Time to start a thread now since it's all kicking off.

The implosion of the Big 12, Notre Dame to the Bigger 10?, the Pac-10 trying to expand and make a name for itself nationally, and now, the news I've been waiting for...

Sanction Day. It looks like USC is finally going to get slapped by the NCAA, and USC is taking it with predictable class:

USC sources, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak about the situation publicly, said they were bracing for the worst. One said the school probably would utilize an appeal process.

Asked if the sanctions were appropriate, a source said, "It depends how you look at it. It is if you're a UCLA fan."

Some USC sources are also rattling their sabres at the NCAA:

The NCAA needs to be careful though when it comes to listening to the howls of protest from those who are calling for a witch hunt in this case. The facts are what they are, nothing more. Punish us in a fair way and this thing gets put behind us so we can all move forward. But if the NCAA decides that this is a time to show their teeth, to show that they can stand up to big bad USC, then they are going to find out what a fight is all about. We're not going to let you make an example out of us just to fit your agenda.

Colorado to join the Pac-10, reportedly.

All that for "only" a two year bowl ban and the loss of 20 scholarships?

The conference shenanigans are making my head spin (though I have to admit it would be nice to get the old Pac 8 back together).

Notre Dame is not going anywhere for as long as they have the NBC contract. Nebraska seems to be going to the Big Ten (making 12), which appears to be the impetus for the entire Big 12 imploding.

One thing that this is making manifest is how wide disparities in the level of "revenue producing" sports among schools make the whole "conference" idea rather tenuous.

Having grown up in California and Texas, I suppose I should welcome the idea of UT being in a Pac-16 or whatever (and imagining the culture clash of Cal or UCLA fans visiting Texas A&M is pretty amusing) but I've barely gotten used to the Big 12 since the Southwest Conference disbanded. Oh well.

As for those quotes, Inca, it doesn't look like USC is doing anything to escape the "University of Spoiled Children" tag.

BTW, I think that my favorite rumor so far is that Cal has vetoed Baylor on the grounds that the Pac-10 is a "secular" conference.

Go Bears.

I doubt that rumor is true. They don't want Baylor because its far away and doesn't enhance their football schedule at all. But I like the sentiment. I personally wish my alma mater would refuse to play Liberty and Oral Roberts.

We're not going to let you make an example out of us just to fit your agenda.


My God, the arrogance is astounding.


You'll take it and like it, you cheating motherfuckers. The NCAA has sanctioned championship teams before and they'll do it again.


Notre Dame won't join the Big Ten as long as they've got that NBC contract and they can put their other sports in the Big East, but a few things could change.

NBC now owned by Comcast, which has a relationship with the SEC among others, could decide that it wants to be a more serious player in college football, in which case the Notre Dame deal won't make sense for it. As it is, many of Notre Dames better match ups aren't on NBC - they're on ABC because they're playing the Big Ten or whatever. Showing ND-Army, etc, to what I can only imagine is a shrinking audience only makes sense if NBC doesn't have a more profitable option for Saturday afternoon. To get a piece of some better college football would be expensive, perhaps more than NBC was previously willing to pay, having blown so much on getting Sunday Night NFL and the Olympics, but that could change.

The other possibility is that the BigEast could collapse, in which case ND would be forced to find a new conference for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, etc. and the BigTen would most likely be it and the BigTen isn't going to let them be a member-except-for-football.

But if things go the way they're going with Nebraska joining the BigTen, then likely Missouri would join and then we'd have to find one other to even it out. The previous talk of Rutgers or Pitt seems to have died down so I don't see that happening. Personaly, I don't want Pitt in the Big Ten. I want to see them rot in the wilderness. And Rutgers just isn't a good fit. Geographically or sports-wise.


I'd like the Big10 to get Iowa State to just fill out that western edge and placate Minnesota and Iowa who still bitch that coming to Penn State is too far.

I can't imagine Penn State will object to adding Nebraska. Although it is far, we already have a long and storied, albeit off and on, rivalry with Nebraska. I imagine we've played them more times than any other Big Ten team. PSU also regularly schedules them in basketball, it seems, and they're another great woman's volleyball power.

ursus arctos wrote:
BTW, I think that my favorite rumor so far is that Cal has vetoed Baylor on the grounds that the Pac-10 is a "secular" conference.

Go Bears.

Ha ha. Poor Baylor, the red-headed stepchild of this story.

The commentary that I've seen has been along the lines of the Pac-10 really wanting Texas, and being willing to take a host of other schools in order to get UT. A&M and Tech appear to be givens for Texan political reasons, Oklahoma makes sense, Oklahoma State comes with Oklahoma, and Colorado provides access to the Denver market. You then up with a 16 team conference with the old Pac 8 and a sort of rebranded SWC, with only a limited number of "inter-division" games.

It's in that context that Baylor was floated, and I can actually see Cal taking a similar position were BYU on the table.

Who knows how much basis there is in any of this, but I've heard that multiple Pac-10 school presidents have had qualms about BYU (as part of a BYU-Utah package) because of the religious issues. The Pac-10 also likes to pride itself on the academics of its schools, and a lot of these schools simply don't live up to the standard. Joke: but that hasn't kept the Arizona schools out.

Texas in the Pac10 makes no sense whatsoever.

Apparently, this is largely Texas' fault this is all happening. They refuse to share their largess with the rest of the Big 12 in a possible Big 12 Network and Nebraska and Missouri, among others, are looking for a better deal.

I've heard that there's a bill in the Texas legislature that would force the Big XII to take Baylor, but I'm not sure that really has any weight. I know Virginia's legislature passed something like that to push the ACC to take Virginia Tech, but I don't think that's really why that happened.

ursus arctos wrote:
The commentary that I've seen has been along the lines of the Pac-10 really wanting Texas, and being willing to take a host of other schools in order to get UT. A&M and Tech appear to be givens for Texan political reasons, Oklahoma makes sense, Oklahoma State comes with Oklahoma, and Colorado provides access to the Denver market. You then up with a 16 team conference with the old Pac 8 and a sort of rebranded SWC, with only a limited number of "inter-division" games.

It's in that context that Baylor was floated, and I can actually see Cal taking a similar position were BYU on the table.

That makes sense, and to be fair, there was some controversy recently when Baylor hired a creationist, William Dembski, which forced the Biology Department to demand reassurances that their curriculum wouldn't be tampered with, academic freedom respected, Dembski not be admitted into their department, etc. Not the sort of thing the U.C. system would like to be associated with, however marginally.

Also, their football team has been bad for a pretty long time now.

Colorado to Pac-11 now official.

This only makes sense as part of a larger expansion deal along the lines sketched above. The Pac 11 will be screwed if Texas decides not to jump.

Who knows how much basis there is in any of this, but I've heard that multiple Pac-10 school presidents have had qualms about BYU (as part of a BYU-Utah package) because of the religious issues. The Pac-10 also likes to pride itself on the academics of its schools, and a lot of these schools simply don't live up to the standard. Joke: but that hasn't kept the Arizona schools out.

Well that's probably more like it. These schools aren't a good "fit" as institutions. Maybe not necessarily because they're "bad" schools, but they just aren't the same sort of big research universities like the rest of the Pac 10. I doubt the concerns about being secular would be quite the same if the question were Georgetown or Notre Dame (hypothetically).

In the Big Ten, at least, the academic consortium part of it has been much more important than most people imagine. Northwestern is a bit of an outlier in that respect, because it doesn't have a big ag school or those kinds of traditional Big 10 school strengths, but obviously its reputation in other areas is outstanding, plus it's a founding member, so they get to stay (even though a lot of Big Ten fans want to get rid of them). I imagine USC is sort of like that too in the Pac 10, albeit more successful and less scrupulous in how it runs its athletics.

I don't know about Baylor, but I know that BYU has a history of being a bit, er, racist, and homophobic. That would probably cause friction at some point, especially with the damn hippies at Berkeley who have an irritating way of caring more about human rights than football.

And trees. Don't forget the trees.

Posnanski with a typically excellent piece on this from a Big Eight perspective.

I don't understand this storm of expansion/realignment at all. The Posanski article helped, but if it truly is all about adding tv sets, why is the Big 10 adding Nebraska, and not a school in a bigger media market?

Why does it seem all of this is being driven by football? For instance, no one appears to want Kansas. Does football generate that much more revenue than basketball?

Finally, I understand why the conferences want to maximize the number of power teams in their conferences: that leads to bigger tv contracts. But given that in football, especially, one or two losses will ruin title aspirations, isn't joining a super-conference a risky proposition?

Dan Wetzel: "Vacate 04 BCS title game, all 05 season. 15 scholly limit for next 3 years -- a loss of 30 scholarships"

NCAA found "lack of institutional control" at USC.

Retroactive Rose Bowl for Cal?

Just askin'.

Well, Aaron Rodgers did tweet this earlier:

Looking forward to getting my PAC-10 championship ring from the '04 season. Thanks @claymatthews52

(Matthews played for USC).

The report is here:
assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf

Punishments also for men's basketball--so USC serving up that program as a sacrificial lamb was not enough--and women's tennis.

Women's tennis, too?

Are there no limits to their depravity?