[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

Being in a major conference brings in major money for both the school and the state. Being cut off from the Big XII and put out on their own, they'd have trouble getting into one of the other major conferences.

 

His next question, then why not UH?

 

Not enough UH grads in the state legislature.

 

The facilities are head and shoulders better at Baylor. Not to mention that our athletic program is pretty solid.

The big 12 remaining intact is obviously huge for Baylor. I've been looking forward to seeing improvement in the football program. Robert Griffin has 3 years of eligibility left!

 

I'd assume it's easier to try to keep a school in a major conference than to try to push a school that's not in one into one.

 

I think it would be awesome for Big 12 to join Pac 10 making the "Pac 16".

It seems UT,A&M,TT,OK,OSU & Col are the leading candidates.

 

why didn't i remember you were a baylor fan? awesome.

 

If Baylor were included in this (which I don't expect) I'd be giddy. When BU is playing in the Final Four next year, after an Elite Eight appearance the year before, it will all make sense!

 

It's the Official University of the State Religion.

 

hey, hey...easy!!

 

http://news8austin.com/content/sport...f-pac-10-raid-

06/06/2010 09:52 PM

Baylor, not Colorado, part of Pac-10 raid?

The initial list of schools reported to be coveted by the Pac-10 included UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado.

But multiple sources have confirmed to News 8 that people in the Texas Legislature are pushing for Baylor to be included in the six.

If that were the case, it's believed Colorado would be the odd-school out.

News 8 contributor Chip Brown weighed in, saying, "I've been told that Larry Scott, the commissioner of the Pac-10, is going to leave it up to the folks here in Austin -- the state leaders. If they feel that strongly about Baylor, then Baylor is in."

____________________________________________

I don't know if this has been brewing this long....but Ken Starr has a ton of contacts out on the West Coast, as he was dean at Pepperdine's Law School. All out in Pac 10 country. His quotes so far about working to get BU included in the new conference talk about this all being a "major threat to the University."

I'm wondering if BU's regents knew this was coming from the Pac 10 for a while....and made this hire of Starr in light of that. Helps the Starr hiring make sense for me, because it didn't make sense before.

Texas and the other Texas schools would prefer BU over CU simply because it balances out the new conference....4 schools each from Texas and California, which is important when they vote.

As for why Texas legislature would push for this....why wouldn't they push a Texas school over a Colorado school? There's an estimated economic impact of about $150 million to Central Texas just from BU athletics, alone.

 

That was the idea.

Boise is getting some run from the Mountain West.

 

It sounds like all the Texas and Oklahoma institutions will be headed for the Pac-10 while Nebraska and Missouri would head for the Big 10. What happens to Iowa State, Colorado, and the Kansas institutions? I don't think Iowa State's athletics is anything special, Colorado has had some success in the past, and Kansas and Kansas State basketball have been stellar over the last few seasons (Kansas is perennial in b-ball pretty much) while their football programs have seen success over the past decade. Surely some major conference would at least want to grab the Kansas institutions, right?

 

I'm now fully on board the Pac 10-Big XII "merger." The creation of four "super conferences" is the best bet to move toward a playoff scenario. The Big XII has proven to be a financial failure. I believe it is a result of technology for the most part. Back in 1995, nobody could have really predicted what would happen with cable TV, satellite TV, the internet and whatnot. The schools of the Big XII (outside of Texas and to some extent OU) don't draw anything. Media exposure has allowed schools from other conferences to come to Texas and out-recruit all the 2nd- and 3rd-tier schools (aTm, OSU, TT, etc). Nebraska's reign of terror (read: bulls**t scholarships) is a part of history. CU has nothing to offer except the Birkenstock Fashion Nightmare.
If this is truly a football-driven discussion (which it obviously is), the "Western Alliance" is the best option. If N is the school that pusses-out and cries "uncle" and forces the Big XII to continue, they will officially pass OU as my biggest rivalry.
That is all.

 

If Texas goes to the PAC then they would have to beat Oklahoma and USC every year to get into the BCS. If the Big 12 stays together, either Nebraska, Texas or Oklahoma are virtually guaranteed a BCS bid every year. Nebraska gets to beat up a weak sister league and have a shot in a title game. Why would they leave to be an also-ran in the Big10?

 

From a TV footprint perspective (and the contract that could come with it), CU is much better -- they capture the Denver market, whereas Baylor doesn't really add much (sorry Waco).

From a competition perspective, Colorado was once a national football power. While Baylor's football program is better right now (and on the rise), and certainly has the basketball card to play right now, I would probably take Colorado as a program over the long run.

Not sure I understand the voting comment. What I do know is Briles (and Leach's) voting decisions in 08 helped push OU over UT. Other Texas schools usually hate UT in just about every regard when it comes to voting time, so if you assume the PAC-10 makes this move primarily to land UT (which I think is pretty fair), I don't think it matters.

It'd be a politically motivated decision, which is I guess the realities of college football today.

If OU and Texas leave, does the Big 12 remain a major conference? What would you have said 15-20 years ago if Texas had to go through Nebraska ('94,'95,97), Colorado ('90), and OU to have a chance at the title game?

 

Baylor instead of Colorado makes no sense from about every angle for the Pac 10. Geographically, Colorado makes more sense. Most importantly, financially, Colorado makes more sense. Why cut off the media market that is the entire state of Colorado in favor of the one in Waco?

 

If this happens, the BCS will have to be completely revamped or eliminated. The "super conference" champions (four of them) would be in a "playoff" by default, basically. The "haves" and the "have-nots" would simply be further apart from each other. The potential for a "real" playoff would be in our sights in the reallignment plan. The Big XII staying together guarantees more decades of this BCS madness.

 

Because, honestly, it's not about CU or Baylor, it's about doing what it takes to get Texas. If you read through Larry Scott's options, one is clearly to take 6 schools from the Big 12 provided that one of them is Texas. No other Big 12 school has that provision. UT-Austin is the cash cow in this situation, and that's what the Big Ten and PAC Ten want. And if the Texas Legislature throws a hissy about Baylor, then CU is going to get really screwed. Hello, Mountain West! (Which can't even offer Boise yet because of the whole Big 12 debacle.)

It's all about Nebraska and Notre Dame right now. They have the opportunity to cast the first stone. If they don't, it'll mostly be status quo. If they do....ish is going to fly!!

 

Because Texas says so.