(07-31-2013 07:43 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 08:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 10:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think the window of UT-austin entertaining independence is done.

They got stuck with the kids in the divorce and now there are 3 TX schools (all with sizable followings in the legislature) that are completely and totally dependent on them and only them for their survival as P5 schools because no other P5 conference will even entertain the idea of adding any of them without UT also (and most wouldn't take them even then).

The only realistic scenario available to UT for moving at this point is to convince one of the conferences to take the politically inseparable package of UT/OU/OSU/TT...and IMO only the PAC would open to taking that group. By saving the public school parasite, UT can make the case for ditching the two smaller private school parasites.

I also think the B12 is stuck at 10 teams for similar reasons; no school in the remaining Plains States want to be in a separate division from TX and OK.

The Big 12 is standing in a relatively fragile spot within the Big 5. When they get their new division and when they have "security council" control of it, are the four conferences with more programs than the
big 12 going to vote in stipulations based on the number of conference members in regards to things like forming up divisions? If we see four divisions starting up and even possibly a conference tournament based on division winners, will the Big 12 still end up missing out on that?

It is possible that the other four conference might attempt to force their hand to either expand with programs that aren't exactly desired or to break apart the Big 12 and move into the other four conferences.

I mean, why wouldn't the SEC, ACC, B1G and PAC do that to the Big 12? The Big 12, following their current method, is absolutely the odd man out and they keep tossing wood on the fire every time they talk about how their current set up allows them to make more money individually than anyone else. Why would the other four conferences allow them a conference tournament of four team when they only have ten teams to lead up to that with?


In regards to 10th's comment, if the above happens as I am surmising, there is no way that the PAC will end up being able to cherry pick UT/OU/OSU/TTU. That is an outdated concept and when some of those schools start seeing their other options, Texas will once again show just how much it doesnt wish to go West. Just my opinion of course.

I'm not quite sure what would entice the B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC to force expansion or a breakup on the Big 12 simply because they are structured differently or because they currently have a lucrative contract.

In terms of expansion, I suppose if there was the potential for a breakaway of the top level and a few more schools had to be let on the bus to alleviate political pressure, the other conferences could force through expansion on the Big 12 since it has the fewest schools (and thus more slots) by mandating minimum conference membership. But otherwise I don't see why they would force them to expand. For everyone who argues that it's unfair for the Big 12 champion not to be exposed to a potential upset in a CCG, there's someone who argues that the lack of a CCG will deflate the Big 12's SoS to the point that they'd be excluded.

In terms of breakup, I'd think the primary motivation there would be to grab up valuable properties. But that opportunity has been there for several years, and the Big 12 schools have been seen as either unattractive on their own merits or politically or contractually unappealing due to 3rd tier deals (e.g. LHN) or issues with partner schools (e.g. OU/OSU).

It wouldn't surprise me to see the power conferences take a wait and see approach and see how things play out over the next decade (both for the sake of seeing how business and current realignment works out, as well as getting close to the GoR expiration) before making a move, rather than trying to force anything on the Big 12 in the interim.