snoodmonger

That would be normal reality. For me, I don't understand why you'd want Texas, since no matter what teams are picked the Big 10 is going to be in great shape. Why add another 800 pound gorilla to the conference? It makes basketball more exciting? Texas is the second most populous state in the union. Duh. They also bring more athletic and academic prestige across the board. It also opens the Texas recruiting up to Big 10 schools in a much more meaningful way, since kids across Texas will be watching Big 10 football. But no. The smart person would rather focus on Rutgers and Mizzou.

So you'd rather the Big Ten have Texas than Mizzou, Nebraska and Rutgers? Without question Was that a serious question?

How? I hear that all the time, but I never hear how the Big 12 screws over Missouri (any mroe than it screws over any school not named Texas.) And even if they have, Missouri has been rattling its tin cup at the Big Ten since the Big 8. It's not like their solely reacting to some injustice. The distribution of revenue and Mizzou's treatment in bowl matchups for 3 years running are the main reasons, and there's some other non-revenue sport complaints(Soccer team missing the tournament despite winning the Big 12 is an example). Basically, the conference has never stood up for Mizzou, so they have no right to be upset if Mizzou looks for a place where they're treated with some semblence of equality(among other reasons to move). IMO, the bowl game thing is more on your AD than the Big 12. Alden hasn't found a way to sell his program as a better fit than the other schools. When the bowl game's committees have a choice, it's up to the AD to make his team marketable. Don't know anything about the soccer team. But again, you can't portray this like Missouri is only pissed about being treated unfairly. They've been begging for a Big 10 invite for forever. I don't think it's unfair to ask the conference to stick up for you when hilarious logic like "Iowa State will bring a ton of people since they went to a bowl game 40 years ago and lots of people came" is used to move Mizzou down to a spot 3 bowls lower on the totem pole than they earned. Regardless of any past flirtations with the Big 10, lumping Nebraska into those comments makes it clear that those people quoted were upset with what has happened in the last few months. Which, again, is funny considering that the conference won't give Mizzou the time of day when it's treated poorly, but apparently they're supposed to fall in line if someone were to consider asking them to leave the Big 12. Well, regardless, it's pretty silly for anyone to get mad at a school for entertaining an offer that will make them tons of money and improve their academics dramatically. If KU were to get an invite (and they won't), i'd be printing Big 16 t-shirts in a hot second.

How? I hear that all the time, but I never hear how the Big 12 screws over Missouri (any mroe than it screws over any school not named Texas.) And even if they have, Missouri has been rattling its tin cup at the Big Ten since the Big 8. It's not like their solely reacting to some injustice. The distribution of revenue and Mizzou's treatment in bowl matchups for 3 years running are the main reasons, and there's some other non-revenue sport complaints(Soccer team missing the tournament despite winning the Big 12 is an example). Basically, the conference has never stood up for Mizzou, so they have no right to be upset if Mizzou looks for a place where they're treated with some semblence of equality(among other reasons to move). IMO, the bowl game thing is more on your AD than the Big 12. Alden hasn't found a way to sell his program as a better fit than the other schools. When the bowl game's committees have a choice, it's up to the AD to make his team marketable. Don't know anything about the soccer team. But again, you can't portray this like Missouri is only pissed about being treated unfairly. They've been begging for a Big 10 invite for forever.

How? I hear that all the time, but I never hear how the Big 12 screws over Missouri (any mroe than it screws over any school not named Texas.) And even if they have, Missouri has been rattling its tin cup at the Big Ten since the Big 8. It's not like their solely reacting to some injustice.

since saying he was a big KU fan, virtually every piece of info I've gotten suggests ND. Right on target as usual, snood.

I know he was AD at Kansas several years ago.He's there in some capacity again. When they introduced Turner Gill he was there as well. I spoke to him a bit that night. Nice guy. He's a fundraiser. He's supposed to be a super nice guy. His public speaking skills leave a little to be desired, though. They brought him on for part of a broadcast last season, and it was rough to sit through.

Wouldnt this same reasoning stop people from going to play for the Yankees? Or the Cowboys or Packers or insert NFL powerhouse here? And do athletes really care that much about being the best to ever suit up in a given team's uniform? Or would they rather just win (assuming they'll get paid wherever they go)? And guys like LeBron and Kobe--total alpha males who probably think they are the best to ever walk the earth--do you really think they'd be scared of another player's legacy? I'm not sure all that stuff is as big a deal as fans make it out to be.

If expansion occurs elsewhere, there is no way they can sit still minus 2 teams. They would be losing control by default, because that which they control would no longer be able to survive on its own. the big 12 could replace those teams. but only if texas decided it wanted to stay. if not, the big 12 collapses. so it still has a stranglehold on the direction of the conference.

That's a pretty strange definition of "controlling the conference" that you're working from. Nobody has ever suggested that Texas has total control of every institution within the Big 12. We're suggesting that Texas essentially calls the shots about how, financially, things work in the Big 12. The imbalance it creates certainly might drive schools like Neb and MU to look for better options elsewhere, but if you want to play in the Big 12, you play by UT's rules. If MU and NU leave, that will continue to be the case. Because as long as UT is willing to stay, the other teams will likely want to hitch their wagons to UT, thus continuing to give them ultimate control of the conference. But UT might decide that a restructured Big 12 isn't worth keeping afloat. So it will leave. And with UT's departure, the Big 12 would become no more. Because the success of the Big 12 ultimately hinges on them. They're the only single team the Big 12 can't survive without.

Well, yes they would, as teams in their conference would be leaving, thus indicating they aren't controlling the direction of the conference. Just because those teams would leave doesn't mean UT wouldn't control the directing of the conference that remained. Of course they would. It just wouldn't be much of a conference worth controlling.

I love how Sproles is shorter than the pylon.

Someone explain to me this chart. I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas, but SI has Texas as the top revenue producing AD in college sports. Also, someone reassure me that KU, as #26 on that list, would be an attractive addition to some conference and not end up in the MAC. SI Chart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/16/conference-realignment/1.html#ixzz0fwsp9NDK (scroll down to bottom of article)

Well, melding the remains of the B12 with the best of the MWC would make a pretty decent conference. KU KSU OU OSU ISU Baylor Tech BYU Utah TCU New Mexico UNLV That conference sucks. Where is Texas in this scenario?

I dunno. I'm worried about where we'll end up. Not a lot of people clamoring for the Kansas market. Kansas seems like it would draw a bigger market for the Big Ten than Mizzou would. Missouri brings you St. Louis and KC, and Illinois already brings in the St. Louis Market. Kansas brings you Kansas City, and better national exposure in basketball. I can see where you're coming from, but if the Kansas Board of Regents won't let the 2 schools split, that puts Kansas in a hole. KSU is not a member of the AAU, and I don't know if they meet any requirements for joining. Kansas is a member (as is Mizzou and Nebby) which gives them a bonus when talking about joining the B10, but AAU membership (or ability to become a member) will be a big step in joining the B10, which possibly screws KState, and therefore Kansas. Yeah. Being tied down to little brother could end up really screwing KU. KU has something to offer big conferences, but not enough to offset adding another school that adds nothing additional to the conference. KSU doesn't bring any tv sets that KU doesn't. It's AD doesn't make nearly as much money as KU's. And while the two football programs are about equal in prestige (which is to say, "none," unless KSU has a little left over equity from its run in the 90s), KU's basketball brand is a big ticket item. KSU, while improving, isn't. Bukie, I'm going to need you to sell me on being in the Mountain West conference. As far as I'm concerned, that is oblivion, or the next step to it. Unless you were being sarcastic. Then disregard.

I dunno. I'm worried about where we'll end up. Not a lot of people clamoring for the Kansas market.

Everything I've heard suggests the SEC would be low on Texas's list. I haven't heard why, just that it would be behind the Pac-10 and Big 10. I think FSU and Miami to the SEC would be far more likely.

why? because of the lower academic standards of the Big 12 schools (minus UT)?

A guy on one of the Texas boards who is allegedly somewhat clued in says that if the Big 10 poaches MU and NU, Texas would try to engineer a new conference that melds much of the Big 12 with the PAC 10. He says it would look something like this: I have a hard time seeing the PAC-10 just dumping wazzu like that. I also don't know why Texas Tech or ISU would be a consideration, but Okie State wouldn't. Personally, I'd try to fit UNLV into the mix somehow, since Vegas is a good sized market.

Simple solution, Big 12 avoids splintering by taking on the top schools from a smaller conference. TCU and Houston would be logical choices. I'd like to see them add TCU and Boise State. Obviously that's what the big 12 will do (add top teams from crappy conferences), but that's a pretty lame conference, and I can't see it improving on the big 12s already terrible TV deals.

man, losing the missouri AND nebraska would put a hurting on the big 12. Hard to figure where a school like KU could land if the Big 12 splinters.

Terrence Jones to Washington (along with terrence Ross) over KU, UK, UCLA, Oregon, and OU. Kinda bummed we missed him, but he wasn't a necessity. UK has to be wondering how they missed on Jones and Leslie, though.

smells like bs to me. they only shoot at middle-aged women. They're just lucky Billy Clyde isn't still on Self's staff why, you don't think booze and guns mix?

smells like bs to me. they only shoot at middle-aged women.

all built on the backs of the wheat moguls and sunflower mafia