choop
Bench Warmer
Posts: 52
|
Post by choop on Jun 13, 2010 12:17:02 GMT -8
I can't even respond to the many scenarios posted here so far. Some are reasonable, some are not. Dan Beebe is pitching a scenarion that the 10 teams currently in the Big 12 stay. He is asking TV for a new deal that would offer $17 million per team annually. They would also allow Texas its own network, and probably give some of their individual cuts to Texas. If this deal flies, the MWC will probably lose at least 2 teams to the PAC-10. Its all getting crazy, and we need to wait until Tuesday to see if Texas pulls the trigger on the move to the PAC-16, or decides to stay. Please read: texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803 |
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Jun 13, 2010 12:20:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 13, 2010 12:29:26 GMT -8
I can't even respond to the many scenarios posted here so far. Some are reasonable, some are not. Dan Beebe is pitching a scenarion that the 10 teams currently in the Big 12 stay. He is asking TV for a new deal that would offer $17 million per team annually. They would also allow Texas its own network, and probably give some of their individual cuts to Texas. If this deal flies, the MWC will probably lose at least 2 teams to the PAC-10. Which two teams are you thinking the conference would lose? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Jun 13, 2010 14:12:30 GMT -8
Desperate folks do desperate things. Nebraska got out partly becuase Texas had too much power. In this scenario, they would be on better footing than their partners/fellow conference members. (Kind of like the MLB Yankess.) Who would want a part of that? I can't even respond to the many scenarios posted here so far. Some are reasonable, some are not. Dan Beebe is pitching a scenarion that the 10 teams currently in the Big 12 stay. He is asking TV for a new deal that would offer $17 million per team annually. They would also allow Texas its own network, and probably give some of their individual cuts to Texas. If this deal flies, the MWC will probably lose at least 2 teams to the PAC-10. Its all getting crazy, and we need to wait until Tuesday to see if Texas pulls the trigger on the move to the PAC-16, or decides to stay. Please read: texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 15:04:02 GMT -8
The bottom line here is that we are at the mercy of ...well...everybody. We have no leverage and there are more than a few scenarios that would leave us out in the cold as a member of the WAC or worse, to me anyway, of a depleted MWC with Boise and the 7 dwarfs. This is the price you pay for basically stinking up the joint for over a decade. If we end up in any conference configuration that in any way shape or form makes us even LESS relevant than we are now, there will be no football at SDSU within 5 years. Color me worried.
|
|
|
|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Jun 13, 2010 17:37:56 GMT -8
I can't even respond to the many scenarios posted here so far. Some are reasonable, some are not. Dan Beebe is pitching a scenarion that the 10 teams currently in the Big 12 stay. He is asking TV for a new deal that would offer $17 million per team annually. They would also allow Texas its own network, and probably give some of their individual cuts to Texas. If this deal flies, the MWC will probably lose at least 2 teams to the PAC-10. Its all getting crazy, and we need to wait until Tuesday to see if Texas pulls the trigger on the move to the PAC-16, or decides to stay. Please read: texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803Why would we lose 2 teams to the Pac 10, that would give them 13 teams  |
|
|
|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Jun 13, 2010 17:46:54 GMT -8
Interesting article...my gut tells me that this may actually work and we will lose Utah to the Pac 10. If that is the case, the MWC can either stay with the 9 teams (basically a swap of Boise State for Utah) or they could look for the 'best' non-BCS team west of the Mississippi to get back to 10 teams.
What will be interesting if the Texas, Tech, OSU, OU go to the Pac 10 and A&M goes to the SEC. Both conference would have an odd # of teams. Does the Pac 10 take Kansas or Utah to get to 16...who does the SEC add (Memphis?) to get to 14? If the Pac 10 does add Utah to take A&M's place, what does the MWC just pick up the remaining 5 Big 12 teams and move to 14 teams....man my head is spinning. The MWC & SDSU will still be no worse than they are (i.e. be the best non-BCS league in Football and Basketball).
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 13, 2010 17:59:57 GMT -8
I think everyone except the conference has to step back and take a breath - maybe for 48 hours. A couple of things occur to me despite the fact that I'm not all that up on Texass academic politics. First, it seems to me that hauling ass to the Smack 10 offers UT a couple of things. First, it offers them a chance to dump the deadwood, namely Baylor, that was forced upon them by Richards in '94.
And second, by going to the Smack 10 with only TT and maybe TAMU, but maybe not, it gets them somewhat out from under the boot of the Texass legislature and administration because they would no longer have to have the little sisters trailing along behind them. Once that's taken care of, there's not a lot the Texass government can do to force them to "take care" of the less fortunate.
In '94 they managed to shed TCU, Rice and SMU and I have no doubt they'd love to see Baylor gone as well. What I find the most interesting part of this is if they do jump, we'll see the academic arrogance of UT come up against the far greater academic arrogance of the 4 California Smack 10 members.
That could work against the deal to a certain extent, given that UT would no longer be the only big boy on the block, but it does appear that UT may want the cache that comes from the perceived (and in two cases actual) academic reputation held by the California schools (that would be Cal and Stanford - USuckC and UCSmellA ain't anywhere near what they think they are).
So I do believe it comes down to those two things - does UT still want to be saddled with Baylor and the political baggage that carries and do they want to get into the conference that has always held itself up as being academically far beyond any of the other BCS conferences?
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 13, 2010 18:01:07 GMT -8
I can't even respond to the many scenarios posted here so far. Some are reasonable, some are not. Dan Beebe is pitching a scenarion that the 10 teams currently in the Big 12 stay. He is asking TV for a new deal that would offer $17 million per team annually. They would also allow Texas its own network, and probably give some of their individual cuts to Texas. If this deal flies, the MWC will probably lose at least 2 teams to the PAC-10. Its all getting crazy, and we need to wait until Tuesday to see if Texas pulls the trigger on the move to the PAC-16, or decides to stay. Please read: texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803Why would we lose 2 teams to the Pac 10, that would give them 13 teams Actually, he wrote "at least 2 teams", so you pretty much asked the same question I did. I'd really like to know who he thinks the Smack 10 would take other than Utah. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by 83aztec on Jun 13, 2010 20:11:58 GMT -8
USC is not what they think they are UCLA is
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 13, 2010 20:28:57 GMT -8
The bottom line here is that we are at the mercy of ...well...everybody. We have no leverage and there are more than a few scenarios that would leave us out in the cold as a member of the WAC or worse, to me anyway, of a depleted MWC with Boise and the 7 dwarfs. This is the price you pay for basically stinking up the joint for over a decade. If we end up in any conference configuration that in any way shape or form makes us even LESS relevant than we are now, there will be no football at SDSU within 5 years. Color me worried. Having been a Casandra in terms of the possibility of Aztec football dying it would be foolish of me to now say that it will never, ever, no matter what, happen. But I will say that I am not too worried about the survival of our FB program. There are several reasons for that, but here is perhaps the most important.. . . BASKETBALL! Having, almost miraculously, built a highly competitive basketball program, it would be foolhardy to make a move that would certainly deal the BB program a body blow. With no FB, the school would have to align itself with a basketball only conference, and I don't have to tell you how lame those are in the Western United States. Do you think we would ever have even a far outside change of getting a Leonard if we were in the WCC or the Big West? Not a chance. No, football will survive. I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it, but the odds are in its favor. If you doubt that, just mention one non-football school in the West, except Gonzaga, that has any national standing based on basketball only. Even Fullerton, which has a find baseball program, is virtually anonymous nationally. Without football you are barely above intramural, and for that reason the Aztec nation will do what it takes to keep football going. AzWm PS: But it may be a struggle! |
|
choop
Bench Warmer
Posts: 52
|
Post by choop on Jun 14, 2010 6:45:24 GMT -8
I can't even respond to the many scenarios posted here so far. Some are reasonable, some are not. Dan Beebe is pitching a scenarion that the 10 teams currently in the Big 12 stay. He is asking TV for a new deal that would offer $17 million per team annually. They would also allow Texas its own network, and probably give some of their individual cuts to Texas. If this deal flies, the MWC will probably lose at least 2 teams to the PAC-10. Its all getting crazy, and we need to wait until Tuesday to see if Texas pulls the trigger on the move to the PAC-16, or decides to stay. Please read: texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803Why would we lose 2 teams to the Pac 10, that would give them 13 teams Sorry. Miss spoke. The combination of the PAC-10 and Big 12 could cause the loss of 2 teams. It seems that Texas is announcing today (Monday morning) That they are staying in the Big 12. The MWC is officially a target! |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Jun 14, 2010 6:49:42 GMT -8
Sorry. Misspoke. The combination of the PAC-10 and Big 12 could cause the loss of 2 teams. It seems that Texas is announcing today (Monday morning) That they are staying in the Big 12. The MWC is officially a target!
Sux, now the MWC is a target for the pacfudge & bigsmell to cherry pick. This is not good!
|
|
|
|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Jun 14, 2010 7:24:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by phys81 on Jun 14, 2010 7:43:29 GMT -8
It would be hilarious if the remaining Big 12 teams choose to
create a new league and Utah decides to stick with BYU and the
rest of the MWC. Then the PAC'ers would be stuck with
CO and no where else to go. ;D
|
|
