Which Conference came out on top on expansion??

[dabrockster]

Now that the dust has settled some from the Conference expansion that has taken place. Which conference do you think came out best?

I hate to say it but Jim Delany and the Big Ten in my opinion came out on top.

They were the ones who began this Expansion feeding frenzy and caused the PAC 10 to rush into the game and swing for the fences (Pac 10 CAN"T be out done by the Big 10!!). Even when I thought the PAC 10 was going to win this battle, Jim Delaney and the Big 10 remained calm and even in their decision and what they wanted to accomplish. They did not get involved in all the massive expansion talk but let the feeding frenzy play out on its own...

And the main reason I think they came out on top was the idea of having a chmapionship game over the next few years is sweet. It was what I have been looking for from the Big 10 (They needed it to remain competitive in Bowls games as well). The idea of a Nebraska vs Ohio State or Nebraska vs. Michigan etc for a conference championship is causing me to have goatnapper dreams..

In the end, Jim Delaney took a gamble and they could of easily looked stupid in this, but they came out the winner imo..





Who do you think won the battle of expansion..

[BoylenOver]

It's hard to pick a clear-cut winner. The Big Ten and PAC-10 both accomplished what they wanted to accomplish (addition of more markets+title game), but instead of hitting home runs (Texas/OU/TAMU; Notre Dame), they hit stand-up doubles.

Considering the Big XII was almost left for dead, they also win in this scenario. Beebe dodged a major bullet (for now).

The MWC managed to replace one of their departing top programs with another top program. Even considering the move Utah's making, I would've liked to see what kind of damage a MWC with TCU, Boise, Utah, and BYU could've done to the CFB landscape. As is, it's still the 6th-best conference in the country, and will feature many great games over the years.

I'd probably have to vote PAC-10, but only because they needed the increase in revenue more than the Big Ten and Big XII.

[DrumNFeather]

Texas is really the big winner in all of this...but I wouldn't say the big 12 is.

Like BO, I think that the P10 and B10 accomplished what they wanted.

The MWC did a good job of replacing Utah before they left and they might not be done.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Texas is really the big winner in all of this...but I wouldn't say the big 12 is.

Like BO, I think that the P10 and B10 accomplished what they wanted.

The MWC did a good job of replacing Utah before they left and they might not be done.

[DrumNFeather]

I just mean they may look at a Houston or a Nevada or someone else. I have no info to suggest this, but they might want to be a 10 team league. Who knows.

[Indy Coug]

The Big 10 actually added a program worth something -- literally and figuratively. They got their championship game.

The PAC10 added two marginal programs and ignored a less marginal program, despite all of the financial and competitive reasons they should have

The BigXII -- remains to be seen, but losing Nebraska and their championship game (and possibly a good shot for an at-large BCS bid) are not improvements.

[Surfah]

The Big 10 actually added a program worth something -- literally and figuratively. They got their championship game.

The PAC10 added two marginal programs and ignored a less marginal program, despite all of the financial and competitive reasons they should have

The BigXII -- remains to be seen, but losing Nebraska and their championship game (and possibly a good shot for an at-large BCS bid) are not improvements.

Exactly. The Big 10 added lots of value. A decent program. Championship game. And enlarged their footprint for their money making TV network.

The Pac 10 got their championship game. But took on debt to do so and still have no TV deal.

The Big 12 remains to be seen. Despite losing two teams and their championship game, they renegotiated their TV deals.