Chip Bown Tweeting that TT, OU, OSU, and UT to Pac 10

snoscythe wrote:

Texas will either stay in the B12 or go to the P10, no other option makes any sense at all. The SEC is locked into a TV contract, already has tons of competition, and are all low-tier schools for academics, something UT cares about.



The Big10 is simply too far away, UT would be an outpost school and they don't want to do that. They are closer geography wise to the P10, than they are to the SEC or B10. And quite honestly, Austin is closer culturally to the Pac10 than the SEC.



My bet is Texas and the other four either stay in the Big 12 or they join the PAC 16, there is really no other option unless they side with their own ego and go Independent like Notre Dame LOL.

If you are measuring geography by states, then yes, UT is closer to the PAC-10 than the others, but UT is just as close to the University of Nebraska (the nearest Big 10 school) as they are to the University of Arizona (the nearest PAC 10 school. What's more, most of the Big 10 schools are closer than Los Angeles, and even the farthest Big 10 school, PSU, is 30% closer than the farthest Pac10 school, UW.



The SEC is even closer to home. Fans can get from Austin to the nearest SEC campus in less than 9 hours (Arkansas) as opposed to over 14 hours to the nearest Pac-10 school (Arizona). The farthest SEC campus is Lexington, KY at 16.5 hours away--closer to Austin than all PAC-10 schools except Arizona and Arizona State (yes, it's even closer to Austin than CU).



Culturally, I agree with you that UT is a left-wing fortress, but geographically, you need a new atlas.

Are far flung distances really a concern? The 6 new teams in the Pac10 (provided aTm finally joins with Texas) will just form a new division with the Arizona schools and will travel every other year to one of the western Pac10 schools. It will really be just another OOC game essentially.



Also, I don't see Nebraska and Texas ending up in the same conference after all is said and done. So if Texas goes to the Big10, then Nebraska bails on that choice.

long distances aren't a problem as long as every home team is selling out their venue... (who shows up to watch texas tech play washington state?)



they are a problem for the non revenue sports; particularly if we're keeping the "student" in student-athlete.



also the championship games are big money, so what does Dallas think of losing them and how do the old Big 12 teams feel about having to travel for them (in the past Kansas City or Dallas were a stones throw.. Kansas City is already looking stupid for building the sprint center without having a professional team to fill it, now they'll lose any shot at hosting the Big 12)? (Phoenix might be the big winner there, possibly San Antonio or Denver?)

craigoscarson wrote:
long distances aren't a problem as long as every home team is selling out their venue... (who shows up to watch texas tech play washington state?)



they are a problem for the non revenue sports; particularly if we're keeping the "student" in student-athlete.



also the championship games are big money, so what does Dallas think of losing them and how do the old Big 12 teams feel about having to travel for them (in the past Kansas City or Dallas were a stones throw.. Kansas City is already looking stupid for building the sprint center without having a professional team to fill it, now they'll lose any shot at hosting the Big 12)? (Phoenix might be the big winner there, possibly San Antonio or Denver?)

You make some valid points, but I still think that the divisional play will keep expenses down and only at the end of the season will there be a conference championship. It will likely rotate between the various venues, mostly landing in Dallas and Los Angeles more often than not, and which are relatively inexpensive to reach (though not necessarily stay). It's basically an aliance with the Pac8 and SWC/Big8 of old, with the arizona teams filling in for some of the lesser programs being jettisoned. Moreover, the extra TV revenue they will likely get will more than offset the the travel costs for the schools.

CougarPeasant wrote:

long distances aren't a problem as long as every home team is selling out their venue... (who shows up to watch texas tech play washington state?)



they are a problem for the non revenue sports; particularly if we're keeping the "student" in student-athlete.



also the championship games are big money, so what does Dallas think of losing them and how do the old Big 12 teams feel about having to travel for them (in the past Kansas City or Dallas were a stones throw.. Kansas City is already looking stupid for building the sprint center without having a professional team to fill it, now they'll lose any shot at hosting the Big 12)? (Phoenix might be the big winner there, possibly San Antonio or Denver?)

You make some valid points, but I still think that the divisional play will keep expenses down and only at the end of the season will there be a conference championship. It will likely rotate between the various venues, mostly landing in Dallas and Los Angeles more often than not, and which are relatively inexpensive to reach (though not necessarily stay). It's basically an aliance with the Pac8 and SWC/Big8 of old, with the arizona teams filling in for some of the lesser programs being jettisoned. Moreover, the extra TV revenue they will likely get will more than offset the the travel costs for the schools.

I wasn't making an arument that it wouldn't' work, but rather there are some issues that will create problems.... they can throw money at a lot of them but not all. And dont' think there won't be a tug 0 war between Texas and USC like there was between Nebraska/Missouri and Texas. It''s simply not going to be a panacea of happiness just because they're bigger and richer.



I saw 1st hand the grappling for Big 12 tourney locations, and it got nasty; and that was when anywhere you went was still less than a 3 hour flight and 10 hour drive. Now double and triple that and you have the Pac 16.



Combine that with the weakness of USCs downward spiral with credibility and current reputation as cheaters in football and basketball and Texas will certainly feel that they row the boat. USC is not the boss anymore and may never be again. (that's what lying cheating and stealing get you)... nothing they've done this decade means a thing to me; John Robinson could be their coach for all I care; Texas and Oklahoma are now the best and most historic programs in the Pac.

I mostly meant Pac16, not just the original Pac10. If UT comes to the P16 they will be changing almost nothing about their travel distance and regional rivalries.



S.E.C. Has no good academics, UT wants to get in with the research schools and that means P16 or Big10. Also, the S.E.C doesn't play very many sports other than football and the few other mains.



The Pac16 would have a TV Network with 90 million potential viewers based on market population. With CAA hired to work on redesigning the P10's image, designing a conference network, and expanding P16 football into the first Asian/Pacific Rim TV deal, the Pac16 looks to explode with revenue.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

PurpleReign wrote:
I mostly meant Pac16, not just the original Pac10. If UT comes to the P16 they will be changing almost nothing about their travel distance and regional rivalries.



S.E.C. Has no good academics, UT wants to get in with the research schools and that means P16 or Big10. Also, the S.E.C doesn't play very many sports other than football and the few other mains.



The Pac16 would have a TV Network with 90 million potential viewers based on market population. With CAA hired to work on redesigning the P10's image, designing a conference network, and expanding P16 football into the first Asian/Pacific Rim TV deal, the Pac16 looks to explode with revenue.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Washington has the luxury of not worrying about where the Pac 16 will host their championship games.



;)





they should probaby worry more about actually getting to any bowl game (when was the last time they played in a bowl game?). though winning a bowl game to them would probaby feel like a national championship... we know how Husky fans like to rewrite history...



note: UW has won 2 bowl games in 15 years and hasnt been to one nearly 10. (another note: their failure began about the same time Pete Carroll took over at USC and began selling his soul to the devil for wins)



You also might want to talk to Vanderbilt and ole miss about the SEC having no good academic programs. (Texas and OKlahoma do not want SEC inclusion, they want leverage over the Pac 16 before they sign on the dotted lines)

craigoscarson wrote:
I wasn't making an arument that it wouldn't' work, but rather there are some issues that will create problems.... they can throw money at a lot of them but not all. And dont' think there won't be a tug 0 war between Texas and USC like there was between Nebraska/Missouri and Texas. It''s simply not going to be a panacea of happiness just because they're bigger and richer.



I saw 1st hand the grappling for Big 12 tourney locations, and it got nasty; and that was when anywhere you went was still less than a 3 hour flight and 10 hour drive. Now double and triple that and you have the Pac 16.



Combine that with the weakness of USCs downward spiral with credibility and current reputation as cheaters in football and basketball and Texas will certainly feel that they row the boat. USC is not the boss anymore and may never be again. (that's what lying cheating and stealing get you)... nothing they've done this decade means a thing to me; John Robinson could be their coach for all I care; Texas and Oklahoma are now the best and most historic programs in the Pac.

The new teams were invited to the pac10 and still only comprise 6 of the 16 teams, which means they don't have the votes to make demands on the old guard if they don't agree with what Oklahoma or Texas propose. Just because USC is down doesn't mean the rest of the conference will roll over in deference to the new schools and I doubt they were invited because of the pending action of the NCAA against the Trojans.



Of course, it won't be a bed of roses (pun fully intended) in herding the kittens of the now larger Pac16, but the 5 major pairs of programs in the pac10 are in easy reach of a major city (LA, Seattle, SF, Portland, Phoenix) while the new additions really only bring in Denver and Dallas. (Houston and San Antonio can't compete with Jerry's world in Arlington.)



I'm not a fan of this expansion for some of the reasons you've brought up, but more importantly, I think that Oklahoma and Texas are wasting an opportunity to preserve a solid brand in the Big12 and keep it as a premier sports conference.



As far as academics, I think only Colorado and Texas measure up to the ideals of the Pac10, regardless of what one thinks of WSU or the Arizona schools. The other schools, not so much.

CougarPeasant wrote:
The new additions really only bring in Denver and Dallas. (Houston and San Antonio can't compete with Jerry's world in Arlington.)

Actually, Texas brings....Texas--Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio etc. That's more TV sets and more fans buying licensed apparel than any other team with the possible exception of Notre Dame.

snoscythe wrote:

The new additions really only bring in Denver and Dallas. (Houston and San Antonio can't compete with Jerry's world in Arlington.)

Actually, Texas brings....Texas--Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio etc. That's more TV sets and more fans buying licensed apparel than any other team with the possible exception of Notre Dame.

We are talking about different things. I was talking about likely sites for conference championships, not where apparel is sold or tv sets located. Dallas still has a greater appeal than Houston or San Antonio, but yes, Texas brings in the entire state of Texas for support.

craigoscarson wrote:

I mostly meant Pac16, not just the original Pac10. If UT comes to the P16 they will be changing almost nothing about their travel distance and regional rivalries.



S.E.C. Has no good academics, UT wants to get in with the research schools and that means P16 or Big10. Also, the S.E.C doesn't play very many sports other than football and the few other mains.



The Pac16 would have a TV Network with 90 million potential viewers based on market population. With CAA hired to work on redesigning the P10's image, designing a conference network, and expanding P16 football into the first Asian/Pacific Rim TV deal, the Pac16 looks to explode with revenue.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Washington has the luxury of not worrying about where the Pac 16 will host their championship games.



;)





they should probaby worry more about actually getting to any bowl game (when was the last time they played in a bowl game?). though winning a bowl game to them would probaby feel like a national championship... we know how Husky fans like to rewrite history...



note: UW has won 2 bowl games in 15 years and hasnt been to one nearly 10. (another note: their failure began about the same time Pete Carroll took over at USC and began selling his soul to the devil for wins)



You also might want to talk to Vanderbilt and ole miss about the SEC having no good academic programs. (Texas and OKlahoma do not want SEC inclusion, they want leverage over the Pac 16 before they sign on the dotted lines)

Really? Whats with the douchie tirade out of nowhere?



By the way, you barely beat the worst Husky team in 118 years of Udub football, so I wouldn't spend much time on your pedestal if I were you. ;)



It's true we have had 6-7 years of crap in a row, but the hiring of two bad coaches in a row will do that to a program. This down swing is the exception to the rule, Washington has won a Rose Bowl in each of the last 6 decades, so if history is any kind of indicator, we will be back rather than stay down.

PurpleReign wrote:

Really? Whats with the douchie tirade out of nowhere?

LOL -- I was kinda thinking the same thing.

PurpleReign wrote:
By the way, you barely beat the worst Husky team in 118 years of Udub football, so I wouldn't spend much time on your pedestal if I were you. ;)

That's strange... That was when Washington was at it's best that whole season. It's not our fault Locker(who every Husky fan said he'll win the Heisman) got injured a game or two later, and U-Dub decided to lay an egg every game after.

PurpleReign wrote:
By the way, you barely beat the worst Husky team in 118 years of Udub football, so I wouldn't spend much time on your pedestal if I were you.

Somebody wishes they had a pedestal to spend time on.....



sorry...couldn't resist a jab

snoscythe wrote:

By the way, you barely beat the worst Husky team in 118 years of Udub football, so I wouldn't spend much time on your pedestal if I were you.

Somebody wishes they had a pedestal to spend time on.....



sorry...couldn't resist a jab

Pedestal envy?



:whistle:

PurpleReign wrote:

By the way, you barely beat the worst Husky team in 118 years of Udub football, so I wouldn't spend much time on your pedestal if I were you.

Horse shoes and hand grenades....



refresh my memory, was that the game right before we beat UCLA 59-0? (the same year you lost to UCLA 27-7?)



we're glad we could be a part of your misery, inspite of the moral victory you seem to have claimed. UW fans have a habit of taking moral victories, don't they?





btw - which worst UW team in 118 years are you talking about? the 2004 1-10 team that beat San Jose State? the 2005 2-9 team that beat Idaho? the list goes on and on... in fact the Cougars have won more games the last 4 years than UW has won this entire decade.... enjoy your moral victory...



(I haven't seen more chest beating by a team that hasn't had a winning season in 10 years, since I ran into the only Kansas City Royals fan.... he's a die hard)

Kansas will get the nod before Utah. Utah was strung along as a contingency, and so long as even one more team besides Colorado joins the PAC-10, they are out of the running for an invitation. Kansas is desperate to land at any of the established BCS conferences if the Big 12 cannot remain intact. With it looking like A&M is going to the SEC, I expect Kansas to be the sixth.

If A&M goes to the Special Education Conference, than I think just about every Pac10 school wants Kansas and their Basketball program over Utah.

craigoscarson wrote:
You also might want to talk to Vanderbilt and ole miss about the SEC having no good academic programs. (Texas and OKlahoma do not want SEC inclusion, they want leverage over the Pac 16 before they sign on the dotted lines)

Vandy, yes. Ole Miss...not so much. In every ranking index that I've looked at, with the exception of maybe one, Ole Miss is vying for the bottom spot in the SEC. So that leaves us with Vandy, who is at the bottom in nearly every sport there is in the SEC. Why, because they won't lower their standards for incoming athletes. I get the point of your post though.



From everything that I've been reading, Powers, the Texas Pres., is a Cal-Berkley alum and is pushing for the Pac 10 expansion. While Dodds, the Texas AD and a K-State alum, is pushing to keep the Big 12 together, and invite two more schools. As per the article below.



http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093756

It's clear that they care about academic standards, they have one entire university that upholds them *LAUGH*