2 thoughts on “Twitter: RT @Dascenzo: “Texas …”

  1. Kenneth Stern

    I was listening to the Dan Patrick show and he was interviewing one of the main football analysts (whose name escapes me now.) Anyway his story is that at the last minute Texas told Scott that it wanted to change the deal it had previously agreed to with the Pac-10. Namely that it wanted to have its own TV network. Scott said that was impossible. So Texas then went back to the Big-12 and got what it wanted.

    Clearly the big winner in this is Texas which gets to be an independent but still with a conference. The big loser is probably A&M which had a chance to get out from under Texas’ domination. As far as the Pac-10…while they did not get the home run they might have had with the Pac-16, a new Pac-12 with Colorado and presumably Utah will still make a big improvement in terms of new markets and financial improvments vis-a-vis a new tv deal. Not sure how much the level of athletic competition is improved by the addition of the two teams…but 12 teams with a conference championship game should help the Pac-12’s chances of getting two BCS bids. (Correspondingly, 10 teams in the Big-12, with no championship game will likely mean the Big-12 will not get two teams as often…I wonder if the Big-12 schools considered the loss of the money from the championship game and the loss of potential BCS games in evaluating the financial aspects of their new deal.)

  2. AMLTrojan

    The bigger impediment to the Pac-10 getting two bids were the full round-robin format (that adds five more losses to the conference automatically) and the lack of cupcakes (imagine USC played a I-AA team the last few years instead of losing those road trips to Oregon, Washington, and Oregon State, respectively).

Comments are closed.