Let Texas A&M go. They don't pull a significant portion of the TV market in
Texas, and aren't a huge presence nationally for the Big 12. If other teams
panic and exit as a result, then the conference isn't very stable, is it? Did
the Mountain West unravel and fall apart after losing Utah and BYU? No. After
hearing they would lose TCU? Not at all - they made moves to counteract the
losses and came out more evenly balanced. Surely the Big 12, home of much more
powerful teams and markets, can survive losing a team that hasn't won a
conference title since 1998.
It's all about guaranteed money.Part of me wants the BIG 12 to let go of
A&M and part wants the conferences to stay the way they are. An expanded PAC
would be bad for Utah. Less money and less chance of ever getting a NC or to a
Rose Bowl.I guess if the superconference direction is inevitable(I hope it
isn't), it would be best to get it over with.
Maybe everybody ought to step back and rethink all this renewed talk of
realignment and "superconferences".When the WAC expanded
to 16 teams and billed themselves as the "nation's first
superconference" it didn't turn out to be so "super" after all.
Utah, BYU, and the other MWC teams quickly learned that sharing the pie 16 ways,
plus working out the logistics of playing all the teams in the conference,
wasn't such a super idea.I'd hate to see the PAC 12 become the PAC
16, only to see that conference implode like the old WAC imploded. That scenario
could leave Utah in worse shape than ever.Granted, a PAC 16
including Texas and Oklahoma, et al., would have some things going for it that
the old WAC could only have dreamed about. But it would also have some of the
same logistical problems. And then there's the problem of Texas itself, whose
reputation of bullying in the Big 12 is a little disconcerting.