things are going to get interesting.
damn rivals and their subscription fees… >:D
ah, my bad Scollie. Reports that the Pac 10 is looking to invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Ok State & Colorado.
Wow. So MVC gets to invite the scraps that the Pac 10 and Big 10 leave behind.
You mean MWC?
Texas is not on the Pacific. The thought of Texas vs Washington in conference doesn’t make sense, but it’s obviously not about that anymore, it’s about $$$$$$$$$. I guess the Pac 10 makes more.
In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]
When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch
[quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]
When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]
You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.
Keep in mind that UT has it’s own TV network and is expanding it. They DO NOT want to be part of a shared payout.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]
When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]
You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]
What does that have to do with anything?
Keep in mind that UT has it’s own TV network and is expanding it. They DO NOT want to be part of a shared payout.[/quote]
Have a hard time believing they are raking in $20 mil on their own station, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Keep in mind that UT has it’s own TV network and is expanding it. They DO NOT want to be part of a shared payout.[/quote]
Have a hard time believing they are raking in $20 mil on their own station, but feel free to prove me wrong.[/quote]It’s Texas. Isn’t that proof enough?
http://thepigskindoctors.com/2010/04/texas-high-school-gets-60-million-football-stadium/
Texas in the PAC 10 is no worse than a school from Wisconsin being in the Big East… but yep, you were right. It’s all about the $$$$$$$$.
This would leave several big-time schools without a home. I think Nebraska will end up in the Big 10, but what about Kansas, K State, and Iowa State. They all have pretty good basketball teams, but poor football for the most part.
[quote=“CharSFNiners, post:12, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]
When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]
You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]
What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]
The Pac-10 requires unanimous votes to add new members, so getting a school like Stanford to agree will take more than money. Last time, when AZ and AZ St. were added, USA had to threaten to leave to get STanford to approve. None of these schools but Texas would merit that tactic from the pro-expansion Pac-10 schools this time.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:17, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:12, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]
When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]
You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]
What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]
The Pac-10 requires unanimous votes to add new members, so getting a school like Stanford to agree will take more than money. Last time, when AZ and AZ St. were added, USC had to threaten to leave to get STanford to approve. None of these schools but Texas would merit that tactic from the pro-expansion Pac-10 schools this time.[/quote]
Well since you’re the Stanford AD, what’s their problem with the whole thing? I’d like to think the amount of money they are stating would change just about anyone’s mind.
Keep in mind that UT has it’s own TV network and is expanding it. They DO NOT want to be part of a shared payout.[/quote]
Have a hard time believing they are raking in $20 mil on their own station, but feel free to prove me wrong.[/quote]It’s Texas. Isn’t that proof enough?
http://thepigskindoctors.com/2010/04/texas-high-school-gets-60-million-football-stadium/[/quote]
No… seeing how I’d suspect the “UT sports channel” is a premium charge and not a basic cable channel, thus limiting the options/households, and is likely only available in Texas (and possibly some surrounding states, but not very likely).
[quote=“CharSFNiners, post:18, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:17, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:12, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:
“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”
The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]
When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]
You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]
What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]
The Pac-10 requires unanimous votes to add new members, so getting a school like Stanford to agree will take more than money. Last time, when AZ and AZ St. were added, USC had to threaten to leave to get STanford to approve. None of these schools but Texas would merit that tactic from the pro-expansion Pac-10 schools this time.[/quote]
Well since you’re the Stanford AD, what’s their problem with the whole thing? I’d like to think the amount of money they are stating would change just about anyone’s mind.[/quote]
Stanford is a lot like Duke. They value education over athletics, basketball over football. They’re priorities are not football and money oriented. But hey, perhaps they can be bribed.