska, plus the ability for a championship game if they so choose.

Losers:

Pac-10 - Was adding Colorado (and possibly Utah) worth it? They obviously had their eyes set big and swung and missed.
Missouri - They seemed to have a For Sale sign around their necks, would easily have jumped ship if they had a taker. They end up stuck in a conference that they don't like under the conditions from Texas who they despise. Their only saving grace may be having pretty much a cakewalk in the new Big-12 North (pending what they decide to do without a championship game now)
Texas A&M, Oklahoma - Surely this wasn't the best deal for those two schools here. They appeared to have some desire elsewhere but chose to stay where they were.


Neutral:

Nebraska - They ended up in a better situation conference wise for stability and money purposes. That probably should be enough to put them in the winners category here. I didn't care too much for how they left and burned all of their bridges on the way out however. Plus their return path to football greatness has to be more difficult now against the likes of the Big 10 than they would have had facing Colorado/Missouri for the Big 12 north every year.

I agree with all of these except for Nebraska (winner) and Pac-10 (netural).

For Nebraska, All things being equal, I'd rather be in the Big 10 than the Big XII. Things are not equal as they weaken the Big XII and make a jump before things inevitably fall apart so that's a win for them.

Also, I think Utah gets to be a winner if they get picked up by the Pac-10.

The poor WAC is also a big loser out of this. There goes their big name in football

The MWC is a... small loser? Neutral? I can't tell. They pick up Boise St but they'll probably lose Utah. They lose out on their possible big fish and the possibility of being elevated to the 5th major conference. But that may still be looming out on the horizon. However, by then will they be in a position to snatch up teams or will Conference USA or something like that still be out there.

I think the SEC is also a small winner. Did you really want Texas A&M and have to split the pot another way and deal with a 13 team conference?

Finally, the Pac-10 is the complicated one. I'm assuming they go out and pick up Utah. They move into two more media markets they covet but probably won't get the big fish they wanted. If, in 5 years, the Big XII implodes and they have to go with some pupu platter of BYU, Kansas, Kansas State, New Mexico, and Texas schools not named UT or A&M- they lose then. But if they hadn't made such a bold move, wouldn't they have been stuck with those options anyways? They had to kick the tires on making conference armageddon happen because that was easily their best play. Sure, they have to split the pot another 2 ways but the pot should grow with those two new markets.

SI

[sterlingice]

Also, how in the world are we going to reconcile the Big XII and Big 10 names now? Is it going to become the Big X and the Big 12 now? Or does the old Big 10 get to steal the Roman numerals motif due to their academic prowess?

SI

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Also, how in the world are we going to reconcile the Big XII and Big 10 names now? Is it going to become the Big X and the Big 12 now? Or does the old Big 10 get to steal the Roman numerals motif due to their academic prowess?

SI

Big Ten is a brand at this point. I can't see any way they ever change the name, even with 16 teams. We've been at 11 for over fifteen years, what's one more team?

[Wolfpack]

Count me also as one who's not happy the armageddon scenario seems to have been nipped before it truly could get going.

Frankly, I am very surprised that OU and A&M are selling themselves out to Texas considering the tradition each school prides itself on. A&M kinda-sorta fought to go its own way, but both schools have pretty much said that they're nothing without Texas now, a fact that probably incenses their fans to no end at this point. Yeah, they'll take all that money and run, but it's still going to be perceived as the TEXAS+nine Conference now.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah I think the whole national coverage of the Big 12 has been very un-educated at best. UT/OU/KU/K-State/Mizzou/OSU/TT have all had a top 5 ranking/national title hopes since the inception of this conference. (K-State may be a bit of a stretch but they were a player for a few years there)

Kansas State probably has a better overall resume than Kansas, Missouri, OSU, and Tech in the Big 12. They've actually won the conference title and have had multiple top 10 finishes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Kansas State probably has a better overall resume than Kansas, Missouri, OSU, and Tech in the Big 12. They've actually won the conference title and have had multiple top 10 finishes.

I'll say it grudgingly but the coaching job by Bill Snyder is one of the best if not the best in the history of college football. He took over an awful program (0, 0, 1, and 2 wins the 4 seasons before he got there) and had it in the conference and evern national title hunt for a long time with 11 straight bowls and a stretch of 6 out of 7 seasons with 11 wins each year.

SI

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by Alan T

So if this is indeed over (or close to over), who ends up being the winners/losers here? .

Winners:
Arizona State & uofa - They still have a shot at a Pac-10 championship once every 8-10 years.

I think going in Pac-10 fans thought Scott should swing for the fences and invite Texas & TA&M and if it didn't work settle for Colorado & Utah so I'm not sure the Pac-10 is a loser in this. The aimed big and almost hit their target. If OU or TA&M would have stood up to Texas we'd have a Pac-16 now. As it is I think the Big XII house of cards will fall apart in 5 years or so anyhow as they see how far Texas pulls away from them.

The local guys were talking about how the TX TV network could get very big for them in a few years. Thinking in terms of the YES Network where they decide to purchase the airing rights to Rangers games or Stars games to help them bring in more $$

[Scarecrow]

Speaking of K-State, you've gotta love Frank Martin in all this...

"As you might expect, Kansas State basketball coach Frank Martin was happy to hear his team is staying in the Big 12 Conference. What you might not expect is how excited he is to begin competing in a new 10-team format.

"The Big 12 is a great league that just got better," Martin said. "... Having a lot of teams doesn't necessarily make a power league, because you've got a huge discrepancy between the top-tier teams and the lower-tier teams. Our league right now is pretty evenly matched 1-10."

With every team potentially playing the other nine twice in a double round robin, he sees the new Big 12 being a much more competitive conference.

"Now the South can't complain that in basketball they play each other twice and us once," Martin said. "We've got to play each other twice now. It's as evenly laid out as it can possibly be."

Without two of the North Division's worst teams (Colorado and Nebraska) around for more powerful rivals to feast on four times a year, that point is hard to argue.

By the way, Martin's thoughts on Nebraska and Colorado: "I don't care about them."

What he does care about is the future of a league that will likely claim Texas Tech, Iowa State and Oklahoma as its worst teams. And all three have put together quality teams in the recent past. The other seven (K-State, Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma State and Missouri) look very strong. Things could change by the time Colorado and Nebraska leave after next season, but all of them made the NCAA Tournament last year.

"I'm proud as heck of the teams we've got in our league," Martin said. "It's a big-time league with big-time coaches. I couldn't be happier to be a part of it."

Read more: Frank Martin discusses new Big 12 | Campus Corner"

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by panerd

No he's saying that comparing ISU and KSU to Florida, Tennessee, and LSU is stupid. (Re-read the original A&M post where this is done) The teams that are the equals of FLA, UT, & LSU in the big 12-2 are OU, Mizzou , and Nebraska (or say Texas Tech if you don't want to count Nebraska for the next two years) The equals of ISU and KSU in football would be the bottom feeders in the SEC (like Miss State)

In essence, he was comparing the two.

For TAMU, the biggest draws are Texas and Oklahoma as it stands. Anything else isn't nearly in the same stratosphere as the top teams in the SEC. Alabama, LSU, Florida, hell Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn. TAMU now has to play ISU, KSU, Baylor every year. Playing in the SEC would overrule meh teams in the Big-12 - 2.

The fact that you compared Missouri to LSU, Florida, and Alabama is pretty laughable and shows delusion doesn't stop at the doors of Mizzou BB Fan

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by SnDvls

The local guys were talking about how the TX TV network could get very big for them in a few years. Thinking in terms of the YES Network where they decide to purchase the airing rights to Rangers games or Stars games to help them bring in more $$

I'm not sure how that works out the same way. While the Longhorns are a huge property in Texas and given Texas's population that's a lot of viewers to pull in, it's still nothing compared to the national draw the Yankees are or even the Big 10 if we're going to make a closer comparison. I can't see a BevoNet (or whatever it's going to be called) channel ever really getting serious play outside of Texas other than maybe in Oklahoma. Adding the Rangers or the Stars isn't going to change that. Now, if the Longhorns somehow got something related to the Cowboys on their network, then the math changes a bit since the channel would have programming non-Longhorn and non-Texas-resident viewers would be interested in. Since the NFL controls the league TV contracts and keeps most of the archival stuff on their own network, it's unlikely this would happen, though.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Losers:

Pac-10 - Was adding Colorado (and possibly Utah) worth it? They obviously had their eyes set big and swung and missed.

While I agree that losing out on Texas was disappointing, they still expanded with their backup plan.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I'm not sure how that works out the same way. While the Longhorns are a huge property in Texas and given Texas's population that's a lot of viewers to pull in, it's still nothing compared to the national draw the Yankees are or even the Big 10 if we're going to make a closer comparison. I can't see a BevoNet (or whatever it's going to be called) channel ever really getting serious play outside of Texas other than maybe in Oklahoma. Adding the Rangers or the Stars isn't going to change that. Now, if the Longhorns somehow got something related to the Cowboys on their network, then the math changes a bit since the channel would have programming non-Longhorn and non-Texas-resident viewers would be interested in. Since the NFL controls the league TV contracts and keeps most of the archival stuff on their own network, it's unlikely this would happen, though.

What will it show? Highlights? Replays of old games? The less-profitable stuff? The Longhorns will likely be shown nationally on big networks when it comes to football and basketball in most cases.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

In essence, he was comparing the two.

For TAMU, the biggest draws are Texas and Oklahoma as it stands. Anything else isn't nearly in the same stratosphere as the top teams in the SEC. Alabama, LSU, Florida, hell Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn. TAMU now has to play ISU, KSU, Baylor every year. Playing in the SEC would overrule meh teams in the Big-12 - 2.

The fact that you compared Missouri to LSU, Florida, and Alabama is pretty laughable and shows delusion doesn't stop at the doors of Mizzou BB Fan

Again your reading comprehension astounds me. The original post compared playing ISU and KSU with Fla, Tenn, and LSU. It didn't say Auburn or Georgia like you are trying to spin it to say nor did it mention OU or Texas like you spin it to say. It said "Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring" I also said OU = FLA, Mizzou = Tenn (which is hardly the elite of the SEC), and Nebraska or Tech = LSU. It's not even worth debating you as you don't really even seem to read what the posts say. Tennessee is not Alabama. (It is fun to try and change Tenn to Alabama to make me look dumb but it isn't hard to go one page to see what I really said.)

[Izulde]

Ugh. Boise State for Utah is an iffy trade at best.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by panerd

Again your reading comprehension astounds me. The original post compared playing ISU and KSU with Fla, Tenn, and LSU. It didn't say Auburn, or Georgia like you are trying to spin it to say. I also said OU = FLA, Mizzou = Tenn (which is hardly the elite of the SEC), and Nebraska or Tech = LSU. It's not even worth debating you as you don't really even seem to read what the posts say.

Big-12 - 2 is playing everyone in their schedule now, you seem to be missing that aspect of the whole convo. You hit every team in the Big-10 - 2 right now. You can sacrifice ISU and KSU for just one of the good teams, we'll say LSU, and they would make more money in ticket sales in that one game then vs the other two.

And I wasn't strictly speaking about prestige, though you compared Tennessee to Missouri, which isnt so bad I guess. Fan travel in the SEC is unreal. The UCLA baseball region was about 75% LSU fans. The other three teams were from no more then 75 mles away. But Tennessee fans will travel, even with an average program like the one Tennesse has. And that is discounting the fact that Tennessee also has a BCS Championship, a BCS appearance that has eluded Missouri. So your 3rd best program in the Big-12 hasnt won a Conference title since 1969 yet its comparable, in your mind, to Tennessee, a team with a BCS championship?

Seriously?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Big-12 - 2 is playing everyone in their schedule now, you seem to be missing that aspect of the whole convo. You hit every team in the Big-10 - 2 right now. You can sacrifice ISU and KSU for just one of the good teams, we'll say LSU, and they would make more money in ticket sales in that one game then vs the other two.

And I wasn't strictly speaking about prestige, though you compared Tennessee to Missouri, which isnt so bad I guess. Fan travel in the SEC is unreal. The UCLA baseball region was about 75% LSU fans. The other three teams were from no more then 75 mles away. But Tennessee fans will travel, even with an average program like the one Tennesse has. And that is discounting the fact that Tennessee also has a BCS Championship, a BCS appearance that has eluded Missouri. So your 3rd best program in the Big-12 hasnt won a Conference title since 1969 yet its comparable, in your mind, to Tennessee, a team with a BCS championship?

Seriously?

Where did I say Mizzou was the 3rd best team in the conference? You are saying Tenn is the third best in the SEC which I don't agree with. I would say the Big 12 would rank Tex/OU, Neb, TT, OSU, Mizzou and the SEC: Ala, Fla,LSU, Ark/Georgia, USC, Tenn. So that puts Mizzou around where Tenn is the the SEC.

[MrBug708]

Im talking strictly about the ability to sell tickets, which was the original point that was made. SEC fans travel for the most part. A package of MSU, Auburn, and Florida is an automatic win for TAMU. ISU, Baylor, and Texas isn't a slam dunk other then Texas. The fans would come from the SEC to Texas to watch their teams play. How many Iowa State fans drive down to watch a game at TAMU?

I also don't think Tennessee is the 3rd best program, hence it not being included in my original statement.

[panerd]

You obvisouly aren't that familiar with the Big 12. That's fine I know that you are a Pac-10 fan and my knowledge of the Pac-10 has to be way lower than yours. But you can continue to bash Mizzou all you want and try and spin things to make me seem outragous. All because I said that comparing playing the bottom feeders of the big 12 to the elite of the SEC was a dumb point for a Texas A&M fan to make. Why wouldn't the Yankees want to leave the AL East for the NL Central? The Orioles and Blue Jays are hardly the Cubs and Cardinals. That's what he did. That's why Blade called bullshit. That's when you misinterpreted both me and Blade. That's all I am discussing. You keep trying to change the topic to something I never said or wish to debate. Go back and read every post I have made about this and you will see that is the case. I never said the Big 12 was better than the SEC, I said that Blade was correct in calling bullshit to the A&M post that said "Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Im talking strictly about the ability to sell tickets, which was the original point that was made. SEC fans travel for the most part. A package of MSU, Auburn, and Florida is an automatic win for TAMU. ISU, Baylor, and Texas isn't a slam dunk other then Texas. The fans would come from the SEC to Texas to watch their teams play. How many Iowa State fans drive down to watch a game at TAMU?

I also don't think Tennessee is the 3rd best program, hence it not being included in my original statement.

None of this was said by the original A&M post. So it wasn't the point they were making. You are making a better point than they did. They made a horrible point that me and Blade called bullshit on.

[MrBug708]

Ditching ISU and KSU from the schedule every year is worth chance of possibly playing Florida/LSU/Bama/Tennessee/Auburn/Georgia/Arkansas in any given year. Even losing the Oklahoma/Texas game.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Ditching ISU and KSU from the schedule every year is worth chance of possibly playing Florida/LSU/Bama/Tennessee/Auburn/Georgia/Arkansas in any given year. Even losing the Oklahoma/Texas game.

Fine. It's dumb to keep going on this. If you want to say that playing Miss State and Vandy is a little better than playing KSU and ISU than I won't disagree with you. But that isn't what was said...

"Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring" Blade said that is comparing apples to oranges. Like saying why wouldn't Florida want to play OU, Mizzou, and T Tech instead of Vandy and Miss State. You said this somehow meant that Blade (and a few posts later "panerd") thought the big 12 was so much better than the SEC. That's what happened. Go re-read the posts and I hope you will understand. No reason to continue the discussion though.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by panerd

Fine. It's dumb to keep going on this. If you want to say that playing Miss State and Vandy is a little better than playing KSU and ISU than I won't disagree with you. But that isn't what was said...

"Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring" Blade said that is comparing apples to oranges. Like saying why wouldn't Florida want to play OU, Mizzou, and T Tech instead of Vandy and Miss State. You said this somehow meant that Blade (and a few posts later "panerd") thought the big 12 was so much better than the SEC. That's what happened. Go re-read the posts and I hope you will understand. No reason to continue the discussion though.

Bolded for emphasis. Would you have preferred "et al"? They picked three random schools but opted to leave off Alabama.

[digamma]

Jackie Sherrill was interviewed all over the radio today and basically said the aTm decision was about two things, ego and ticket sales. In the end ticket sales won out. Surprising as it seems, they do rely on visitors to sell out their stadium. Established rivalries with Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU, etc. sell tickets. LSU and Alabama would travel, and Arkansas and Tennessee may travel for a year or so, but the others don't. TV never really came into play for them.

[Galaxy]

Interesting comments from T. Boone Pickens from the Dallas Morning News article:

" Another key conference voice weighed in during the afternoon – Dallas oilman and financier T. Boone Pickens, whose $400 million in donations have transformed Oklahoma State. He was optimistic after giving a talk in Austin and said he liked the idea of a lean Big 12.

"I don't want to go off and leave Iowa State, Kansas State or Baylor," Pickens said. "The Pac-10 is not that interesting. I'd rather trim the conference. I don't care if Nebraska leaves, I have no love for them. And I'd just as soon Missouri leave, and Colorado kind of fell in the same category."

Beebe has pushed for a long-term commitment from each Big 12 school, as much as 10 years, to avoid any repeat in the near future, sources said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...t.1dbf239.html

[Abe Sargent]

Wow, when we can no longer debate conferences, let's get our panties in a twist about INTERNET POSTS< OMG!!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

While I'm still a bit iffy about the football end of the Big 12, there's no question that Big 12 basketball will be fantastic. They'll play an 18 game schedule and no longer have dead weights Nebraska and Colorado dragging down what was the #1 RPI conference in the nation. Also takes two cupcakes off the schedule with two more games being in-conference.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Ditching ISU and KSU from the schedule every year is worth chance of possibly playing Florida/LSU/Bama/Tennessee/Auburn/Georgia/Arkansas in any given year. Even losing the Oklahoma/Texas game.

I don't get what's so hard to understand here. No one is saying games against Iowa State and Kansas State are completely desirable, especially not right now.* But are you guys being intentionally dense or what is so hard to understand? It's like if when talking about Texas A&M right now, Big XII fans would say: "Why would you leave the Big XII and games with Oklahoma and Texas to play Mississippi State and Vanderbilt?" Which completely misses the point. Or "Why would Nebraska leave to go play Northwestern and Indiana when they can play, again, Oklahoma and Texas" instead of using Ohio State and Michigan. I'm pretty sure that's all panerd is saying- you're cherry picking of the highest and dumbest degree and it's not really necessary. Those of us with Big XII schools know we're all just limping along and it's a matter of time but you don't really need to intentionally crap on us further- just make it fair.

*I mean, we're past the days of Marcus Fizer and Jamaal Tinsley and Iowa State's brief flirtation with being good at basketball. And, again, Kansas State was a national title contender on the football stage but that was a while ago. Everyone has really nice runs but they are not marquee programs.

SI

[cartman]

Here's the Op-Ed of Kirk Bohls, the main sports writer for the Austin paper:

Big 12 calls off funeral, but bad blood remains

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

While I'm still a bit iffy about the football end of the Big 12, there's no question that Big 12 basketball will be fantastic. They'll play an 18 game schedule and no longer have dead weights Nebraska and Colorado dragging down what was the #1 RPI conference in the nation. Also takes two cupcakes off the schedule with two more games being in-conference.

That's one of the few good things to come about because of this renewal of the Big 12. Finally a complete schedule where everybody plays one another in the conference.

I think you said it before so if you haven't please correct me, but I'm with you in that I don't think this is a long term solution.

[MJ4H]

Some Texas fans are crying because they don't want to go to Nebraska to play this year without a return trip the following year and think the game should be moved to a neutral field.

What a fucking joke.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Some Texas fans are crying because they don't want to go to Nebraska to play this year without a return trip the following year and think the game should be moved to a neutral field.

What a fucking joke.

Eh? This is the first I've heard of it. Sounds suspiciously similar to the talk of Arkansas wanting to move to the Big 12.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't get what's so hard to understand here. No one is saying games against Iowa State and Kansas State are completely desirable, especially not right now.* But are you guys being intentionally dense or what is so hard to understand? It's like if when talking about Texas A&M right now, Big XII fans would say: "Why would you leave the Big XII and games with Oklahoma and Texas to play Mississippi State and Vanderbilt?" Which completely misses the point. Or "Why would Nebraska leave to go play Northwestern and Indiana when they can play, again, Oklahoma and Texas" instead of using Ohio State and Michigan. I'm pretty sure that's all panerd is saying- you're cherry picking of the highest and dumbest degree and it's not really necessary. Those of us with Big XII schools know we're all just limping along and it's a matter of time but you don't really need to intentionally crap on us further- just make it fair.

*I mean, we're past the days of Marcus Fizer and Jamaal Tinsley and Iowa State's brief flirtation with being good at basketball. And, again, Kansas State was a national title contender on the football stage but that was a while ago. Everyone has really nice runs but they are not marquee programs.

SI

None o' y'all can seem to figure out what the other is saying, so I'll translate:

Bug--the teams you're tossing out on one end don't match with the relative strength of the comparable teams in the other conference. Let's say Texas is #1 and Oklahoma is #2 in the Texas Bitch Conference, while Alabama and Florida are #1 and #2 in the SEC. You don't say missing out on Bama and Florida (the top SEC teams) to play ISU andf KSU (teams #8 & #9 in the TBC). That doesn't make sense--you have to match up the teams, positions-wise within their conference.

SI/panerd/Blade/Whoever-- Bug is saying the SEC is a better conference than the TBC. And he's right--the SEC would obliterate the TBC in virtually every head to head matchup--and the SEC travels better, too. Bug is saying TX A&M missed out on an opportunity to raise its profile with a stronger schedule and increase its ticket sales, on top of also likely making much more money in the SEC with TV money, so this move makes no sense from the A&M perspective.

But then that's why the Big 12 is now the Texas Bitch Conference, when you think about it.

[sterlingice]

There we go. Much better

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

That's one of the few good things to come about because of this renewal of the Big 12. Finally a complete schedule where everybody plays one another in the conference.

I think you said it before so if you haven't please correct me, but I'm with you in that I don't think this is a long term solution.

Yes, that's the problem. We don't know if we'll ever even see it take place. They may add 2-8 members or may still fall apart in the next year or so if other dominoes fall.

[Honolulu_Blue]

From a fan of the Big 10, I am pleased with the addition of Nebraska. It's hard to say if more schools would have been better. I suppose it depends on which schools. Adding Notre Dame and Texas would have been amazing, but I think neither was a realistic probability and it was just a pipe dream more than anything.

Nebraska may not be the Nebraska of old, but it still has a lot of tradition and is a team that still draws national interest. Behind Texas/Notre Dame, I think they were the team I wanted to join the most.

I am also excited about the prospect of a Big Ten Championship game in 2011. It's been a long time coming.

From a basketball perspective, I could give a rat's ass. I have no real interest in college basketball, so it doesn't impact me one way or another.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

From a fan of the Big 10, I am pleased with the addition of Nebraska. It's hard to say if more schools would have been better. I suppose it depends on which schools. Adding Notre Dame and Texas would have been amazing, but I think neither was a realistic probability and it was just a pipe dream more than anything.

Nebraska may not be the Nebraska of old, but it still has a lot of tradition and is a team that still draws national interest. Behind Texas/Notre Dame, I think they were the team I wanted to join the most.

I am also excited about the prospect of a Big Ten Championship game in 2011. It's been a long time coming.

From a basketball perspective, I could give a rat's ass. I have no real interest in college basketball, so it doesn't impact me one way or another.

Nebraska will stick out like a sore thumb in the high tempo world of Big Ten hoops.

[Kodos]

I don't care about Texas joining, really. To me, they don't fit in the geographic footprint of the Big Ten. I would love to see Notre Dame join, though I hate them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I am also excited about the prospect of a Big Ten Championship game in 2011. It's been a long time coming.

You'll be excited until the Big 10 teams start getting knocked out of National Championship games due to a loss in that game. If there's anything that is nice about the new Big 12 in football, it's that we won't have to deal with the issues a championship game presents. Most coaches have been trying to get rid of that game since the conference was formed.

[Logan]

Here we go...

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You'll be excited until the Big 10 teams start getting knocked out of National Championship games due to a loss in that game. If there's anything that is nice about the new Big 12 in football, it's that we won't have to deal with the issues a championship game presents. Most coaches have been trying to get rid of that game since the conference was formed.

Yeah you know, more money, better visibility, better recruiting...

Of course, if Mizzou hadn't been castoff like the needy kid who desperately wanted to be in the cool kid circle you'd be singing a different tune.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Here we go...

Who's "we" and where are you going?

[Butter]

Missouri, enjoy servicing Texas for the next few years, until they get bored and decide to move on to the next big thing.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Who's "we" and where are you going?

Reject Island?

Mizzou has beachfront property

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Yeah you know, more money, better visibility, better recruiting...

Of course, if Mizzou hadn't been castoff like the needy kid who desperately wanted to be in the cool kid circle you'd be singing a different tune.

Your first statement holds little validity. It doesn't change recruiting. Exposure in key states through the conference is far more important. The money is minimal compared to the overall contract. Mizzou's visibility was actually reduced due to their conference championship loss. If the Big 12 had been set up without a championship, Mizzou would have been playing for a National Championship. Instead, MU ended up with a non-BCS invite. It was a huge blow to MU's visibility.

You're also incorrect in your second statement. I wouldn't be any more excited about a championship game if we were in another conference. I believe the regular season champ should get the bid.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Missouri, enjoy servicing Texas for the next few years, until they get bored and decide to move on to the next big thing.

This conference will be lucky to last five years. It was a disaster before and it's still a disaster now. Even people in Texas will admit that. As a sports fan, you pretty much just have to ignore the stupidity of it all and enjoy the sports side of the equation.