Winless In Seattle
Steve Sauro
Elliott SmithNot so sweet 16
June 15th 2010 05:11
The Longhorns have made their decision. And it was a resounding NO to the Pac-10's invite, which in turn caused the rest of the remaining Big 12 pack to fall in line behind big brother Texas. Was it the right move for Texas? According to the Big 12 head honcho, the teams will make more money and the Big 12 will be more lucrative than ever.
My question? How is it that he sold the Big 12 as being more lucrative than a super-conference would've been? With 10 members, there will no longer be a Big 12 Championship game. That takes away a big TV chunk of money right there. My personal opinion is that the Big 12 threw out some empty promises in hopes of keeping their pockets lined, and obviously it worked. I'd expect this whole expansion talk to be revisited in the next few years, when Texas and the other schools are ticked off at being scammed by a dying conference.
I mean seriously, can you imagine the TV exposure that the Pac-16 would've received? No way a Big "12" conference that's down two teams does better money or TV wise than the Pac-16 would've done. And now it leaves a question mark to the Pac-10. Do you still take Colorado, and try to court Utah from the Mountain West? Or do you just scrap the whole thing and revert to being the Pac-10? I personally think they'll choose to invite Utah (which by the way, sucks big time for Boise St!).
Although not nearly as excited about adding Colorado and Utah as I was about adding HUGE teams like Texas, Oklahoma, etc..., I think that if the Pac-10 can get Utah in the conference, it will certainly be a stronger conference than it was.
Steve Sauro
My question? How is it that he sold the Big 12 as being more lucrative than a super-conference would've been? With 10 members, there will no longer be a Big 12 Championship game. That takes away a big TV chunk of money right there. My personal opinion is that the Big 12 threw out some empty promises in hopes of keeping their pockets lined, and obviously it worked. I'd expect this whole expansion talk to be revisited in the next few years, when Texas and the other schools are ticked off at being scammed by a dying conference.
I mean seriously, can you imagine the TV exposure that the Pac-16 would've received? No way a Big "12" conference that's down two teams does better money or TV wise than the Pac-16 would've done. And now it leaves a question mark to the Pac-10. Do you still take Colorado, and try to court Utah from the Mountain West? Or do you just scrap the whole thing and revert to being the Pac-10? I personally think they'll choose to invite Utah (which by the way, sucks big time for Boise St!).
Although not nearly as excited about adding Colorado and Utah as I was about adding HUGE teams like Texas, Oklahoma, etc..., I think that if the Pac-10 can get Utah in the conference, it will certainly be a stronger conference than it was.
Steve Sauro
| 88 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by jesse-podoll
UnSportsman
Kudos, Texas. You apparently got just what you wanted.
As for what the PAC-10 does now - Colorado is signed, sealed and delivered, so that's locked up. Utah is attractive to the PAC-10, no doubt - both athletically and academically. My money is on the PAC-10 going after them - if only to make it an even 12 teams and allowing for a championship game.
Comment by Steve Sauro