The very beginning of the current realignment situation was probably Missouri's flirtation with the Big 10 in December 2009. But that probably could have been a fairly minor event where the Big 12 replaced Missouri with TCU, BYU or Utah. What really caused the realignment bonanza to cascade was the PAC-16 idea that emerged about a month after Missouri started flirting with the Big 10.

The PAC 16 idea really scared Nebraska, who had originally expressed almost no interest in the Big 10. Nebraska then took the spot Missouri thought they had in the Big 10.

Losing a team as storied Nebraska was a blow that the Big 12 never recovered from. The loss of Nebraska caused another prominent brand, Texas A&M, to leave for the SEC the next year.

At that point, the Big 12 was almost a dead man walking, leading to Texas and OU announcing they'd leave the conference. That in turn caused USC and UCLA to move to the Big 10.

The whole irony is the PAC is arguably being eaten by a situation they created.

There's certainly some validity in your thought. I don't think you can discount unequal revenue sharing and the Longhorn Network, however.

(09-23-2022 02:54 PM)Poster Wrote:  The very beginning of the current realignment situation was probably Missouri's flirtation with the Big 10 in December 2009. But that probably could have been a fairly minor event where the Big 12 replaced Missouri with TCU, BYU or Utah. What really caused the realignment bonanza to cascade was the PAC-16 idea that emerged about a month after Missouri started flirting with the Big 10.

The PAC 16 idea really scared Nebraska, who had originally expressed almost no interest in the Big 10. Nebraska then took the spot Missouri thought they had in the Big 10.

Losing a team as storied Nebraska was a blow that the Big 12 never recovered from. The loss of Nebraska caused another prominent brand, Texas A&M, to leave for the SEC the next year.

At that point, the Big 12 was almost a dead man walking, leading to Texas and OU announcing they'd leave the conference. That in turn caused USC and UCLA to move to the Big 10.

The whole irony is the PAC is arguably being eaten by a situation they created.

You could even look earlier to ACC in 2003 or even ACC/SEC/B10 in 1991.

No. The BIG and SEC have more dedicated larger fan bases who watch more games....and other college football fans as well.

Revisionist history. Texas and OU are clearly to blame.

(09-23-2022 03:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 02:54 PM)Poster Wrote:  The very beginning of the current realignment situation was probably Missouri's flirtation with the Big 10 in December 2009. But that probably could have been a fairly minor event where the Big 12 replaced Missouri with TCU, BYU or Utah. What really caused the realignment bonanza to cascade was the PAC-16 idea that emerged about a month after Missouri started flirting with the Big 10.

The PAC 16 idea really scared Nebraska, who had originally expressed almost no interest in the Big 10. Nebraska then took the spot Missouri thought they had in the Big 10.

Losing a team as storied Nebraska was a blow that the Big 12 never recovered from. The loss of Nebraska caused another prominent brand, Texas A&M, to leave for the SEC the next year.

At that point, the Big 12 was almost a dead man walking, leading to Texas and OU announcing they'd leave the conference. That in turn caused USC and UCLA to move to the Big 10.

The whole irony is the PAC is arguably being eaten by a situation they created.

You could even look earlier to ACC in 2003 or even ACC/SEC/B10 in 1991.

Maybe you could say that about the ACC in 2003, but the Big 10 and ACC expansions in 1991 were of independents, and the SEC really just killed off a conference that was already dying in 1991.

(09-23-2022 03:07 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  There's certainly some validity in your thought. I don't think you can discount unequal revenue sharing and the Longhorn Network, however.

Apparently the LHN wasn't announced until October 2010 (I forgot about that until a Texas fan told me today), although who knows if the other university presidents knew about the network before the public at large did.


As for unequal revenue sharing? Oh please- the teams that left benefitted from unequal revenue sharing.

(09-23-2022 03:20 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  Revisionist history. Texas and OU are clearly to blame.

OU especially. Absent a lawsuit from their board and Georgia's against the NCAA, we don't have as intense involvement in the operations of college football by network partners.

(09-23-2022 03:07 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  There's certainly some validity in your thought. I don't think you can discount unequal revenue sharing and the Longhorn Network, however.

The Pac and Big East had more unequal revenue sharing than the Big 12.

Everyone who has left the Big 12 was FOR unequal revenue sharing.

That's just another of those ridiculous ideas that keeps getting thrown around in the media and message boards. There were no schools more aligned on revenue than Texas and Nebraska.

(09-23-2022 03:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 03:07 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  There's certainly some validity in your thought. I don't think you can discount unequal revenue sharing and the Longhorn Network, however.

The Pac and Big East had more unequal revenue sharing than the Big 12.

Everyone who has left the Big 12 was FOR unequal revenue sharing.

That's just another of those ridiculous ideas that keeps getting thrown around in the media and message boards. There were no schools more aligned on revenue than Texas and Nebraska.

Well, to be fair, Missouri might have been against unequal revenue sharing. And, if you view Missouri's Big 10 flirtation as the proximate cause of the Big 12's instability, maybe Mizzou did that flirtation in part because of unequal revenue sharing.

The idea that Nebraska and aTm were against unequal revenue sharing is a total joke, though. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas A&M would have been the four clear beneficiaries of unequal revenue sharing.

OU/UGA started things off with their lawsuit. A&M's fervent desire to join the SEC helped cause instability in the SWC, and we encouraged Arky to join in '90 when we realized the Legislature would pull a Newsom and block us from leaving the others behind. We agreed to follow texas to the big 12, and we probably would have gone to the Pac in 2010 if things hadn't gone off the rails then, but we always really wanted the SEC. texas did contribute to the big 12's instability, that's true, but I'd give them no more credit than OU/UNL/A&M/Missouri/Colorado/Texas Legislature. It was always a mashup.

(09-23-2022 03:52 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 03:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 03:07 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  There's certainly some validity in your thought. I don't think you can discount unequal revenue sharing and the Longhorn Network, however.

The Pac and Big East had more unequal revenue sharing than the Big 12.

Everyone who has left the Big 12 was FOR unequal revenue sharing.

That's just another of those ridiculous ideas that keeps getting thrown around in the media and message boards. There were no schools more aligned on revenue than Texas and Nebraska.

Well, to be fair, Missouri might have been against unequal revenue sharing. And, if you view Missouri's Big 10 flirtation as the proximate cause of the Big 12's instability, maybe Mizzou did that flirtation in part because of unequal revenue sharing.

The idea that Nebraska and aTm were against unequal revenue sharing is a total joke, though. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas A&M would have been the four clear beneficiaries of unequal revenue sharing.

The votes were always 7-5. The 7 haves-Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas for. The 5 have-nots-Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa St., Kansas St. and Oklahoma St. against. There was at least one year when Kansas was the biggest beneficiary.

(09-23-2022 03:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  OU/UGA started things off with their lawsuit. A&M's fervent desire to join the SEC helped cause instability in the SWC, and we encouraged Arky to join in '90 when we realized the Legislature would pull a Newsom and block us from leaving the others behind. We agreed to follow texas to the big 12, and we probably would have gone to the Pac in 2010 if things hadn't gone off the rails then, but we always really wanted the SEC. texas did contribute to the big 12's instability, that's true, but I'd give them no more credit than OU/UNL/A&M/Missouri/Colorado/Texas Legislature. It was always a mashup.

So we keep getting back to Oklahoma!

But seriously, the OU/UGA lawsuit destabilized everything. Not that it was a bad thing, but it changed the whole paradigm.

(09-23-2022 02:54 PM)Poster Wrote:  The very beginning of the current realignment situation was probably Missouri's flirtation with the Big 10 in December 2009. But that probably could have been a fairly minor event where the Big 12 replaced Missouri with TCU, BYU or Utah. What really caused the realignment bonanza to cascade was the PAC-16 idea that emerged about a month after Missouri started flirting with the Big 10.

The PAC 16 idea really scared Nebraska, who had originally expressed almost no interest in the Big 10. Nebraska then took the spot Missouri thought they had in the Big 10.

Losing a team as storied Nebraska was a blow that the Big 12 never recovered from. The loss of Nebraska caused another prominent brand, Texas A&M, to leave for the SEC the next year.

At that point, the Big 12 was almost a dead man walking, leading to Texas and OU announcing they'd leave the conference. That in turn caused USC and UCLA to move to the Big 10.

The whole irony is the PAC is arguably being eaten by a situation they created.

Nebraska wasn't simply reacting. The Big Ten announced they were looking to expand in December 2009, well before any Pac 16 discussions. Nebraska desperately wanted out of the Big 12 and into the Big Ten, just as badly as Missouri, they just weren't dumb enough to announce it publicly and thus risk looking bad if they didn't get the invite.

(09-23-2022 04:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 03:52 PM)Poster Wrote:  [quote='bullet' pid='18464862' dateline='1663966047']
[quote='CitrusUCF' pid='18464791' dateline='1663963630']
There's certainly some validity in your thought. I don't think you can discount unequal revenue sharing and the Longhorn Network, however.

The Pac and Big East had more unequal revenue sharing than the Big 12.

Everyone who has left the Big 12 was FOR unequal revenue sharing.

That's just another of those ridiculous ideas that keeps getting thrown around in the media and message boards. There were no schools more aligned on revenue than Texas and Nebraska.

Well, in that case, blaming unequal revenue sharing for the Big 12 demise is really stupid.


And apparently the PAC did have unequal revenue sharing in those days, too. Here is an article from 2010, when the PAC-16 seemed imminent.

"A hybrid formula is used that pays 59.5 percent of the proceeds to the conference teams making the appearance. The rest is shared among the other conference members equally."
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/4056...board-room

(09-23-2022 02:54 PM)Poster Wrote:  Is the PAC to blame for the current realignment mess?

Is the PAC to credit for the current realignment improvement?

I tend to look toward Jim Delany and the late Mike Slive as well as their successors in the B1G and SEC — Kevin Warren and Greg Sankey — as key architects in dragging College Football into the modern age and its rightful place as the nation's No. 2 spectator sport behind the NFL.

Expanding the playoff system to allow more schools to be a part of the tournament as opposed to a broken and archaic format whose best days are long gone

Consolidating and reconfiguring conferences to expand brands and footprints while bringing together like-minded institutions with comparable resources and commitments to create more and better competition for all involved

Greatly increasing revenue while (finally) "permitting" the players to get a piece of the pie

IMO, these moves to modernize College Football for the better were and will continue to be much needed

The PAC???

Ummmmm nooooo

You want to point the finger, point it at the networks and the ungodly amount of money they're throwing at the sport. That's why we are in this realignment mess.

(09-23-2022 02:54 PM)Poster Wrote:  The very beginning of the current realignment situation was probably Missouri's flirtation with the Big 10 in December 2009. But that probably could have been a fairly minor event where the Big 12 replaced Missouri with TCU, BYU or Utah. What really caused the realignment bonanza to cascade was the PAC-16 idea that emerged about a month after Missouri started flirting with the Big 10.

The PAC 16 idea really scared Nebraska, who had originally expressed almost no interest in the Big 10. Nebraska then took the spot Missouri thought they had in the Big 10.

Losing a team as storied Nebraska was a blow that the Big 12 never recovered from. The loss of Nebraska caused another prominent brand, Texas A&M, to leave for the SEC the next year.

At that point, the Big 12 was almost a dead man walking, leading to Texas and OU announcing they'd leave the conference. That in turn caused USC and UCLA to move to the Big 10.

The whole irony is the PAC is arguably being eaten by a situation they created.

Not exactly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80...ealignment

Both the B10 and the PAC were exploring possibilities, but it appears the cause of the B12 mess was how Texas was handling certain events on several different occasions over several years.

The disintegration of the BigEast didn't help matters either.

I blame the PSAC. If it weren’t for the CCG rule, the SEC never expands in 1990.

(09-23-2022 07:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I blame the PSAC. If it weren’t for the CCG rule, the SEC never expands in 1990.

Was that the Division II conference the CCG was passed to benefit?