The Big 12 has 10 teams, the Big 10 has 12 teams, and the Pac-10 has 11 teams. What the fuck? This whole conference shuffle was pretty much ado about nothing. Basically, when all was said and done, Texas is a huge cock tease, the Big Ten got slightly better, the Pac-10 continues to be a shitty conference, and ESPN once again reports untrue stories.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard some crazy rumors about a 16 team Pac-10 Conference, a Super Big Ten conference involving the likes of Notre Dame and Texas, and an Oklahoma-to-SEC bid. In the end, Colorado moved to the Pac-10, and Nebraska moved to the Big Ten. That is all. Super exciting! As a Penn State alum, Nebraska to the Big Ten is a good move. Nebraska is a big time football program with a storied history, and the move gives the Nittany Lions a chance to play the team that stole our 1994 National Title on a yearly basis.
Colorado to the Pac-10 means essentially nothing to anyone. Colorado was a non-factor in the Big 12 and will continue to be a non-factor out west. Without dragging the top Big 12 schools like Texas and Oklahoma with them, Colorado simply joins the likes of Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington, and Stanford in the battle for college football mediocrity. With USC suspended from Bowl contention for 2 years and losing 30 scholarships, this conference could quickly become a bigger joke than it already is.
Make no mistake, this whole mess was about 2 things: football and money. Basketball doesn’t rake in any cash compared to football, so even though a program like Kansas has a huge name in the college basketball world, no one seemed to care because they suck at football.
So what really happened? A lot of speculation was made and your guess is as good as ours, but we are assuming Texas was the main player in this whole ordeal. And a few days ago, a Texas booster posted these facts to a reputable college football website:
- The conference is ready to collapse and nothing looks like it will stop it. OU was the self-appointed hero, but they are ripping off their cape and running for shelter. Nebraska jumped to you guys, Colorado took the first offer they got and it sounds like it wasn’t a great one and Oklahoma State is in a similar spot. They ate up what the PT dangled and word is it’s not an equal share type deal and some are saying it basically keeps them on-par with where they were in the B12.
- Desperation is running wild in the conference. OU and OSU were talking about going together which the Okie politicos wanted to preserve safety in numbers, but OU was completely against going to the left coast and have been begging UT to stick together with them to first save the B12 and now to give them strength. UT isn’t interested so it sounds like OU is going to the SEC, which they feel is the best option. They don’t care much about OSU, but there are people in OK who are livid the rivalry will likely die off. Kansas and Kansas State are begging the PT and BT to take them.
- I also heard that teams with any BT/PT connection are calling in every favor. ISU is pleading with Iowa, Pitt is begging you guys. The BT has made it very clear that their short list is short. The PT could very well grab Kansas if OU bails.
- Where does that leave teams like Baylor and TT? Who knows? I suspect the Mountain West and MidAmerican will scoop some stragglers up and you could see a new conference that will struggle to survive. A lot of schools are going to end up in bad spots when this shakes out. I’m wondering if CU and OSU will end up better if they are second-class members. At least they have a chair when the music stops.
- As for UT it sounds like they have been given a nod to cut loose from Baylor and TT, but as I said earlier TAMU is tied to their hip. There are way too many TAMU power players around to force them out on their own. There have been rumors of TAMU to the SEC, but the preference is that UT and TAMU stick together. Strength in numbers. If that happens they’re looking at the PT and BT. What I am getting is that this comes down to what is best for the Texas schools and that is money. USC is said to have given their vote to expansion with the understanding that the revenue sharing system will not be changed in the near term at least, so USC can keep the major $$ benefits. That system is being touted as a major benefit to UT who would step up with USC as the top dog. However TAMU would likely get to the middle of the pack.
- The example given to me was if the PT starts their TV deal and let’s say it’s a huge hit and it ends up making $20+MM per year for UT (that’s $14 mill more than what USC makes off TV now, so we’re taking HUGE immediate hit) that means TAMU would make ~$12MM under the system, which is nice, but the state could come in and say that UT has to share the extra $8 mill with TAMU, so both make $16 mill. The BT already has $20 to $22 mill and the projections are that the expansion could get them to $25 to $28 mill or more…for BOTH teams. That’s a big difference of $9 to $12 mill per year for both UT and TAMU. So UT is thinking hard about that although there is some pushback on the weather and travel since getting to Arizona and S. Cal is a lot easier than Ohio and Penn. But money talks loudly in this.
Obviously ESPN was wrong. Any accountability? No? Didn’t think so.