BCS leagues expanding - yeah?

And what a difference a few years makes. If this was 1995, it would be teams like Florida State and Miami leading the surge to expand their power conferences. Same with Nebraska. Now it's all about Texas, really. USC would be a major player too but well, we all know how that is going to turn out.

 

The fact of the matter is Baylor probably never even would have gotten into the Big 12 without Texas. There's no way Baylor gets an invite without the Texas legislature putting pressure on Texas to make sure Baylor is included.

Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State should be locks. Colorado and Kansas should be the other two. I can understand Tech being included. I've been told Kansas doesn't want to go to the Pac-10. Colorado has a national following and would deliver the Denver market. Baylor brings nothing to the table.

 

For this to really work, you need four conferences with equal levels of talent.

Right now, if this shakes out the way most think it will, there will be three super conferences and a bunch of teams scattered across the country that will be left out.

 

Great point. If you have four super conferences, you essentially have that with the "divisions"

 

They can call themselves the BCS ALL-STARS and make their own 16 team conference with four divisions?

The Entire Eastern Coast Division:
Connecticut
North Carolina
Virginia
South Florida

Middle America
Louisville
Cincinatti
Marshall
Memphis

This makes no geographic sense division/ hey Boise, we're screwing you again division:
Boise State
Troy
N.C. State
Rutgers or Syracuse

Filler! Because we have to have 16 teams and be awesome division:
University of Phoenix
Canisius
Colorado School of Mines
Iowa State

 

Even Colorado School of Mines and the University of Phoenix want nothing to do with Iowa State. ;D

 

I agree on Baylor. The one point I found the most interesting, though, was how a Baylor person pointed out that CU didn't have sports like baseball and softball that thrive and are important to the Pac 10 and Baylor does. In the big business aspect of things, who knows how important those are but it's still a valid point.

Overall I don't know how valuable Colorado is. They haven't done much athletically across the board in some time and really aren't heavily supported in Colorado (college sports are sort of an after thought in the state). So even with the Denver market, I'm not sure how much the add to the conference. I think Colorado needs the Pac 10 a lot more than the Pac 10 needs Colorado.

 

Programs in all college sports go up and down. Media market size is forever.

 

With the Pac-10, it's all about giving people outside of the west coast a reason to watch. Texas would do that, Oklahoma would do that, and giving them their in-state rivals (A&M and OKie State) would do that. Tech and Baylor? Would you take Lubbock and Waco over Denver and Kansas City/St. Louis? I wouldn't.

 

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences is willing to partner with Iowa State on a home-home-away basis.

 

The SEC already has penetration through most of the Atlantic Coast.

Their main option to expand their geographic/TV market coverage is Texas, and I believe there will be a major SEC play for Texas and Oklahoma before everything is done.

 

People keep coming at this from the perspective that Texas must include its state partners - A&M, Tech and to a lesser extent Baylor - along with Oklahoma and OSU.

What is getting lost is that it is the Pac-10 that is expanding and in control, not the Big 12. Just as Texas doesn't want to lose its partners, the Pac-10 wants to keep the California schools together along with the original Pac-8.

You can't just divide the Pac-10 in half because of its long established and natural rivalries - Big Game, Civil War, Apple Cup.

To wit, a Pac-16 makes much more sense than expanding by 2 or 4 because you keep the old Pac-8 together and Arizona schools go with the six from Big 12. I'm sure the Pac-10 would want to keep the Arizona schools together if it can, but not to the exclusion of the old Pac-8. Arizona schools are still the "babies" of the league even at 32 years old.

The rest of the Pac-10 schools have been together since at least 1964.

That's why a Pac-12 or Pac-14 doesn't make sense. You can't put the LA schools in with Arizonas and say Texas and A&M. You are screwing your old Pac-8 and schools like Cal and Washington won't stand for it. They want the LA market in their division as much as Oklahoma wants to stay with Texas.

I'm sure Pac-10 would rather have Colorado than Baylor for many reasons, but probably would take Baylor if that is the only way Texas joins.

Now if the Pac-10 can trade Washington State straight up for Texas, then they would do that and be done with it. WSU is the Baylor of the Pac-10 only there because of its big brother Washington.

I think the whole thing hinges on Nebraska and whether it stays with Big 12 or sees more potential in Big Ten.

Also if Notre Dame says yes to the Big Ten then it might say check please and be done.