So the Big 12 has ten teams and the Big 10 has twelve teams. This is going to confuse someone.
yeah it is!! I was wondering if they were going to change the names of the conferences or what?
Also reports are that the Pac10 has invited Utah and they are going to announce it soon. That would mean the Pac12 with a championship game… Thats big for the Pac10(12) and for Utah to get a shot at a NC game if they can run the table like they did a couple years ago. Finally we’l get one of these mid majors into a big conference to see if they can “play with the big boys”
I just wish the Pac10 would have invited Boise State instead of Colorado. That would have been siiiiiiiick
.greg.
The Pac-10(+2) will need to start there season earlier to make room for their championship game. They start late as it is. The Big 10(+2) schedule should not need to be altered.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
So the Big 12 has ten teams and the Big 10 has twelve teams. This is going to confuse someone.[/quote]
Would it be less confusing if they updated their names from the Big 12 and the Big 10 to the Big 10 and the Big 12 respectively? =0)
^^yeah they should do a big name swap. That’d clear things up right away 
.greg.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The Big 10(+2) schedule should not need to be altered.[/quote]
there was a big article on ESPN yesterday about how they’re scrambling to figure out the Big10 (new big 12’s) schedual because it is already set for the next three seasons with travel arrangements and everything. They have to figure out the divisions, reshcedual all the games (not just football but everything) and figure out where they’re going to hold the championship game. Thats quite a bit of stuff to figure out. What I’m curious to see is if they go the North/South route will Michigan and Ohio state (who would undoutably be in opposite parts of the conference still have their yearly game? They would have to wouldnt they?
.greg.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The Big 10(+2) schedule should not need to be altered.[/quote]
there was a big article on ESPN yesterday about how they’re scrambling to figure out the Big10 (new big 12’s) schedual because it is already set for the next three seasons with travel arrangements and everything. They have to figure out the divisions, reshcedual all the games (not just football but everything) and figure out where they’re going to hold the championship game. Thats quite a bit of stuff to figure out. What I’m curious to see is if they go the North/South route will Michigan and Ohio state (who would undoutably be in opposite parts of the conference still have their yearly game? They would have to wouldnt they?
.greg.[/quote]
The Michigan/OSU would stand. I could not see how they could change that.
Just read this about A&M and the SEC. Had no idea it there was this much support for the move.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/978071.html
So maybe this is not quite all over yet.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]silverblood wrote:
the SEC wants to expand into the TEX/OKL market. that’s why TCU has been mentioned also. the SEC already has a market in Fla.
around here in SEC/ACC country a lot of people feel that Texas and Oklahoma want to go to a conference that won’t give them the wars the SEC will give them. the Pac 10 is no slouch but currently I feel the SEC is the best top to bottom in football.
[/quote]
What the SEC would run into trying to get OU and Texas is that the conference would also have to bring Oklahoma State and Texas A&M. Neither state legislatures (OK/TX) would allow the state schools to be separated.
Maybe you have heard something that I haven’t? How hard has the SEC gone after OU and Texas?
[/quote]
The article below delves into the talk that the SEC was trying to expand west (OU, OSU, TX, etc).