(10-18-2011 10:39 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 07:13 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 06:42 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 06:31 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Interesting that some people think its a great move to go to B12, even though Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and looks like Missouri bolted at first opportunity. Shouldnt that be a flag to proceed with caution?

Who isn't going to leave the Big 12 for the Big 10 or the PAC-12, assuming they don't have a school network issue and they garner an invite?

It's about the food chain and stability. Those other leagues offered greater stability than the Big 12. Anyone leaving this league for the Big 12 likely feels that is more stable, along with having higher quality football.

Short term stability. How long before the texahoma schools pull the same stunt they've pulled for the past two years? time will tell if it will be the right move for a school like louisville.

If Louisville remains in the Big East I hope they strive to make it work, but I don't see how you argue the Big East is more stable than the Big 12.

neither are stable long term. Going to the B12 for stability seems odd. Other reasons make more sense

as posted in the Cincy forum

IF the BE can keep the current six schools and add some good ones (UH, Boise, Navy, etc) and IF we can keep our AQ...I'd much rather stay than go B12. Easier road to BCS, no Texas, better hoops, etc etc etc.