As the Conference Expansion World Turns
by Year2 on Jun 9, 2010 3:30 PM EDT
in SEC Football
Email
PrintUPDATE 5:47 PM
Latest word out of Nebraska is an official denial of any firm decisions on switching conferences.
UPDATE 3:38 PM (YES, ALREADY)
Chip Brown again: Nebraska's regents informally agree to go to the Big Ten with a formal announcement to come Friday; unnamed Big 12 South admins say that absent Nebraska, the Big 12 will die.
----------
Pac-10 expansion? Big Ten expansion? Big 12 dying? We'll see about that.
REPORTS OF THE BIG 12's DEATH ARE GREATLY VARIED, PERHAPS EXAGGERATED
Kansas and Kansas State are concerned about being left out of a major conference. The state's senators aren't going to sit back and wait to see what happens though, and I'm not talking the local legislature.
US Senator Pat Roberts (a K-State alum) was caught pressuring Senator Ben Nelson to make sure that Nebraska doesn't jump to the Big Ten. He later cautioned, "There's going to be a lot of litigation, and then Congress will probably try to stick its nose into it." So yeah, the lawyers and politicians are going to be getting involved. Fantastic.
Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa also speculated that Congress could stick its nose into the situation, and former Iowa governor and current US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urged Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska to keep the Huskers in the Big 12. Nebraska's administrators had a conference call this afternoon, presumably to discuss the matter.
Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com has been tweeting details throughout the afternoon as well. He was the one who broke the first Pac-16 story last week:
- He says that Texas and Texas A&M are meeting tomorrow to make sure they're on the same page.
- If the Big 12 loses just one or two teams, he reports that BYU and Air Force are potential replacements.
- The deadline for judging the viability of the Big 12 is Monday, June 14.
- A sliver of hope remains if the Texas legislature keeps pushing Baylor, as Cal doesn't want a religious school in the conference.
THERE IS A THIRD "BIG" CONFERENCE BESIDES THE 12 AND TEN, YOU KNOW
The Big East is not content to sit back and die, apparently, which would be a reversal of almost 10 years of conference policy. Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune says that the conference might invite the Kansas schools if the Big 12 falls apart. Adding those two to the Big East's basketball league would make an even more insane conference, which makes me wonder if it would kick out dead weight like DePaul.
Joe Schad adds some weight to that, but I wonder if he's just repeating Greenstein's report. He also says to expect the USC penalty report tomorrow, which at this point is a sure sign that it's not coming tomorrow.
OH RIGHT, THE BIG TEN
Schad again here, giving the Big Ten's top three choices: Notre Dame, Nebraska, then Rutgers and/or Maryland. Conspicuously absent: Missouri.
AND THE SEC?
No news is good news, and there is no news to report.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cal's completely unsurprising
stance against any religious schools in the conference is a typical indicator of the culture. I am completely mystified as to why anybody would want to be associated with those schools.
by GwinnettGamecock on Jun 9, 2010 5:11 PM EDT reply actions
Tolerance is a two-way street
If the report is true, Cal is being intolerant of Baylor. But if I understand you correctly, you seem no more tolerant of “those schools” as Cal is of Baylor.
by marktheshark on Jun 9, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So I should be tolerant of intolerance?
The scare quotes are unnecessary. Those schools is much easier to write than the institutions that comprise the current makeup of the Pac-10 conference.
by GwinnettGamecock on Jun 9, 2010 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Those weren't scare quotes.
You referred to a set of schools without being specific. I could have assumed which schools you were talking about, but instead, I simply referred to the same set of schools as those, of which were unnamed. So don’t get so caught up in the quotes. I did not want to assume which schools you were talking about, as Cal is the only one that doesn’t want Baylor (according to the report, anyways), so I didn’t want to lump the rest of the Pac 10 in with them.
You wonder why anyone would want to be associated with those schools. Those schools don’t want to be associated with Baylor (or presumably other religious schools. I know BYU has come up often in this discussion). I’m not saying you need to be tolerant of intolerance. But I don’t see much difference in your statement with the way they’re acting. Simply put, you’re both intolerant.
No
Person A says, “I dislike all green people, and I will not associate with them.”
Person B says, “Person A dislikes all green people. Therefore, I will not associate with Person A.”
Those are not morally equivalent positions.
Unless Cal has a legitimate reason that regularly scheduled softball games with a religiously associated private institution will somehow interfere in the school’s academic or athletic mission, their stance is the equivalent of Person A’s.
On the particular point, I don’t think the Pac-10 should take Baylor either. The school brings nothing to the table, and it would give Texas, the newcomer most likely to upset the applecart, one more reliable vote in all conference matters. The principal behind Cal’s reasoning is extremely bothersome.
by GwinnettGamecock on Jun 9, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
You can have the last word.
This isn’t worth arguing over. I’m not going to convince you that Cal’s intolerance doesn’t justify yours.
by marktheshark on Jun 9, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm confused
I thought I could have the last word, but you still managed to call me intolerant again? :-)
by GwinnettGamecock on Jun 10, 2010 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions
That was the sting.
All is good. I appreciate the civil tone we maintained. We can agree to disagree. I was really just pointing out the irony of your stance. I can see your point still. Anyways, I am married to a Gamecock, so I have grown to like you as a fanbase. First by obligation, but you’ve grown on me. You are good people.
by marktheshark on Jun 10, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
The last I checked USC wasn't exactly a bastion of progressive thought...
That aside, Baylor is just pathetic…athletically, academically, and way, way too connected to and dependent upon the Tx Lege’s good ole’ boy system of governance and oversight.
There are a million good reasons to not want Baylor
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 9, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude.
It’s Baylor.
Baylor is a complete embarrassment. I don’t blame them at all, whatever the reason they give.
But don’t believe the nonsense that Texas would sacrifice any move it really wants to make for Baylor. Baylor is a speck of nothing in this deal. The only reason Texas would attempt to bring them along is to have a grateful yes-man within the new conference, just as it did with the Big 12.
If Stanford and Cal say “absolutely no Baylor” (as they should), and Texas truly wants to go to the Pac 10, Baylor is done, and there’s not one person in Texas that can do a single thing about it. Never has been. It’s BAYLOR.
As for us northeastern types...
The Big East is not content to sit back and die, apparently, which would be a reversal of almost 10 years of conference policy. Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune says that the conference might invite the Kansas schools if the Big 12 falls apart. Adding those two to the Big East’s basketball league would make an even more insane conference, which makes me wonder if it would kick out dead weight like DePaul.
The Big East as currently set up was designed to allow a split into two conferences (one which sponsors FBS football, and one that does not). If we could grab the Big 12 North sans Colorado and Nebraska (and maybe Missouri), and only lost one school (presumably Rutgers) we’d break up with the Catholic non-football schools in a heartbeat (and add Memphis and possibly UCF to get 12, because we really don’t want to be that spread out without divisional play).
Given that progressive thought
is the latest code for political liberalism, more USC alums than not are quite ok with that.
I wouldn’t want Baylor either. They would need a Kentucky level basketball program to overlook their football program, and they don’t bring any new eyeballs. However, it is one thing to say, ‘Baylor doesn’t fit athletically or academically’, and another to say, ‘We don’t want to associate with any religious schools.’
Heck, even if they said private schools in general, I would give them that. But to specifically target religions schools of all forms (as the link claims) is indicative of a close minded and elitist mindset that I have absolutely no interest in ever interacting with.
by GwinnettGamecock on Jun 9, 2010 6:16 PM EDT reply actions
The line about "religious schools" came from a mouthpiece for the University of Texas.
The push for Baylor was total nonsense. Texas has zero intention of taking Baylor if it would kill the deal. So they float the rumor through Chip Brown to make it sound like they are being a good neighbor to Baylor. If Nebraska had stayed, all is well, B12 rolls on, and Texas says they fought for their underprivileged neighbor just in case.
But Nebraska is leaving. So the Texas smear of Baylor has begun, with Brown doing the dirty work.
Just like the Texas smear of Arkansas
during the collapse of the SWC…
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 10, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not a code word, it is paradigm and ideology, completely out in the open...
As for USC, don’t let the LA glitz and “brah” fool you, USC is the paragon of trust-funded California and National rightist thought and academics.
That’s neither good nor ill: it is what it is, and it has its place. Just as Cal has its place as a left-leaning, state institution.
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 10, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
"No news is good news, and there is no news to report."
Totally disagree.
A&M and OU are up for grabs.
I understand possible CBS/ESPN revenue sharing dilution. But that is just terrible short-term thinking for a 50-to-100-year decision. A&M and OU greatly expand the SEC footprint making for a far more lucrative SEC Network should the SEC ever wish to go that route. Even if not, CBS/ESPN would very likely renegotiate the current contracts up to a level that results in little to no revenue sharing dilution.
(And let me preemptively say that to those who think A&M is tied to Texas: you don’t know what you are talking about.)
Agreed.
There is no longer any such thing in college sports as a 50- to 100-year decision.
We may bemoan that fact—-indeed, I very much do—-but it is a fact.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jun 10, 2010 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
That was an emergency response to the breakup of the SWC by Texas.
People around UT have always known it would be temporary. Many of them have hated being with those schools which are so much poorer (financially and academically, at the grad level esecially) than UT is.
Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech have pledged solidarity to each other according to ESPN and others. Maybe they didn’t have to be a package deal all along, but they sure are now.
Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog
by Year2 on Jun 9, 2010 10:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ha.
Sorry, but that is just simply not true.
UT bigs couldn’t give a flying fonk less about Texas Tech. Rightfully so. It’s a podunk school in the middle of nowhere with a small fanbase.
And A&M is very internally split over being under UT’s shadow in a new conference.
Agree with you on A&M
If fourteen or sixteen team conferences are the way of the future, the SEC is going to miss the best realistic options by sitting this one out.
A&M is a big prize that everyone is overlooking because of Texas. It’s like if your a single guy with an opportunity to approach the local hot bartender, you’d be pretty excited. However, put the hot bartender at a table with Jessica Alba, and she becomes an afterthought. She’s still just as attractive, and Jessica Alba just wants to run off to Hollywood anyway.
The SEC should concentrate on pursuing A&M, the biggest prize in the neighborhood.
PS- In the analogy above, Notre Dame is Farrah Fawcett. People of a certain age have so many fond memories that their eyes still light up at the name, but hasn’t been relevant for a generation and is not going to make a comeback.
by GwinnettGamecock on Jun 9, 2010 6:57 PM EDT reply actions
Clay Travis actually did the most thoughtful dissection of aTm I've read yet...
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/09/a-beautiful-move-texas-aandm-to-sec/
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 10, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Team Speed Kills
Related FanShots on Team Speed Kills
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
