So now there are rumors that the Pac-10 is waffling between Colorado and Baylor because of the legislature in Texas, but this is coming from the guy who runs the Longhorns' team fan page. The rumor includes that the other five will be given a formal invitation this week. I say if those five accept, let them vote on the last team. I'd rather have Colorado, though. In more devious news: Sounds a bit over the top, but it's a fun theory.
Both UT and T a&m are state schools. Technically the state of Texas has final say on what the schools do. If they can play the power card in order to get Baylor into a better conference they will.....Apparently.
On the face of it (since I grew up a Pac-10 fan, but my college is an independent that gets lucky to get into a 'lower-tier' bowl every year) I'd say this is a big, big thing. But looking a bit deeper, I think that this might be a big blow for a few schools that people here know and love. I think UCLA/USC (LA market), UW (SEA), Cal (SF Bay), Oregon (Phil Knight's $$$ and maybe the POrtland market?), Texas/TA&M/OK (Tx market), CO (Denver) would be ok...a semi-permanent "upper tier" of the conference. Schools like Arizona and Stanford maybe be able to compete in some sports some years, but they have their own handicaps (whether slightly-less-than-optimal location, academic standards, etc.). I think that schools like WSU, OSU, ASU, Baylor/Texas Tech would be hurting b/c they're a) not in major markets, b) not "name" schools and c) their recruiting turf will be that much more inundated with talent scouts from the big boys. I'd submit that a kid from Spokane would lean from going to WSU to going to Texas if Texas came to town every 2-3 years, while a kid from, say, Lubbock wouldn't go to the Palouse without a gun pointed at his head if he had Texas or TA&M calling. Right now, there's not necessarily a "tier" system in the Pac-10 (unless you say it's USC -- then everyone else). I think that this would regulate teams like WSU and OSU to permanent "Kentucky/Vanderbilt" status. If they're cool with that (especially since $$ will come rolling in) that's great. Personally, I think it's good for the health of the conference. But some of these schools should take a look at what they're getting into.
It really has nothing at all to do with Baylor. It would be "How the state of Texas saved the Big 12"
Am I the only one who got confused on the thread title? The two wild card schools in this is Texas and Notre Dame. Who ever lands one of them schools will win the expanson. If the Big Ten lands both, WOW.
I think if the Big Ten gets Notre Dame, they'll probably stop courting Big XII schools. I think Texas would rather stay in the Big XII because they can run their own TV network, but the problem is the rest of the Big XII will continue to have less money in that type of situation. They could make more in the Big Ten or the Pac-10. If teams start leaving the conference, then what does Texas do? Those legislators fight hard to keep the Texas schools together, but they don't fight hard to help those schools make more money, at least not for the lesser ones. Rivalries with OU, A&M, and Tech are a big deal, too, so I think Texas doesn't leave the conference by itself. Right now only the Pac-10 is offering for all of them to go, and that's the only deal that I see working, except for the Big XII staying together.
Mizzu and Nebraska are good as gone. They are going to get BILLIONS in research money from the CIC. Texas knows this and they dont want to be the bad guy for breaking up the Big XII.
Please Texas/A&M/Tech legislators... by your powers combined, beat down these Baylor suckers. Do it for your own interests.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Tech and Baylor offer far more in academics than either of the other two schools. Tech and Baylor also have far better donors and fan support than the other schools do. Kansas is better than Colorado because it gives the PAC 10 the central time zone, but other than basketball, Kansas offers nothing else. Tech and Baylor offer everything and more than the other two schools
kansas is decent at football, but from what i've heard kansas and kansas state are a package deal and nobody wants ksu.
if you say so. texas tech and baylor both bring no tv markets to the table. colorado and kansas both bring large tv markets to the table. both colorado and kansas are AAU members. baylor and tech aren't. baylor can be considered similar academically to kansas and colorado but texas tech is far behind those 3. pretending otherwise makes absolutely no sense. can you point out some specifics of baylor and tech offering "everything and more" in comparison to kansas and colorado?
While they are not in the large cities of Texas, Tech and Baylor have alumni all over the state of Texas. Baylor has schools of medicine in both Houston and Dallas.
if the pac 10 is adding texas and a&m there is no need for baylor or tech. texas and a&m have the state of texas covered. denver/kansas city are much more important to a tv contract than scattered tech and baylor fans.
But isn't that the point? Texas and A&M are saying that you don't get them without the little guys. And I guar-un-tee you the Pac-10 would rather have UT and TA&M with two little brothers than the Denver and Kansas City markets without the Texas schools.
On an aside, why is Baylor in the conversation here? Aren't they a small, Christian, private university? I was under the assumption that the Stolen Six would be UT, TT, TA&M, UO, OSU, Colorado, with maybe Kansas in the mix instead of TT. How does Baylor fit in that? Is Rice going to be part of the deal, too?
Baylor is in the conversation because they have political pull. The Texas legislature BU alumni would not let the other TX schools join the Big XII w/o little brother.
