pianoknight

I'm glad for Mizzou, but would've preferred them in the BigTen. I agree about Kansas, KState, Iowa State and Baylor. They'll be left in the cold. Texas Tech might be lucky enough to piggyback off the Longhorns and find a home. Meanwhile, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State are sort of a 2-for-1 special, apparently. When this is all said and done, the Big12East mashup will probably fall apart or get relegated to non-BCS status.

The ACC is stockpiling teams that are irrelevant in football. In football. Let's just get that out of the way, because Syracuse and Pitt are putting the ACC in place to be the premier basketball conference. However, their strategy seems to be relying on safety in numbers, which is reactive instead of proactive. By bloating themselves to 14, 16 or 18 teams, they'll be marginally "safe" when schools defect to other conferences. From a football (and thus, revenue) perspective, the ACC winds up with a net deficit. Bringing in Pitt or Syracuse makes little difference if you lose a school like Virginia Tech or Florida State. Yes, the ACC is staying afloat but I just don't see them making the "power broker" moves like A&M/SEC or Nebraska/BigTen. If the BigTen and SEC go to 16 teams, the ACC could be in trouble. Even more so if the Big East remnant merges with the Big 12 (which appears likely, given West Virginia's move). The ACC is the new Big East - a basketball monstrosity with a few decent football schools. They'll keep their BCS bid, but with all the power moves happening elsewhere, they'll probably just keep sending the Hokies or Seminoles to the Orange Bowl and hope that every once in a blue moon they'll have a title-run team.

Our society of rewarding mediocrity has resulted in Oklahoma State and Missouri (and probably A&M) Divisional Champ Rings. Really? 5/12ths of the Big XII was a "divisional champ." That's nearly 50% of the whole damn conference. And as a Husker fan, I choose not to recognize our "half claim" in 2008 - Missouri won the division fair and square. Unless you play in your conference title game, you don't deserve a half-claim to the division. What's next? Auburn gets a ring for winning the Iron Bowl? Fail.

I heartily disagree. If your point is that Missouri generates more money than Nebraska, then you have not seen this article from Forbes that outlines the Most (Financially) Valuable Teams in the NCAA. Nebraska is #4, while Mizzou doesn't even make the list. The report looks at the four following criteria, ranked in order of importance: 1. Money generated by football that goes to academic purposes. 2. Athletic Department profit. 3. Conference dividends (which includes television money). 4. Spending by local communities (buying team merchandise, etc). According to the report, Nebraska's program is responsible for generating $93 million annually. Currently, Nebraska's population is 1.8 million, which further points to the fact that Nebraska has a national audience. If only the 1.8 million people within the state were solely responsible for $93 million in revenue, every single man, woman, and child would have to spend $50 on Cornhusker-related purchases. While $50/head doesn't seem like a large number, especially on an annual basis, consider that if this logic were applied to the State of Missouri, the Tigers would be making over $300 million per year, or nearly 3 times what Texas (#1 in this report) makes. Jim Delaney wasn't just looking at states with a high population count, he was looking for national brands that will appeal to a wide audience. And before I get villified as a Husker Homer, I'm from Missouri. My family all lives there. And it's more of a pro-state anyway. Royals and Cardinals. Rams and Chiefs. And even on the college level, people are split between the Tigers and Jayhawks. Those reasons, amongst others, are why Missouri didn't get the nod. Now, that being said, from a purely selfish reason I would love to see Mizzou in the next wave of BigTen expansion. I've always enjoy playing them on the field.

I'm a visual learner, so here's a quick representation of everything that's transpired so far. When a team has moved, they are grayed out in their old conference and appear with their color in the new conference. To my knowledge, Hawaii and TCU have not finalized their moves, but are expected to soon.

Agree on both points. I'd prefer some shifting between the Big East and the ACC, actually. Just make the Big East a basketball-first conference and the ACC could be the football focused conference. They could even partner up on the conference level and agree to some non-con games in their respective sports. Throw Duke, NC, Wake, etc... into the BigEast and trade them off for teams like Pitt, Syracuse, WV, Cincy... Wait you just traded basketball schools for basketball schools (West Virginia counts for the sake of them making the Final Four last year) If it's gonna be BE basketball-first and ACC football-first, then the ACC might as well get South Florida and Rutgers in that deal in addition to Cincy Yeah, my point really is that both the BE and the ACC have been weak in football the last few years. And by focusing across multiple sports, they spread themselves too thin. If they were to just concentrate on their strengths, they would both see a rise in profit and competitiveness, without peeing in each other's pools. Nobody beats BE basketball and the ACC could pretty much be guaranteed a permanent BCS bid with a roster that includes VT, GT, Miami, FSU and adds schools like Pitt, WV, Cincy and Rutgers.

Agree on both points. I'd prefer some shifting between the Big East and the ACC, actually. Just make the Big East a basketball-first conference and the ACC could be the football focused conference. They could even partner up on the conference level and agree to some non-con games in their respective sports. Throw Duke, NC, Wake, etc... into the BigEast and trade them off for teams like Pitt, Syracuse, WV, Cincy...

Colorado ain't exactly a rose, either. Makes them perfect rivals. They should call this the "Game you watch after the Ohio State-Michigan, Nebraska-Iowa, Virginia-Virginia Tech, Notre Dame-Navy, Florida State-Miami, USC-UCLA, Oregon-Oregon State, Texas-Oklahoma, Wisconsin-Minnesota" Rivalry Game. In other news, Vince McMahon is starting the XFOC, Xtreme Federation of Olympic Curling.

Agreed. One of the pitfalls Scott was trying to avoid was the shockingly low attendance at ACC Championship Games. However, both the SEC and the Big12 use a neutral site as well and the stadiums are always packed for CCGs. I guess that's more a criticism of poor football in the ACC than the fact that they use a neutral site. I think the Pac 10 would be silly not to use a neutral site. Look at all the NFL stadiums in the region! Seahawks, Raiders, 49ers, Chargers, Cardinals and now the Broncos, too. Not to mention other locations like Vegas. Regardless of the stadium location, they need to make sure they promote the game, though.

I can see why the California Quartet of USC, UCLA, Stanford and Cal would rather not be split up. I think the Pac 10 needs to look at the BigTen and consider a model that tries to maintain rivalries. IMO, the zipper format is probably best. Onto the ACC. If/When the day of the super-conference comes, do you see the ACC surviving? I think if the SEC expanded to 16 teams, they would easily take Florida State and Miami, and probably Clemson and Georgia Tech, too. By doing that, every team in the league would be guaranteed at least one in-state rival. On the northern side, I could then see the BigTen making a play for Virginia Tech and maybe Boston College, but who else? Maryland, Virginia? I think if that day comes, Duke and North Carolina might join the BigEast to even FURTHER push that league's basketball dominance.

Yeah right, only if a Texas based team were in the Pac 12... I think Jerry Jones just bought the entire state of Colorado and is going to make it part of Texas in order to make this happen.

With the Big12 going to 10 teams (and losing their CCG), I wouldn't be surprised to see Jerry World in Dallas extend an invitation to the Pac 12.

I think it was Beano Cook on ESPN who said that the last time Utah State beat the Cougars, Brigham Young was the coach at BYU.

^^^ ROFL... hexadecimal. Here's my ideal BigTen alignments. There would be a protected cross over game in the case where traditional rivals are split up (OSU-UM, etc) ================================================================================================= 12 TEAM Division A (Mostly East) = Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State Division B (Mostly West) = Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State ================================================================================================= 14 TEAM or 16 TEAM Division A (Straight East) = Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Pitt Division B (Straight West) = Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Notre Dame, Missouri ================================================================================================= Crazy Shuffle Realignment North Division = Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Penn State, Iowa South Division = Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Alabama, Miami, Georgia

I think if the BigTen (somehow, magically) can add Notre Dame and Rutgers, the divisions can be East/West and maintain competitive fairness. WEST Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Notre Dame EAST Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers Yes, the East Division would have tOSU, PSU, and Mich, but Nebraska and ND would get bolstered by Iowa and Wisconsin. I think those alignments would be the best.

Shaq playing for IcyHot seems weird to me.

I completely agree with you. Unless we go all mega-expansion, I can see the major 6 conferences changing a bit. ACC, SEC, Big10, Big12, MTN West and Pac10. I really don't see the Big East surviving all this shake-up, not in football anyway. But if the Big10 goes supernova, then expect the ACC and SEC to snatch up 4 more schools each and possibly the Pac10 to follow suit and grab six more schools- likely taking schools like Utah or Colorado, which would essentially make the MTN West become the new WAC.

I agree that it's unique. Having been to some Beef games though, I think it's a good fit for the city when you consider that when Omaha was founded it was a major stockyard / meatpacking hub. All the ranchers from the west would bring their herds into town and then they'd ship the meat down the Missouri River. I'm hearing a bunch of Boise State going to the MTN West rumors, too. Anyone else think so?

If you did... No one will care because they're too busy swooning over the UFL's Nighthawks. I don't think there's going to be too much swooning over the Nighthawks, at least long term. As a Nebraska native, I can attest that they're shiny and new, but unless they find success soon, they'll vanish into distant memory. Look at the Omaha Beef. Or the Knights hockey team. Nebraska will ALWAYS be a Husker-first state. I don't care if the damn Yankees, Packers, Cowboys, Lakers and Red Wings all moved to Omaha, people would still put the Big Red first.

I'm sure the millions of people living in Kansas City, Omaha, Denver, Salt Lake, Austin, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, Oklahoma City and others would disagree with you on that. My point is that there is a "frontier" of schools around the Missouri River and then a small pocket of Utah-Colorado until you hit Washington-Oregon-California.

Pershing was a dump when my Dad went to grad school there back in the 1970s. This building is needed. Agreed. As a Omaha native for 23 years, I conclude that Lincoln always plays second fiddle to Omaha in terms of entertainment, national appeal, etc. The success of the city is linked to the success of the university, so I think it's a great idea for the new arena. Coming back to the "Big-Whatever-Conference-They'll-Call-It," they would need to split up Ohio State and Michigan. If the Huskers join, I could see Michigan and NU as the two "anchor" schools in a West Division with OSU and Penn St anchoring in the East. Part of the problem is geography though- if you look at the following link, you'll notice that there is a sharp north-south line where Nebraska, Kansas, KState, etc. all stop and then there's a vast wasteland until you get to the West Coast. The only small pocket of teams lies around the Colorado and Utah schools. If the Pac-10, ACC and SEC follow this expansion trend, there will be a number of schools left out to dry. I can seriously see teams like Iowa State or even TCU getting the short end of the stick here. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=101637729041165649981.0004792447fe1db80b1c0&ll=44.087585,-93.427734&spn=42.711005,112.148437&z=4

While ND makes a lot of sense, there's strong feelings against them to. JoePa maintains that they were given a chance back in the 90's when Penn State joined and since they declined once they shouldn't be offered again. Also the Big East does make a much easier route to the [edit] BCS [edit]. Of course the Pac 10, SEC and ACC are all looking to expand so this whole thing is a giant FUBAR. What do you guys think about this? Assume NU and Mizzou stay put, and the Big XII adds Houston, TCU, Rice and North Texas. The new South Division would be the Texas schools (UT, A&M, TTU, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Rice, NTU) and the North Division would be the same (NU, CU, KU, KSU, MU, ISU) and they bump up Oklahoma and Ok State to the North.

As a NU fan, I hated the shotgun wedding between the old Big 8 and the SWC. When the Texas schools joined the league they were able to shoehorn in some deals that gave more favor to the South Division. The two division model also completed screwed the NU-OU rivalry, which has been seen as one of the more prominent rivalries in college football. IF, and a big IF, the Big Ten takes NU and Mizzou, I'm on board. Here's why. Mizzou is technically Nebraska's oldest rival and that feud would stay intact. Honestly, I could careless about Kansas, KState or Iowa State and replacing them with teams like Indiana, Illinois or Minnesota would be a welcome change. Next, the Colorado "rivalry." Let's be honest here, NU has never really considered it a rivalry and despite a few recent wins for the Buffs, NU still holds the series lead at 48-18-2. When you're ahead 30 games (years) it hardly seems like a rivalry. Dump CU, we don't need them. Finally, assuming OU stays in the Big XII or moves to another conference, it frees up the universities to schedule the NU-OU game as a season opener every year. Consider that that series is 38-44-3 (Oklahoma ahead). Guess who Nebraska played against in their very first game in Memorial Stadium? Yup, Oklahoma. Which teams gave each other their only losses in 1964, 1966, 1971, 1975, 1978, 1979, and 1987, sidelining their National Title ambitions? Yup NU and OU. As a Husker fan, of course I'm biased. But I'm thrilled about the possible schedule matchups. NU-OU every year as a season opener. NU-Michigan, NU-Ohio State, NU-Penn State! Who wouldn't want to watch those games every year? The Big 10 is all about tradition and legacy, which is something that both NU and Mizzou fit.