16 thoughts on “FriendFeed: Orangebloods: Arkansas to …”
David K.
Why the hell would ND join a league that is so far out of its way geographically and would necessitate giving up some of its regular rivalry games. At least with the Big Ten you are maintaining some of those rivalries in conference as well as joining a premier academic conference.
And whats the incentive for Arkansas to go leave the SEC?
JD
Can we please have a “Accuracy of Numbers in Conference Names” code when we’re done with this? We’ve already screwed up a generation with an 11-team Big Ten, and it’s only getting worse!
Also, I thought Arkansas was very happy right where it was.
Also also, wasn’t ND committed to staying exactly where it was unless and until the Big East Conference was next in line to have its not-quite-dead-yet corpse picked over?
I thought it was strange in this article that Orangebloods acknowledged that their sources had told them last weekend about Arkansas’ interest in the Big-12….but that Orangebloods decided not to report it at that time because it could have had an impact on the overall Pac10/Big12 realignment issues …in particular A&M’s interest in moving to the SEC. While I have no idea what if any impact this report would have had last weekend, I am rather disappointed in the lack of journalist ethics that seem to have been in evidence by Orangeblood’s decision to hold on to this story until now. This certainly opens the door to criticism that Orangebloods will not report information they have if it might impact things in a way that is not of the liking of Orangebloods.
David K.
That would certainly be in line with allegations that UT has been manipulating this whole thing all along to try and end up with the sweetest deal possible. If Orangebloods was getting these leaks on some set of conditions to report them as Texas wished it would make even more sense they might hold the Arkansas story if UT thought it might weaken their position/strengthen A&M’s.
Brendan Loy
David, the linked article addresses both of your questions. Re: Notre Dame:
[N]ow that the Big Ten is at 12 schools already, Notre Dame might be more interested in joining the Big 12, where it might be the 12th school added to the league (along with Arkansas).
Notre Dame could also explore having its own TV network inside the Big 12, whereas that would not be an option in the Big Ten, which has a conference network that requires everyone to share their inventory.
As for Arkansas, the lede says the Razorbacks were interesting in exploring “a possible move to the Big 12 to reconnect with former Southwest Conference rivals like Texas and Texas A&M.”
Not saying I buy any of that, but those are the answers the article gives.
Meanwhile, Ken, it isn’t quite accurate to say that “Orangebloods acknowledged…that Orangebloods decided not to report it at that time because it could have had an impact on the overall Pac10/Big12 realignment issues.” That may be a reasonable interpretation of what was really going on, but here’s what the article actually acknowledges:
OB decided not to report it at that time because events in the Big 12 were moving so fast, we wanted to get more confirmation because the news was so potentially explosive for Arkansas in its relationship with the SEC.
Plus, Orangebloods.com wanted to make sure the information wasn’t being used as an emotional chess piece with regard to how things would play out in the Big 12.
But OB went back to its two sources and even added corroboration from a third and fourth source Thursday that Arkansas had definitely inquired about possibly moving to the Big 12.
On the face of it, they’re just saying they wanted full & complete confirmation that this was good information, as they were worried it was misinformation being put out as part of the expansion “chess” game, and they didn’t want to report such “explosive” news without clear confirmation. Now, what their real motives were, or whether their claimed reticence to report unconfirmed information is consistent with past practices, is certainly open for debate, but in terms of what they’re admitting or acknowledging, I don’t think it goes beyond that.
David K.
If Notre Dame wanted to be the 12th team in a league it had ample opportunity to do so in the Big Ten. Being the 12th team vs. the 16th team is a weak argument to make at this point.
And while the TV argument is one they can make (its also something I think would hasten the demise of the conference personally) is it realistic enough of an argument to overcome the indpendence, rivalry, AND academic issues that joining the Big-12 would bring? It was tough enough seeing Notre Dame join the Big Ten unless it faced the problems the 16 team expansions would cause, but joining the Big 12 at this point? I don’t think the TV argument is a strong enough one to overcome all the other issues. Not by a long shot.
Back to the rivalries, I mean just look at the list:
Not a single Big 12 school on it, while its stuffed with Big Ten (and in Pitts case potential Big Ten) schools.
If Notre Dame were to join a 16 team Big Ten (that also included say Pitt, Rutgers and Missouri) they could be in a division that includes Michigan, Michigan State, and Pittsburgh (along with Ohio State, Rutgers, Penn State, and Northwestern (Or Syracuse instead of Missouri). Thats three historic rivals right there. If they only do 8 conference games a year, you could toss in USC and Navy, plus two cupcake non-conf games. If its up to 9 conference games, theyd’ hang on to USC and maybe schedule Navy every so often, I don’t know.
If you go to the Big 12 you are trying to fit in USC, Michigan, Michigan State, and Navy, along with BC et al. plus now 6-8 conference games. Good luck.
The economic sense of a Notre Dame move to the Big 12 makes sense to me, but little else. Are they seriously going to keep Michigan, MSU, USC, and Navy — and just rotate the Big 12 schedule? They’d drop Purdue, Pitt, BC, and Stanford? Plus the geography issue — ND is in the heart of Big Ten country and would be a major outlier in the Big 12. If ND ever joined a conference, it’d be the Big Ten. That’s the only thing that makes sense.
And why would Arkansas join the Big 12? Once Missouri gets a Big Ten invite, the Big 12 will just implode again and Texas A&M will head to the SEC.
JD
After reading both some “inter-morterms”* and post-mortems of the Big 12 Missile Crisis, it’s possible that A&M threatening to bolt for the SEC was what stopped the Pac-16 from happening.
*Like this one from the Denver Post: “The Big 12 Conference is probably one University of Texas Board of Regents meeting away from last rites.” http://www.denverpost.com/sports2006/ci_15280375
In line with something I said at the beginning of the week, the only idea Texas likes more than having its own network is playing and beating A&M. The 1969 Texas-Arkansas game notwithstanding, that rival swap wouldn’t sit well enough.
Then, having already been painted by Nebraska as wearing the black hats, setting in motion the permanent asundering of Longhorns vs. Aggies may have been too much to bear.
None of this is to say, though, that eventually the Pac-12 could grab Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Okie State while A&M makes good on going to the SEC.
If that previous Orangebloods’ story is correct, part of the reason Texas balked was because Scott reneged on including Oklahoma State and wanted Kansas instead. Supposedly, Texas then felt queasy after having previously promised to take OU and OSU with them. Now, I’m not sure I buy that part of Chip Brown’s speculation and reporting, but he was right on a lot of the other details, so it’s hard to refute. But next time, Texas will likely make no such promises. For example, imagine Missouri jumps to the Big Ten. The Pac-12 could then make overtures to Kansas, Texas, and OU, and the fourth slot is held for A&M. If A&M decides to go to the SEC, then it’s probably down to OSU or Texas Tech — and realistically, Tech may get the invite at the same time as Kansas to go to 14, leaving room for just Texas and OU to clamor aboard as teams 15 and 16.
Brendan…Another bone I have to pick with Orangebloods is that they constantly change their stories without showing the original versions any more. There have been at least 3 different versions of this story on their site. The first version said absolutely nothing about wanting to get additional confirmation, there was only a point about being concerned that the report would be disruptive and cause confusion or something like that in connection with A&M. The second version is apparently what you quoted above. Now look at the story…there is nothing in there at all about getting that information over the weekend and not reporting it!!!
David K.
I’m skeptical that Scott would have changed the offer from Oklahoma State to Kansas. Although it might be more financially lucrative, I think if it caused a roadblock to getting Texas, which is where teh REAL money comes from, they would have easily stuck with OSU. I’m far more likely to buy into the idea that the deal broke down over Texas re-opening the debate about a TV network deal for themselves, which was an explicit no-go for Scott and the Pac-10. Screwing up the deal over a Kansas vs Oklahoma State debate just seems too amateurish.
I tend to agree with that logic — I think that whatever Brown heard from his sources was likely fabricated for CYA purposes.
JD
AMLTrojan, there is a very significant difference between how Texas’ BCS universities are set up and how Kansas’ and Oklahoma’s are: The latter two states have ONE board of regents each. In other words, the same group that would vote on Kansas joining the Pac-10 also controls how/where Kansas State goes. (“Bleeding Kansas” 150 years later, with slightly less violence!)
Trying to take OU and KU without the “States” puts two sets of regents in a very, very unenviable position. And T. Boone Pickens State would play a team coached by Barry Switzer Satan himself before giving up Oklahoma (and now Texas) as conference opponents.
JD, good point, I was unaware of those realities. That makes it even more likely that Orangebloods was all wet in suggesting that the Pac-10 would renege on Oklahoma State.
Orangebloods: Arkansas to the Big 12 / Sports Bubble Ten [Eleven?] … and maybe Notre Dame, too?!?
Why the hell would ND join a league that is so far out of its way geographically and would necessitate giving up some of its regular rivalry games. At least with the Big Ten you are maintaining some of those rivalries in conference as well as joining a premier academic conference.
And whats the incentive for Arkansas to go leave the SEC?
Can we please have a “Accuracy of Numbers in Conference Names” code when we’re done with this? We’ve already screwed up a generation with an 11-team Big Ten, and it’s only getting worse!
Also, I thought Arkansas was very happy right where it was.
Also also, wasn’t ND committed to staying exactly where it was unless and until the Big East Conference was next in line to have its not-quite-dead-yet corpse picked over?
I thought it was strange in this article that Orangebloods acknowledged that their sources had told them last weekend about Arkansas’ interest in the Big-12….but that Orangebloods decided not to report it at that time because it could have had an impact on the overall Pac10/Big12 realignment issues …in particular A&M’s interest in moving to the SEC. While I have no idea what if any impact this report would have had last weekend, I am rather disappointed in the lack of journalist ethics that seem to have been in evidence by Orangeblood’s decision to hold on to this story until now. This certainly opens the door to criticism that Orangebloods will not report information they have if it might impact things in a way that is not of the liking of Orangebloods.
That would certainly be in line with allegations that UT has been manipulating this whole thing all along to try and end up with the sweetest deal possible. If Orangebloods was getting these leaks on some set of conditions to report them as Texas wished it would make even more sense they might hold the Arkansas story if UT thought it might weaken their position/strengthen A&M’s.
David, the linked article addresses both of your questions. Re: Notre Dame:
As for Arkansas, the lede says the Razorbacks were interesting in exploring “a possible move to the Big 12 to reconnect with former Southwest Conference rivals like Texas and Texas A&M.”
Not saying I buy any of that, but those are the answers the article gives.
Meanwhile, Ken, it isn’t quite accurate to say that “Orangebloods acknowledged…that Orangebloods decided not to report it at that time because it could have had an impact on the overall Pac10/Big12 realignment issues.” That may be a reasonable interpretation of what was really going on, but here’s what the article actually acknowledges:
On the face of it, they’re just saying they wanted full & complete confirmation that this was good information, as they were worried it was misinformation being put out as part of the expansion “chess” game, and they didn’t want to report such “explosive” news without clear confirmation. Now, what their real motives were, or whether their claimed reticence to report unconfirmed information is consistent with past practices, is certainly open for debate, but in terms of what they’re admitting or acknowledging, I don’t think it goes beyond that.
If Notre Dame wanted to be the 12th team in a league it had ample opportunity to do so in the Big Ten. Being the 12th team vs. the 16th team is a weak argument to make at this point.
And while the TV argument is one they can make (its also something I think would hasten the demise of the conference personally) is it realistic enough of an argument to overcome the indpendence, rivalry, AND academic issues that joining the Big-12 would bring? It was tough enough seeing Notre Dame join the Big Ten unless it faced the problems the 16 team expansions would cause, but joining the Big 12 at this point? I don’t think the TV argument is a strong enough one to overcome all the other issues. Not by a long shot.
Back to the rivalries, I mean just look at the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_rivalries
Not a single Big 12 school on it, while its stuffed with Big Ten (and in Pitts case potential Big Ten) schools.
If Notre Dame were to join a 16 team Big Ten (that also included say Pitt, Rutgers and Missouri) they could be in a division that includes Michigan, Michigan State, and Pittsburgh (along with Ohio State, Rutgers, Penn State, and Northwestern (Or Syracuse instead of Missouri). Thats three historic rivals right there. If they only do 8 conference games a year, you could toss in USC and Navy, plus two cupcake non-conf games. If its up to 9 conference games, theyd’ hang on to USC and maybe schedule Navy every so often, I don’t know.
If you go to the Big 12 you are trying to fit in USC, Michigan, Michigan State, and Navy, along with BC et al. plus now 6-8 conference games. Good luck.
The economic sense of a Notre Dame move to the Big 12 makes sense to me, but little else. Are they seriously going to keep Michigan, MSU, USC, and Navy — and just rotate the Big 12 schedule? They’d drop Purdue, Pitt, BC, and Stanford? Plus the geography issue — ND is in the heart of Big Ten country and would be a major outlier in the Big 12. If ND ever joined a conference, it’d be the Big Ten. That’s the only thing that makes sense.
And why would Arkansas join the Big 12? Once Missouri gets a Big Ten invite, the Big 12 will just implode again and Texas A&M will head to the SEC.
After reading both some “inter-morterms”* and post-mortems of the Big 12 Missile Crisis, it’s possible that A&M threatening to bolt for the SEC was what stopped the Pac-16 from happening.
*Like this one from the Denver Post: “The Big 12 Conference is probably one University of Texas Board of Regents meeting away from last rites.”
http://www.denverpost.com/sports2006/ci_15280375
In line with something I said at the beginning of the week, the only idea Texas likes more than having its own network is playing and beating A&M. The 1969 Texas-Arkansas game notwithstanding, that rival swap wouldn’t sit well enough.
Then, having already been painted by Nebraska as wearing the black hats, setting in motion the permanent asundering of Longhorns vs. Aggies may have been too much to bear.
“Texas would have been considered the instigator because its board of regents was scheduled to vote on the Pac-10 on Tuesday. A&M’s regents would have met to vote on the SEC after that meeting.”
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/15/2020675/four-days-that-saved-the-big-12.html
None of this is to say, though, that eventually the Pac-12 could grab Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Okie State while A&M makes good on going to the SEC.
JD, all indications are that, next time the Pac-12 comes calling, Kansas will be targeted and Oklahoma State will be off the invite list.
You think we’d be able to snag Oklahoma and Kansas while eschewing their in state rivals? That would be impressive, i’ll grant you that.
If that previous Orangebloods’ story is correct, part of the reason Texas balked was because Scott reneged on including Oklahoma State and wanted Kansas instead. Supposedly, Texas then felt queasy after having previously promised to take OU and OSU with them. Now, I’m not sure I buy that part of Chip Brown’s speculation and reporting, but he was right on a lot of the other details, so it’s hard to refute. But next time, Texas will likely make no such promises. For example, imagine Missouri jumps to the Big Ten. The Pac-12 could then make overtures to Kansas, Texas, and OU, and the fourth slot is held for A&M. If A&M decides to go to the SEC, then it’s probably down to OSU or Texas Tech — and realistically, Tech may get the invite at the same time as Kansas to go to 14, leaving room for just Texas and OU to clamor aboard as teams 15 and 16.
Brendan…Another bone I have to pick with Orangebloods is that they constantly change their stories without showing the original versions any more. There have been at least 3 different versions of this story on their site. The first version said absolutely nothing about wanting to get additional confirmation, there was only a point about being concerned that the report would be disruptive and cause confusion or something like that in connection with A&M. The second version is apparently what you quoted above. Now look at the story…there is nothing in there at all about getting that information over the weekend and not reporting it!!!
I’m skeptical that Scott would have changed the offer from Oklahoma State to Kansas. Although it might be more financially lucrative, I think if it caused a roadblock to getting Texas, which is where teh REAL money comes from, they would have easily stuck with OSU. I’m far more likely to buy into the idea that the deal broke down over Texas re-opening the debate about a TV network deal for themselves, which was an explicit no-go for Scott and the Pac-10. Screwing up the deal over a Kansas vs Oklahoma State debate just seems too amateurish.
I tend to agree with that logic — I think that whatever Brown heard from his sources was likely fabricated for CYA purposes.
AMLTrojan, there is a very significant difference between how Texas’ BCS universities are set up and how Kansas’ and Oklahoma’s are: The latter two states have ONE board of regents each. In other words, the same group that would vote on Kansas joining the Pac-10 also controls how/where Kansas State goes. (“Bleeding Kansas” 150 years later, with slightly less violence!)
Trying to take OU and KU without the “States” puts two sets of regents in a very, very unenviable position. And T. Boone Pickens State would play a team coached by
Barry SwitzerSatan himself before giving up Oklahoma (and now Texas) as conference opponents.JD, good point, I was unaware of those realities. That makes it even more likely that Orangebloods was all wet in suggesting that the Pac-10 would renege on Oklahoma State.