RT @ChipBrownOB: Here is the latest bombshell in college realignment: Texas willing to commit to 10-member Big 12. … http://bit.ly/dtrXTm
RT @ChipBrownOB: Here is the latest bombshell in college realignment: Texas willing to commit to 10-member Big 12. … http://bit.ly/dtrXTm
Dammit Texas, I was willing to let bygones be bygones and welcome you into the Pac 10 with open arms but if you screw this up I swear I will hate you forever.
Gooooo SEC, invite the Aggies!
From what’s being reported, the SEC has already invited the Aggies, whether formally or informally — the ball is in A&M’s court.
Given that everything’s bigger in Texas, I think A&M’s defection to the SEC would make that conference go from being a WAR!!! to a WAR!!!!!!!!
P.S. For my part, I hope the Big 12 stays together, and the Pac-10 becomes the Pac-12. Why? MORE USC GAMES IN BOULDER!!!
*…although it would be a bummer for the Mountain West to lose Utah to the Pac-12, as that would seriously harm its prospects of becoming an AQ conference.
But, it’s okay, because it’s for the greater good — “greater good” here being defined as “Brendan gets to attend more USC games.”
I’m guessing (and hoping) A&M goes to the SEC if the invite is there. Why? Because they are sick of playing second fiddle to Texas, which they would still be doing if they stayed in the Big 12 Lite. They SEC membership gives them a recruiting chip to play given the SECs perceived strength (same reason Florida is likely to oppose an SEC invite for Miami or Florida State). Plus they torpedo Texas’ chances to create it’s own revenue behemoth of a TV network which has apparently been a sore spot for the Aggies.
Meanwhile Larry Scott could make the pitch to Oklahoma/Oklahoma State that it’s in their best financial interests to jump to the Pac-10 by pointing out that Texas would then be all but forced to join as well.
The trouble with a Big 12 Lite is that it’s at a very unstable equilibrium. Any one team leaving at that point pretty much forces the conference to collapse and then it’s members are in a more vulnerable position as the other leagues may opt to fill spots now, leaving less room at the table for Big 12 refugees. Kansas has a shot at being the Pac10 replacement for A&M. If they hold out we’ll grab Utah and then there won’t be a spot for them in the next round when the Big 12 eventually falls apart as it’s squeezed from all four sides.
You do realize that if Colorado and USC are not in the same zipper division that you’d see them at best once every four years right?
Yes, but that’s better than in the Pac-16 setup, when I’d see them once very EIGHT years! I mean, that’s twice in Loyette and Loyacita’s entire childhood! Eight years is a LONG time to wait between games. Four is much more manageable.
Moreover, “every four years” isn’t “at best,” it’s “at worst,” by my math anyway. If the Pac-12 has eight conference games per season, instead of nine as in the present Pac-10, each team would play five intradivision games and three interdivision games per year. So everyone would play everyone else in the other division over the course of two years, and would do home-and-homes with everyone else over the course of four years.
On the other hand, if the current nine conference games per season schedule is maintained, each team would play FOUR interdivision games per year. So it’d only take a year-and-a-half to play the whole other division, and three years to do home-and-homes. Voila, USC @ Colorado every three years!
There are also probably in-between scenarios, where each team has a “rival” from the other division that they play every year, or whatever, in which case the frequency could vary between 3 and 4 years. But, bottom line, I don’t see how it ends up being LESS frequent than every four years. That’d require playing just 7 conference games per season, a la the Big East — and the Big East only does that because it only has 8 teams.
Okay, I guess I can see a scenario where it’s less than every four years. My jumping-off point is this old blog post…
Now, in that scenario, USC would actually play at Colorado EVERY OTHER year, which would be, um, AWESOME. But, let’s flip Colorado and Utah, and let’s also reduce the nine-game schedule to eight. So:
That’s 2 out of 5 from ASU/Cal/Oregon/Washington/Colorado that USC would play each year. So it’d take 2 1/2 years to cycle through everyone, and 5 years to do home-and-homes with everyone.
That’s still a lot better than every 8 years, though. 🙂
Texas is going to make out like bandits. As I understand it the Big 12 does not do even distributions…so Texas will probably end up with nearly the same money it would have under the Pac-10 deal. But the other schools in the Big 12 will end up with less than Texas and less than they would have had in the Pac-10. So now, if OU, Okla St., A&M or TTech say they don’t want the Big 12 deal then the collapse of the Big 12 is caused by one of them….not Texas. I would frankly guess that the only chance for this to happen is if A&M says it is going to the SEC…otherwise the Big 12 remains….for now.
Next, I would suspect that the Pac-10 takes Utah….and then waits to see if the Big-12 can really survive after all of this as a much more regionalized conference. What is even stranger is that I hear some people saying the Big-12 should then expand by adding TCU and or Houston…..but that would bring in next to no money for them and would simply cause the conference to divide up the current money by 12 instead of 10. And what happens when the Big-10 decides to come knocking on Missouri’s door next year? So I think that the situation is likely to remain very fluid for a long time.
P.S. Interesting thought on “zipper” divisions: the schedule would have a natural five-year cycle. If desired, a provision could be put in place whereby, at the end of that cycle, the divisional orientation could be re-assessed for balance, based upon some automatic criteria that looks at the teams’ records over the course of the previous five years. Since the divisions aren’t based on geography, really, there’s no real impediment to doing this. So, for instance, if a football dynasty unexpectly springs up in Tucscon, Arizona over the first five years of the Pac-12’s existence, and Oregon State also becomes a national powerhouse, while ASU and Oregon fade by comparison, and meanwhile USC stays strong, the “second division” in the above-quoted scenario would come to be seen as too strong, sort of like the Big 12 South in recent years. But, unlike with the Big 12, it’s an easy fix. Just flip, say, ASU and Arizona, and voila, you’ve got more balanced divisions, without disrupting rivalries or messing up schedules or doing violence to basic geography (as would have been necessary to, say, put the Oklahoma schools in the Big 12 North and replace them with the Kansas schools, or whatever). Rinse and repeat as needed at the end of the next five-year cycle.
(And yes, the above scenario would be very football-centric, but then, so is this whole conference alignment project, as we’ve learned in last couple of weeks.)
I don’t see the Pac-10 staying at 12 for long enough for us to even get through one zipper cycle let alone having to worry about a reshuffle. I think we are heading towards an inevitable situation where you have four 16 team super conferences. Pac-16, Big Sixteen, SEC and ACC. As I said above, a 10 team Big 12 is an unstable equilibrium point where any change causes it to fall apart.
I agree on that unstable equilibrium thing, David. It depends on how ironclad the contracts can be, or if there’s some insanely high loyalty buyout clause (ie. “Big East & Misc”).
Does Missouri have a governor-recall petition? How grateful is Jay Nixon that he isn’t running for re-election this year?
BTW, I think Missouri is as welcome in the Big 12 at the moment as Joe Lieberman was in the Democratic Party in 2004-06.
I think Missouri would bolt for the Big Ten given half a chance. I think Kansas has to be feeling pretty vulnerable too and might entertain scenarios that protect it, such as an invite to the Pac-10 (or Big East?). Of course I’m still hoping this A&M/SEC thing goes through forcing everyones hands.
Or Scott could call Texas’ bluff and invite Kansas instead of Utah, dealing a potential mortal wound to the Big 12. If that were to happen, does TAMU throw in its lot with Texas and the Oklahoma schools and stand pat? Or does it head east to the SEC? An invite to Kansas closes the door on TAMU to the Pac-10/12/16 for good and potentially forces a final reckoning.
All in all though, I prefer Utah to Kansas. Geographically it’s a better fit, and demographically, Utah and Kansas are going in opposite directions.