The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Viking]

Mack Brown on A&M in today's presser...

To me, a kid from north Dallas, the rivalry game was always UT/OU, not UT/A&M.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, aggy.

As I don't think BYU should ever play Utah again if we go to the B12, UT should not worry about playing A&M.

[Uncle Ted]

To me, a kid from north Dallas, the rivalry game was always UT/OU, not UT/A&M.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, aggy.

As I don't think BYU should ever play Utah again if we go to the B12, UT should not worry about playing A&M.

The new rival game for aTm is the Arkansas game played at JerryWorld. In fact, the next installment is this weekend. Given the aggie's performance last Saturday I suspect the hogs will win. It will be interesting if UT plays aTm in the future. I suspect they won't (every year).

As for the BYU vs Utah game. It would be a shame if that ended. I would rather drop the Utah State game.

[Viking]

The new rival game for aTm is the Arkansas game played at JerryWorld. In fact, the next installment is this weekend. Given the aggie's performance last Saturday I suspect the hogs will win. It will be interesting if UT plays aTm in the future. I suspect they won't (every year).

As for the BYU vs Utah game. It would be a shame if that ended. I would rather drop the Utah State game.

I'm sure I'm in the minority on ending the Utah game. I just don't think they matter for a team with a national following and a BCS league member.

[U-Ute]

It isn't smack, it is a legitimate question.

I believe part of the reason is the size of the exit fee required by the B12 coupled with the fact that the CU athletic department is swimming in debt. The PAC-12 wanted them and they needed the cash immediately to get out of the B12.

Utah didn't need any help like that. There was no exit fee and the athletic department has been running with no debt obligations. As a matter of fact, the PAC-12 offered Hill access to PAC-12 money if we needed it (low interest loans for facilities, coaching salaries, etc.), but as of yet, we haven't tapped that reserve. If anything, Utah waiting a year on the vesting front probably helped ease the financing of getting Colorado in since this was all being negotiated with the old television deal among 10 teams. Getting Colorado in helped get Utah in. Win/win.

I'm sure all of this made it a lot easier for Scott to sell the rest of the schools that Utah wouldn't be a drag on the conference finances.

The bottom line is that the two schools were coming from two different circumstances, and Scott tailored the transition of both schools based on what was needed. There was nothing punitive about it towards Utah, otherwise we could reasonably expect that kind of attitude from the conference in the future, and I don't think we'd want to be part of a conference that really didn't want us there.

[Paperback Writer]

Mack Brown on A&M in today's presser...
On A&M ... every university has a right to do what it thinks is best for them. Whether or not UT will play A&M in the future is up to Dodds, Powers and the regents. He's excited about the Big 12 moving forward. Wanted a regional league where coaches and parents can see their kids. Important for players, parents, coaches and fans to be able to see games.

And the Big 12 is a good fit for Texas because the Longhorns rarely have to recruit outside of Texas. That model doesn't work as well for schools that have to recruit nationally like Notre Dame, BYU, and Nebraska. What's Mack's feelings about all those other Texas prepsters who don't make the cut to get an offer from the Longhorns? If UT was so intent on a "regional league", TCU would surely be in the Big 12. Just think of all the HS coaches and parents missing out on watching their kids play for the Horned Frogs!

[Paperback Writer]

To me, a kid from north Dallas, the rivalry game was always UT/OU, not UT/A&M.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, aggy.

As I don't think BYU should ever play Utah again if we go to the B12, UT should not worry about playing A&M.

To me, a kid from Lincoln, Nebraska, the rivalry game was always Oklahoma-Nebraska not Texas-OU. That changed when the Big 8 added the Texas schools and years later facilitated Nebraska joining the Big Ten. And the Huskers didn't let the door hit them on their way out.

I suspect the Aggies feel likewise. In the SWC, it was Longhorns-Aggies. In the Big 12, it became Texas-OU.

[Omaha 680]

To me, a kid from Lincoln, Nebraska, the rivalry game was always Oklahoma-Nebraska not Texas-OU. That changed when the Big 8 added the Texas schools and years later facilitated Nebraska joining the Big Ten. And the Huskers didn't let the door hit them on their way out.

I suspect the Aggies feel likewise. In the SWC, it was Longhorns-Aggies. In the Big 12, it became Texas-OU.

What, the contrived rivarly the Big 12 tried to push with Colorado didn't do it for you? Yeah, me neither.

[Goatnapper'96]

To me, a kid from Lincoln, Nebraska, the rivalry game was always Oklahoma-Nebraska not Texas-OU. That changed when the Big 8 added the Texas schools and years later facilitated Nebraska joining the Big Ten. And the Huskers didn't let the door hit them on their way out.

I suspect the Aggies feel likewise. In the SWC, it was Longhorns-Aggies. In the Big 12, it became Texas-OU.

In this post is my supreme confidence that BYU will be in the Big-12. Texas and OU need each other, they have made their bed with each other the past 15 years, and I think that is only viable in the Big-12 or some form of a midwestern conference. That conference is going to need 12 teams and BYU strikes me as the most viable expansion options. If Mizzou leaves, the conference needs 4 to get to 12 and I hope two of those include Boise State and BYU. I would like BYU to have a regional rival in the Big 12 and BYU versus BSU could develop into an exciting rivalry.

[Blueintheface]

In this post is my supreme confidence that BYU will be in the Big-12. Texas and OU need each other, they have made their bed with each other the past 15 years, and I think that is only viable in the Big-12 or some form of a midwestern conference. That conference is going to need 12 teams and BYU strikes me as the most viable expansion options. If Mizzou leaves, the conference needs 4 to get to 12 and I hope two of those include Boise State and BYU. I would like BYU to have a regional rival in the Big 12 and BYU versus BSU could develop into an exciting rivalry.

I just hope it doesn't continue to be a one-sided rivalry.

[TripletDaddy]

I believe part of the reason is the size of the exit fee required by the B12 coupled with the fact that the CU athletic department is swimming in debt. The PAC-12 wanted them and they needed the cash immediately to get out of the B12.

Utah didn't need any help like that. There was no exit fee and the athletic department has been running with no debt obligations. As a matter of fact, the PAC-12 offered Hill access to PAC-12 money if we needed it (low interest loans for facilities, coaching salaries, etc.), but as of yet, we haven't tapped that reserve. If anything, Utah waiting a year on the vesting front probably helped ease the financing of getting Colorado in since this was all being negotiated with the old television deal among 10 teams. Getting Colorado in helped get Utah in. Win/win.

I'm sure all of this made it a lot easier for Scott to sell the rest of the schools that Utah wouldn't be a drag on the conference finances.

The bottom line is that the two schools were coming from two different circumstances, and Scott tailored the transition of both schools based on what was needed. There was nothing punitive about it towards Utah, otherwise we could reasonably expect that kind of attitude from the conference in the future, and I don't think we'd want to be part of a conference that really didn't want us there.

This reasoning doesn't make any sense. Utah doesn't get a full share for several years because it doesn't have any debt? Colorado gets a full share by year 2 despite swimming in debt? And despite the cash crunch, the PAC somehow had money to offer to Utah, anyway?

Colorado paid about 7mm to leave the B12, but it isn't even certain how much of that was cash. How much, if any, was paid by the PAC? If I'm understanding your post, you are suggesting that money for the next several years that would have gone to Utah was instead funneled to Colorado immediately to help them exit?

It is apparent that nobody on this board knows the answer to this question. That includes me, btw.

[Goatnapper'96]

I just hope it doesn't continue to be a one-sided rivalry.

I concur. In fact if it does, then it is not likely to develop into a rivalry. There needs to be some form of parity for it to get really emotional and fun.

[byu71]

I concur. In fact if it does, then it is not likely to develop into a rivalry. There needs to be some form of parity for it to get really emotional and fun.

If the loser has a coach like Wayne Howard it can remain a rivalry even if the loser gets their butt's kicked year in and year out.

[Blueintheface]

I concur. In fact if it does, then it is not likely to develop into a rivalry. There needs to be some form of parity for it to get really emotional and fun.

If BSU gets picked up I hope Chris Peterson gets poached first. I also hope that those fine athletes in the 208 find their way to the Deseret (also their SoCal barely-qualifying students as well).

[Scorcho]

I'm sure I'm in the minority on ending the Utah game. I just don't think they matter for a team with a national following and a BCS league member.

and considering the Y has lost 7 of the last 10

[Goatnapper'96]

This reasoning doesn't make any sense. Utah doesn't get a full share for several years because it doesn't have any debt? Colorado gets a full share by year 2 despite swimming in debt? And despite the cash crunch, the PAC somehow had money to offer to Utah, anyway?

Colorado paid about 7mm to leave the B12, but it isn't even certain how much of that was cash. How much, if any, was paid by the PAC? If I'm understanding your post, you are suggesting that money for the next several years that would have gone to Utah was instead funneled to Colorado immediately to help them exit?

It is apparent that nobody on this board knows the answer to this question. That includes me, btw.

Why is that surprising? Essentially Utah valued membership in the Pac and for the Utes to get to the Pac Colorado had to come with them. Without Colorado getting Utah $$ for the first few years it could not afford to go along. Some chicks like a guy enough to go dutch on dates because his ass is broke! Utah's financial situation allowed them to limp along without the money for a few years in order to faciliatate a richer future than what the status quo afforded.