Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › NCAA conference realignment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NCAA conference realignment - Page 6

post #76 of 79
6/15/10 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post
The Pac-10 had one bad year in ten . . . ignoring USC's dominance over the past several years, don't forget that UO went to two BCS bowls, OSU went to one (and is regularly ranked and heads to mid-level bowls), Cal has done well, and UA is finally coming around.

The Pac-10 is a BCS conference, so every year one of their teams is going to go to a BCS game. Only twice has a Pac-10 team earned an at-large bid (all other teams have gone as Pac-10 champs). USC has earned fully half of the Pac-10's BCS berths.

That said, they can't be done with just adding Colorado. CU will give them a better TV deal, and better gate receipts, and a game that everybody except Washington State can win, but that can't be enough. They really do need, at least, to add a 12th school, but there isn't one that fits the 'obvious' profile except maybe Texas or KU.

The Pac-10 is better off with CU than without it, but they'll need to do a lot more than that to compete with the Big 10 and SEC.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 79
6/15/10 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary Grant View Post
They'll argue that the break-up of the conference was imminent and therefore moot. The February Texas emails and confirmed calls (re: The "Tech" problem) will help in that argument.

Well since the conference didn't break up I don't see how Nebraska plans on getting out of this one. There wasn't a clause saying you have to pay if you talk to other conferences but there was one about leaving the conference which Nebraska and Colorado clearly did. Had everyone went to the Pac 10, then I could see Nebraska saying the conference was dissolved and therefore no one should pay but that clearly didn't happen.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 79
6/15/10 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post
Biggest losers in all of this are the Pac-10 schools. Smarty-pants commissioner who didn't have any college sports background took this thing like a hostile business takeover and now the Pac-10 is f*cked - why compete with 10 or 11 teams instead of 9?

I'd rather have a commish that actually thinks big and tries to do something, than have Tom Hansen back.

If ESPN hadn't stepped in with money to box out Fox, I think the deal would have gone through. The president of Texas is a Cal alum who pushed hard for this, but ESPN made the numbers work for the Big XII to stay intact.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 79
6/15/10 at 7:13pm
I'm all in favor of "thinking big," but I think he should have had a good Plan B in place. 11 teams makes us just like the (former) Big Ten. Should have locked in two schools, then gone for the big dogs in Texas / OU.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › NCAA conference realignment