What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Apparently the Pac 10 has potentially jumped in front of the Big 10 in the race for supremacy and decided a Pac 12 wasn't bold enough

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5248220

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20...ls-including-texas/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002

Such a move if it happens, would surely kill off the Big 12. I can imagine Mizzou, Kansas, Nebraska, and the rest would all be knifing each other in the back to get Delaney's attention. CFB Apocalypse Now?
 
Last edited:
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

We should go to one large national conference with every team except Notre Dame. They can stay independent and no one will schedule them.

Then we could go to a playoff system, because every game would generate money for the conference members.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Wow, I guess the other PAC-10 members must REALLY hate USC to vote for this. Now instead of playing 2nd fiddle to the Trojans, they can play 4th fiddle to Texas, OU, and, and USC... ;)
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Abolish all football conferences: go to promotion and relegation. Winner of the top division wins the national title. Figure out some other circle jerk solution to save the Bowl Games.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

BoomGoestheDynamite said:
Apparently the Pac 10 has potentially jumped in front of the Big 10 in the race for supremacy and decided a Pac 12 wasn't bold enough

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5248220

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20...ls-including-texas/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002

Such a move if it happens, would surely kill off the Big 12. I can imagine Mizzou, Kansas, Nebraska, and the rest would all be knifing each other in the back to get Delaney's attention. CFB Apocalypse Now?
Click to expand...

Kinda brazen move if they actually gave em a deadline that soon to jump. I can't really imagine that the AD's of those Big XII schools would want to jump without consulting what the others are doing. Colorado might be the only one that is that ready to jump, but somebody like Texas Tech would want to know which way the wind is blowing before they take that leap. If Texas goes PAC-Ten, then yeah, they go West. They might actually end up going that way anyways to even things out for Colorado as well. Lubbock isn't that big of a market, but there's a lot of Red Raider fans all over Texas who would probably want the new PAC Network, and it would allow those west coast schools to recuit more into Texas as well.

I still think that Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and OSU end up in the SEC. All depends on Texas though. The other three would pull that trigger in a heartbeat if Texas says its yes it wants in the SEC.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Does anyone think this pac-10 thing would EVER go through? It's more laughable than texas leaving for the big ten.

Texas playing in a conference that is two hours behind them? Yeah, right...
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I would guess that Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor are a package deal. If you won't take all 4 then Texas probably won't be interested in moving.

So I would say the Pac-10 is the frontrunner there, and then they could take 2 others, like OSU, OU.

It sounds like Missouri and Nebraska are strongly considering the Big 10, If they could nab Colorado also that would put them at 14. I'd guess that's a better scheduling number then 13 would be.

That would leave Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St to find homes. I would say none of those make sense for the SEC. So that conference could be left out of the feeding frenzy in the end.

Really the Big 10 should just bite the bullet and go to 16 teams also if they are going to do this and either take KU, KSU to go with Colorado, or they should take KU, KSU, and ISU, leaving Colorado out to find another conference.

Maybe Colorado could join Boise St in the Mountain West when they move.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

On top of all of this, it's about the money. What does the pac-10 offer for money?
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

dxmnkd316 said:
Does anyone think this pac-10 thing would EVER go through? It's more laughable than texas leaving for the big ten.

Texas playing in a conference that is two hours behind them? Yeah, right...
Click to expand...

For a ranter you sure seem to be lacking in knowledge.

Texas would have joined the Pac-10 before if not for Stanford throwing a hissy. :)

JF: Baylor? You think Texas gives a crap about Baylor? LOL.

And the Pac-16 would be the most dominant sports conference in the NCAA. They'll get their money.
 
Last edited:
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

dxmnkd316 said:
On top of all of this, it's about the money. What does the pac-10 offer for money?
Click to expand...

ESPN just said something about 20 mil per team. Not sure what that means exactly though. Is that money paid directly to the team for moving, or is that estimated increase in revenues, or something else?
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Terrierbyassociation said:
1996, when the SWC collapsed.
Click to expand...

I figured that was when it happened. But you can't compare the college football landscape in 1996 to what it is in 2010/2011. Would you agree that the financial impact is quite a bit different than it was back then?
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

dxmnkd316 said:
I figured that was when it happened. But you can't compare the college football landscape in 1996 to what it is in 2010/2011. Would you agree that the financial impact is quite a bit different than it was back then?
Click to expand...

The Big 12's television markets outside of TX are fairly pitiful. The fact that Denver and the St. Louis and (part of) the Kansas City market are all targets ripe for picking means that UT might see a move to the West Coast as a way to preserve and expand their presence in serious media markets (Seattle, Phoenix, The Bay Area, Los Angeles, Portland).

That and Texas craves the academic prestige the Big 12 cannot offer it. Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, UW, are all better schools than anything in the Big 10 other than the Longhorns. Its part of what drove their desire to reach out to the Pac 10 in 1996 and that part of the equation hasn't changed.

Also Texas does not give a flying F%*^ about schools it would be leaving behind. It would still play A&M and OU every year. Thats all they would want.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

BoomGoestheDynamite said:
The Big 12's television markets outside of TX are fairly pitiful. The fact that Denver and the St. Louis and (part of) the Kansas City market are all targets ripe for picking means that UT might see a move to the West Coast as a way to preserve and expand their presence in serious media markets (Seattle, Phoenix, The Bay Area, Los Angeles, Portland).

That and Texas craves the academic prestige the Big 12 cannot offer it. Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, UW, are all better schools than anything in the Big 10 other than the Longhorns. Its part of what drove their desire to reach out to the Pac 10 in 1996 and that part of the equation hasn't changed.

Also Texas does not give a flying F%*^ about schools it would be leaving behind. It would still play A&M and OU every year. Thats all they would want.
Click to expand...

Um, what?

Northwestern, Michigan, UW, UMN, and even OSU are easily on par with washington and UCLA if not above them. Northwestern and Michigan specifically. USC is about on par with the top of the big ten academics. Stanford and Cal are probably above what the Big Ten can offer overall, but the PAC-10 doesn't have the CIC.

Texas may not give a flying **** about A&M, but the lawmakers in texas do. They wouldn't let the two be separated. And do you really think Texas would want to schedule OU and A&M as non-conference instead of two mediocre teams?
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

BoomGoestheDynamite said:
Also Texas does not give a flying F%*^ about schools it would be leaving behind. It would still play A&M and OU every year. Thats all they would want.
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't but the Texas Legislature does care, and they were also an impediment in the 90's when Texas wanted to move. Tech and A&M at minimum would have to go with Texas in almost any scenario.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Why don't we just let NFL and NBA franchises build research labs and lecture halls?
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Let me start by saying I understand it's all about money and it's driven by football first and foremost.

That being said, I hate the idea of any football conference being more than 12 teams.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

J.D. said:
Let me start by saying I understand it's all about money and it's driven by football first and foremost.

That being said, I hate the idea of any football conference being more than 12 teams.
Click to expand...


This. There's no such thing as a college 16 team conference with a 12 game schedule and 8-9 conference games. In a conference with a team you play twice a decade?

Oh, and Baylor had clout in 1993-94 because Ann Richards was a Baylor alum. They don't have that this time, so they'll be out in the cold.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

JF_Gophers said:
Maybe they don't but the Texas Legislature does care, and they were also an impediment in the 90's when Texas wanted to move. Tech and A&M at minimum would have to go with Texas in almost any scenario.
Click to expand...

Considering the current plan on the table takes A&M and Tech this is a non-issue. My entire comment is based on the idea the Pac 10 is taking the 6 schools listed. Baylor has a chance to foul the works, but if Mizzou and Nebraska jump ship early, I think the TX state legislature won't worry all that much about a private school when the three major public universities will have a path to a secure home and future.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top