NCAA Football '11-'12

[MadBurgerMaker]

This whole 'A&M bolting to the SEC maybe' thing has me starting to hope again for Texas to the PAC 12+.  We will see.

The legislature might ruin it.  Then again, if A&M can get away and it implodes the Big 12, the "Baylor Problem" probably wouldn't exist anymore.  I wouldn't have an issue with dragging Tech along with the Horns to the PAC-bignumber, especially considering OSU would probably be accompanying OU and UT would need an in-state buddy for the LHN to morph into the PAC-16 Texas channel, but Baylor needs to piss off to Conference USA or something. 

Edit:  UTSA and Texas to the PAC.  That would be best.  I'm certain of it.

[Valmy]

Yeah I am hoping Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech to the PAC-Huge.

That is what I wanted last year and still do.  If the legislature lets the Ags go well...why would they turn around and force Texas to baby sit Baylor?

[Eddie Teach]

I still don't want the Aggies.

[MadBurgerMaker]

What do you mean you "don't want the Aggies"?????  Nonsense!  Look at everything you'd be missing!

[PDH]

Texas should join the Mountain West and watch the Okies go apeshit.

Do we dare to dream of making the Texas-Wyoming rivalry permanent?

Green chili every other year!

[dps]

I don't think college football conferences with more than 12 teams really make sense.  In fact, the only reason I can see to have more than 10 teams is that the NCAA says you have to have 12 in order to stage a conference title game, and conferences want to be able to have a title game as a cash cow.

That said, the latest rumors have not only Texas A&M but also Florida State going to the SEC.  I think it would be hilarious if it happened, because I don't care much for either the ACC or the Big 12.

[Berkut]

I would not want anyone from the "Big-12" in the Pac-12 at this point.

What is in it for the Pac-12 to take on a bunch more teams? We already have the awesome TV deal, why share it with anyone other than Texas, and I am not even sure about them.

[Ed Anger]

I wouldn't mind Texas in the Big 10. Never happen though,

[MadBurgerMaker]

I would not want anyone from the "Big-12" in the Pac-12 at this point.

What is in it for the Pac-12 to take on a bunch more teams? We already have the awesome TV deal, why share it with anyone other than Texas, and I am not even sure about them.

The awesome TV deal gets even more awesome with Texas and OU (who has to bring OSU, so Tech gets thrown in there to even things out). 

I don't think that's going to happen anyway, which is good for Arizona, aside from a bit less $$. 

Dodds is kind of talking about saving the Big 12:

"I think nine's an option," Dodds said. "I think nine are solid. I think 10's a good number. I've always liked 10. In my mind, we'd try to stay at 10. If we had to, we'd go to 12."

But he also said this:

"They've got to do what's best for them," Dodds said of the Aggies. "We're going to look at every option we've got, and we're going to end up in a good place. That's what we do. We're good at that."

As a side note, I'm kind of wondering:  If they never play Texas again, what is Texas A&M going to do about their fight song?  Or pretty much all of their traditions?  I mean, I know right now they're fine with singing about Texas during games against, for example, Kansas, but at least UT is still on the schedule....

[Valmy]

I think it would be hilarious if it happened, because I don't care much for either the ACC or the Big 12.

Really?  What did they every do to you?

[Valmy]

I would not want anyone from the "Big-12" in the Pac-12 at this point.

What is in it for the Pac-12 to take on a bunch more teams? We already have the awesome TV deal, why share it with anyone other than Texas, and I am not even sure about them.

I think the idea is for the Pac-12 to have regional TV networks right?  Well that might be something the 'Longhorn' network might morph into.

But anyway I really wanted that last year it might just be wishful thinking on my part now.

[Valmy]

I wouldn't mind Texas in the Big 10. Never happen though,

Nebraska would veto

These days though?  Who the hell knows.

[dps]

I think it would be hilarious if it happened, because I don't care much for either the ACC or the Big 12.

Really?  What did they every do to you?

I don't like the ACC because of the way they raided the Big East a few years ago. 

My anti-Big 12 feelings are a lot less strong, because they're a lot less personal.  It's just that the way the conference seems to be "rigged" in favor of Texas rubs me the wrong way.

[Eddie Teach]

It's just that the way the conference seems to be "rigged" in favor of Texas rubs me the wrong way.

Seems like Nebraska had a much easier path to the conference championship game.

[MadBurgerMaker]

It's just that the way the conference seems to be "rigged" in favor of Texas rubs me the wrong way.

Why does it seem to be that way?

Edit:  That's a serious question, I'm not making fun of you or anything.  I want to see which PR campaign was the most successful as far as you're concerned, Nebraska's or the current Texas A&M "thing."  Texas doesn't run the conference, they have one vote like everyone else, nor do they crush everyone on the football field and basketball court.  They do promote and sell their brand a whole helluva lot better than most though.

Nebraska fans, not necessarily anyone in the administration, did a really good job of painting their university as the victim of some terrible injustice, despite the fact that when the conference was formed, one of the few things they didn't get in their favor was the elimination of partial qualifiers (they were also pretty butthurt about the conference HQ being moved to DFW from KC for whatever reason).  They were one of the major benefactors and were one of the voters in favor of the unequal revenue model.  Their $$'s and prestige in the conference dropped way off because their football program went completely into the shitter (to be fair, this was very possibly linked to the lack of partial qualifiers).  They were also pursuing the idea of their own network, but shelved the idea because they didn't think it would work.  They were all for unequal revenue when they joined the Big 12 because when they joined, they were supposed to be one of the bigtime programs that was at the top of the money list and one of the teams who were supposed to make the North division not suck (Texas, OU, and TAMU were the heavies in the South, of course, along with Colorado in the North, who had won an NC 6 years earlier). 

Texas A&M was much the same way, although I don't think they were in favor of partial qualifiers.  They actually turned down being a 50/50 partner on what would have been known as the Lonestar Network, or something similar, because they didn't think it would be successful, would cost too much money, etc.  They have never been in favor of equal revenue, and after Nebraska and Colorado left, were one of the three schools (Texas, OU, TAMU) to get the "big" money, while the remainder got less.  They were also the only one of the three to accept the smaller schools' share of the Nebraska and Colorado exit fees.  The Longhorn Network and a lot of the things ESPN wanted to do with it, like high school games and conference games, etc, have been pretty well known since the contract was first being negotiated.  They just didn't think it would be successful at all.  You can actually read one of the monthly articles from their AD where he says things like "if you think about it, a TV network for a single school doesn't make sense," or something of that nature.  Recent radio interviews also seem to confirm that they had simply decided that it wasn't going to work, and were stunned when it did and suddenly didn't like what they had previously agreed to. 

I know for a fact that the possible inclusion of high school games was known to them, because I knew about it, not that it matters since the Big 12 voted against it, DeLoss Dodds said they would never show it if it meant the conference would be okay, and the NCAA ruled against it.  So no high school games.  The conference game....well...I don't know why that's a problem in the first place.  Why should Texas A&M be worried about, for example, Texas and Texas Tech agreeing to show their football game on a different channel with Tech being paid millions for it?  Or, something that I've read somewhere might happen, but I'm not sure if it was for real, if some Big 12 games that otherwise wouldn't be televised (think Baylor - Iowa State or something) being shown on the LHN?  They're just excuses.  It's a TV network for tier 3 stuff that otherwise generally won't be on TV at all.

Both of them left/are leaving for the money, not because Texas was somehow pushing Nebraska and Texas A&M around.  That's all there is to it (well that and TAMU's huge little brother complex), and there's nothing wrong with that.  They have to do what's best for their schools, although I kind of question the Aggie move, since....well....if they can't get past Texas and Oklahoma, what are they going to do against Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas, who's rivalry with them is surprisingly lopsided.  They're something like .400 against the SEC West.  Sure, there's more money but if you're constantly getting skull fucked in the one sport you really care about.....I dunno....

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now for some way less hurf durfy stuff.  Check this out:

Texas v. Washington State, 1954:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCPgu0_lfMI

Orange helmets.