I should have wrote some softball story instead, but...

So many of the expansion 'news' stories are the same story
repeated over and over. The stories are constantly updated,
and evolving like a real time drama , on the internet.

However, the greatest 'untold' story going on here, is reading
hundreds and possibly thousands of college football fans comments.

We are each possesed with the imaginative desire to play 'god' -
re arranging conferences at will. Second, we are each blessed with the
innate ability to trash the 'other' teams. And conferences.
The Texas fans and the Texas bashers are plentiful at leasst online.
The SEC fans are prodigiously at assuming that their conference is
the 'best' . They just need to add Florida State, or whatever...

We are right back where we started, with Nebraska going Big-10,
Colorado joining the Pac-10, and Boise State going to the MWC.
After all the remaining Big-12 schools chose to stay together,
some sense of after-thought and 'sanity' is returning to football.

Like hundreds of people commenting online, it was easy to send
Arkansas to the Big-12, or the Big-12 north to the MWC .
Or to raid Conference USAs' stash of Texas teams to fill up the Big-12.

After the dust has settled, the main topic seems to be ;
who will be the 12th team in the Pac-10 ? Utah is the most common answer.
Delve a little deeper into the subject; and I am faced with reality:
the Mountain West Conference is, and has been superior to the Pac-10
in football and mens basketball athletics for a few years.

I would think that prying Utah from the MWC would be impossible.
They have a good thing going, and there is no incentive that would lead them
to join the Pac-10. Is there ? Immediately after the Big-12 announced an
agreement to stay together, minus CU and NU , I came back to my senses.
The most logical, sensible team to add the Pac-10 is Colorado State.
It is simple: it is 50 miles from Boulder to Fort Collins.
I am hoping to 'dump' this line of expansion posts, and move on.
I will gladly accept any team the Pac-10 adds, just not Texas...thanks!

this is the time ..we will remember

The news is only beginning to roll out these last two days.
On thursday we learned of Colorado going to the PAC-10.
Today we learned of Nebraska being accepted into the Big-10 .
Boise State has accepted an invite to join the Mountain West .
As an Arizona Wildcat fan, and a fan of pac-10 sports in general,
I would like to welcome Colorado into the conference.

The sad news is that Mizzouri has not been offered the same.
After they had officials speaking publicly about interest in the Big10,
nothing has come from that .

Now, I am stuck with the waiting to see what Texas does.
So many football fans paint them as a coward school, who will go to
where the wins are the easiest. Most think this woud be the pac-10.
I know the traditions of Texas is not cowardice, this is my sincere
apology to the UT crowd. I just prefer to watch pac-10 sports.

My team won the national championship , Arizona 1997 basketball -
I don't care for the talk of playoffs or the need to pick a champion.
I just want to watch a game, even if it's the last place team in the league.

Here is hope against hope; for Texas is better fit to 'slug it out' with
Florida and who ever else has it 'going on' in the SEC, each year.

Fanning the flames, Nebraska has revealed some detail of the Texas
proclamation aimed at its northern counterparts to 'remain true' to the big-12.
So, 'those northern schools' ( Nebrasa,Mizzou) are supposed to be listening, and obedient while Texas is taking
offers from 2 or more 'other' conferences . How childish for such an esteemed school.
Those are grounds for divorce, and no Nebraska isn't snow white.

the picture

One mans view, because there are no losers in our view.
The Mountain West would be wise to pick up Colorado.
Naturally, they may end up with the Oklahoma and Kansas
schools yet again.

The Chili Conference, part II

It's kind of a 'north versus south' battle of words in the Big12 .
I was reading a good article, about how everything the Big12 does is
centered around Texas. New stadium in Dallas, and the Big12 football
championship game will be hosted there for a few years.
Kansas City would continue to host the conferences basketball tourney.

The Omaha World-Herald has an article that speculates that
Nebraska is already gone. We will hear by friday if this is true.
article 1
And there is talk that the US Congress could be called on to review the procedings;
article 2

Nebraska didn't go to the Big10 looking for a change.
Nope. The Big10 went to Nebraska with a proposition.

The Big12 'television market' centers around the viewership of Texas TVs.
What i really wonder is, how many television sets - from sports bars
all the way down to your home viewers - how many of those woud tune in
to a Nebraska versus Kansas game ? Do they actually care ?
And conversely, would those Texas TVs tune in for an Oregon versus Cal
shoot-out ? We all have our favorites, but i just wonder about the overall mass effect. My guess would be they are more interested in SEC or top 10 games.
It's not hard to imagine TVs in Texas are tuned into games that involve a texas school. I am relying on that time tested,
unproven theory (we know this is true) that statistics lie.
Hence, trying to 'corral' the texas TVs is not going to change peoples viewing habits.

I still propose a 'Chili Conference' an athletic conference full of Texas universities.
Expanding on my earlier list here are the majors -
Texas,Texas Tech,Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Baylor, Rice, Houston,
UTEP, well that is 8 and that woud be a terrific conference.
You would have to 'beg,borrow,and steal' to get these schools all in one conference,
but it's by far the best idea to get Texas out of the PAC10 and/or Big10 discussions.

In fact, I would split up the Texas schools if i could, and send at least one
to the SEC. and then we could take Arkansas to join with the Kansas,Oklahoma,
and Mizzou to form a new 'MidWest' conference.
So, imagine :
Arkansas,Mizzou,Kansas,Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa St,
and either add either 'one' Texas school or Colorado for an eight team conference.

The possibility of adding Creighton,UNO (Nebraska-Omaha) , SWMSU(SW Mizzou),
Northern Iowa, South Dakota State,Wichita State,Oral Roberts,
or some other 'low to mid' majors raises the number of schools and the interest in
the small town midwest markets. The little TVs.

This would put a dent the Missouri Valley Conference, but you need to draw
viewers from the KC,Omaha,and Springfield(MO) markets to create interest.

hey football guys, what about the other sports, a-holes.

It's pretty dull in the basketball/ football off-seasons .
The olympics and the athletic championships - track and field -
are my only distractions . Well, this year, we have expan$ion.

All these 'football' 'guys' are talking about expanding leagues.
Rubbish. There just aren't enough Oregon players getting arrested and
making headlines this year. Or . Why waste my time ? I am anti-expan$ion.

Like I said, it's all just blowing hot air right now. While all the tuitions and
costs of education go up, somebody decides that athletics - $300 million dollar
stadiums and facilities - is the most important factor.
There doesn't seem to be any money in televising 'eltectric car' races or academic competition.
Yet each year, we have a story about the National Spelling Bee, don't we.

A few years ago we had co-champions in PAC10 football.
Was it Oregon and USC , who did not play each other in the regular season ?
Ah, so we get a 'you must play all 9 other league teams rule' . Suck.
So now we have 10 teams who play a 13 game schedule, in football.
The basketball schedules have worked, yet the teams are approaching 30 games
a season.

Adding Colorado (to the PAC10) would be interesting to me,
because they are one of those innovative schools, and don't forget Ralphie (?).
Nobody wants to play Utah or BYU if they can avoid it.
BYU would give the conference a huge shot of credibility ..
a legacy of great teams from 'out west' .
New Mexico ,the obvious 'other' candidate for pac10 expansion.
I would rather see them add: SDSU , UNLV , Fresno State, than any texas schools.

How do i say it... I hate texas football. i have been 'stuck' watching big12 games
since the league was invented. I much prefer the Big10 and PAC10 games, thanks
to ESPN and Fox Sports.
The competition in Texas is such that they could form their own league:
Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Baylor, Rice, Texas El Paso,
North Texas (?) , and throw in Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
Call it the Chili league . Get out of my face, and off my television.

Alas, expansion is a terrible idea for real competition. Actually, the Big 12 was
deficient in scheduling its' top teams in the regular season.
I wish i could give examples, but anybody who knows big12 knows that schedules are
hit n miss , unless you're oklahoma vs. texas or texas tech vs texas....

The same applies to the South Eastern Conference, the scheduling is such that
if you happen to avoid playing Alabama, it could get you a bowl bid. Not
to bash any particular team. That one missed game,and your team goes from 5-7 to 6-6.

The BIG 10 would never be the same, if the expan$ion removed classic games
from the schedule. What if OSU and Michigan didn't play a regular season football game ?
How would you like to see the Cornhuskers at Wisconsin instead ? No history there.
In fact, I'm not sure if the big10 plays a round robin schedule in football.
Notre Dame is a stinker. They would dilute the conference...
Mizzou is a wannabe. Although the games with KU KSU and Arkansas are great for the region.
And if all this eliminates a Nebraska vs Oklahoma yearly football game, it's a
huge sacrifice of quality for dollars.

I pause to think , where exactly do the television networks -
the guys whose money makes talk of expan$ion valid - come from ?

I think of NRK, forced to show Eurovision 2010 because Norway won the
2009 competition. Guess what, they cannot afford to show the soccer
championship series. (yea, i'm an american, what do i know).

I think of NBC , desperately in debt, forced to show the Vancouver
Winter Olympics. They cut corners - the coverage was mostly Bob Cost-us
sitting in a chair talking to people. If you wanted to watch actual
competition, you went to nbc.com and sufferred through the lag, disconnects,
and 100 commercials for a new sitcom named 'bite my dirty finger' or whatever
it was called. The curling and hockey was good, if you had cable channels
CNBC and MSNBC .

People talk about the demise of the networks - nbc,abc, and cbs - yet where
is the talk of where their money goes...into sports. Would TV programming
be any better IF they didn't blow all their money on college sports ?
Yes. just think positive... good or bad doesn't guarantee an audience.