Seven Reasons Why You Should Be Upset About Texas and the Big 12

So the news has been broken by now, and we all know it: The University of Texas at Austin is staying in the Big 12 Conference, despite the defections of Colorado to the Pac-10 and Nebraska to the Big Ten (For purposes of this article, I will use the current official names of the conferences rather than speculative ones such as Pac-11, Pac-12, etc.).

For some, it was a joyous occasion: The college landscape would not be altered too significantly, and with the exception of Nebraska's history with the old Big 8 Conference, few rivalries would be lost. Money did not reign supreme after all.

However, if you look more closely at The World That Might Have Been, you can see that money could have done some great things for college football as a whole...even if some schools would have been in trouble in the immediate future.

This is a list of seven reasons why I am irritated with Texas for preventing that seismic shift from happening.

No. 1: Important Rivalries Would Have Remained Intact

There have been several good articles written here on B/R about how the real tragedy of Nebraska's move to the Big Ten is the jeopardization of all of its history with Oklahoma and the rest of the former Big 8 Conference.

That much is true, but it's hard to feel sorry for the Cornhuskers regarding their rivalries—they did leave the Big 12 first, after all (not officially, but in effect), the move that was originally thought the doom of the conference.

Other Big 12 rivalries do exist in the soon-to-be former North Division; however, in the words of Jim Delaney, "not all rivalries are equal." The marquee rivalries of the remaining Big 12 teams were in the South Division: Texas-OU, Texas-Texas A&M, and so on. Baylor was so bad in football that no one cared about them in the slightest.

The Pac-10's proposal would have brought Texas AND ITS RIVALS to the West Coast. In other words? All those rivalries could have been easily maintained.

I know that A&M had extensive discussion with the SEC...but I'm hard pressed to believe that A&M would actually desert its older brother.

Furthermore, dividing the new Pac-10 into two eight team divisions would have maintained the vast majority of rivalries: the old "Pac-8" in the Western Division, and AZ/ASU/ex-Big 12 teams in the Eastern Division. Apologies to AZ and ASU about any rivalries with the old "Pac-8" that would have been lost, but ultimately, they would have kept their in-state rivalries.

No. 2: The Pac-10 Wouldn't Have Continued to Be a One-Horse Race

Yes, I know Oregon won the Pac-10 last year. I know that the University of Southern California is now under severe sanctions from the NCAA due primarily to the wrongdoings of Reggie Bush while he was in attendance at that institution.

I also know that USC was the dominant college football team of this past decade and is easily the most storied football program on the West Coast. Despite the two year postseason ban, they will be back eventually—how long is a matter of debate, but trust me. History is definitely a useful recruiting tool (just ask Notre Dame).

There are many good football programs in the Pac-10, but the additions of Texas and Oklahoma would have put three major college football programs in the same conference. Oh, and did I mention the 2005 Rose Bowl Game? It wouldn't be difficult to kick-start a rivalry with that...

No. 3: The SEC Couldn't Have Stood Pat

It was widely acknowledged that other conferences—chiefly the Big Ten and the SEC—would not have been able to stand idly by and watch the Pac-10 grab virtually the entire Big 12 South. The SEC, currently the best football conference in America, was known to be courting Texas A&M, and reports surfaced that if A&M joined, Florida State was pushing to be the 14th member.

I said before that I doubt A&M would have actually dumped Texas, but even if A&M did not join, I would guess that the SEC would target the Big East and/or the ACC for expansion. Because I am writing the article and can thereby be arbitrary, I'm going to select four schools that I think would have been most likely to join the SEC following the defection of the Big 12 South (minus Baylor) to the Pac-10.

1) Florida State: This makes too much sense. They are a bit down right now, but there's too much history with UF here, and FSU is a traditional football power in its own right.

2) Virginia Tech: This also makes a lot of sense. Some have objected on the grounds that the Virginia legislature has made UVA and VT a mated pair. I doubt that—I think VT moved to the ACC for better revenue, and it could get even more in the SEC—but even if that was the case, I think it would be worth it for the SEC to also bring Virginia. However, I think they would be separable, so UVA doesn't make the cut.

3) Miami: another bonafide national program to bring into the fold, and the third of the group. It's hard to imagine a tougher league than what this one is shaping up to be, but it's also hard to imagine the ridiculous television revenue that getting all three big Florida programs in one conference would rake in. Miami has a national following, and people pay to watch "The U."

4) Louisville (again assuming no A&M or a forced acceptance of UVA): Louisville is a traditional basketball school, and crucially, is the in-state rival of the University of Kentucky, another basketball power already in the SEC. Furthermore, geography probably works in their favor, as they would be more westerly than any of the other above additions.

Other candidates for the SEC might be Georgia Tech, Clemson, or maybe even South Florida (very unlikely), but let's move forward assuming these four schools that I listed DID in fact join the SEC.

No. 4: The Big Ten Couldn't Have Stood Pat

With the Pac-10 and SEC grabbing a whopping FIVE traditional football powers, the Big Ten would have been forced to act as well or risk fading into obscurity. With Louisville gone, Jim Delaney would have been drawn to Big East schools like a shark to blood in the water, grabbing four schools of his own.

1) Rutgers: Obvious choice, and it's been included in every proposed Big Ten expansion deal that raids the Big East because of the New York market. The main reason you never heard from Rutgers during the expansion talk? They didn't need to campaign, because the Big Ten would have taken them for sure, despite their lack of football history. It is a member of the American Association of Universities, like all the other Big Ten schools, including new addition Nebraska.

2) Pittsburgh: I know Jim Delaney said that the Pennsylvania market wouldn't be a big factor in expansion, but even if that's true, Pittsburgh brings a lot of other things to the table; AAU member, traditional rival of Penn State, which has always been in a weird geographical light since its inclusion in the Big Ten, and historically strong football teams, though not a superpower. Plus, they are in the Big East, which is important for a reason all by itself...

3) Syracuse: Yes, they've fallen on hard times, but they, too, are a strong academic institution and have fielded stronger teams in the past. Most importantly, though, they do factor into the New York market—albeit the western section—and are again a football member of the Big East.

The fourth school is a reason all by its lonesome...

No. 5: Notre Dame Would Have Been Forced To Join the Big Ten

The inclusion of Notre Dame, longtime Big Ten holdout, makes the Big Ten a 16-team league, matching the new Pac-10 and SEC. Why would ND finally join a conference, you ask?

It's simple really: With the Big Ten taking three Big East schools and the SEC taking another, all football members, there would be no way for the Big East to remain a BCS conference. The now nine-team ACC would likely look to add Big East teams and get back to 12, the magic number, and maybe even take on some traditional basketball schools from the Big East (e.g. Georgetown).

Notre Dame's non-revenue sports (read: everything except football) would no longer have a home, and the creation of the super leagues would threaten future viability of ND retaining explicit rights with the BCS. ND athletic director Jack Swarbrick would probably try to remain independent as long as possible, but if he were smart, he wouldn't risk getting left out of the rain entirely, especially with ND being down recently.

The best part of this? Future expansion would be made even more unlikely, because the Big Ten couldn't possibly hit a big enough home run to risk destabilizing the college football landscape...AGAIN.

No. 6: The Mountain West Would Have Emerged as a Power Conference

When Boise State joined the MWC, I got really excited really quickly. While lots of college football fans like to put down Boise, the fact of the matter is that they have won two BCS bowls...very recently. Utah has done the same, and in addition to those two programs, football at TCU and BYU has really been quite good.

In a hypothetical situation where the Big 12 had completely dissolved, the MWC would have been in a position to add to its 10 teams (counting Boise and Utah) with the likes of Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou, and Baylor, bringing the conference to 14 teams. If the conference went to 16 teams, two additional ones wouldn't have been hard to find from the list made up of Iowa State or other WAC teams (Nevada and Fresno State come to mind).

The new MWC would probably have (finally) gotten the BCS bowl bid they deserve, simply taking the Big 12's old AQ status. Why is this good, you ask?

No. 7: The College Football Playoff Cry Would Get louder

"Wait a second," I hear you saying. "Since all the traditional out-of-BCS schools would be in the MWC, wouldn't the crying get softer?" At first glance that view might be correct.

However, upon closer inspection, it is unlikely for two reasons.

First, Congress is already thinking about intervening in college football thanks to anti-trust laws. The creation of the mega-leagues that would not share any of their revenues with smaller leagues like C-USA or the WAC, would put the powers that be further under the microscope. I'm not a Wall Street banker or lawyer, so I can't tell you what the likely findings would be...but there's a definite possibility that the end result wouldn't be pretty.

Second, as I've mentioned multiple times, the system would stabilize. I haven't talked about what would happen to the ACC and Big East extensively, but my best guess is that the two leagues would combine in some form so as to retain their relevance in college sports. With no major football independents to destabilize the college landscape, it would be exceedingly difficult for the system to change any further.

However, it is basically inevitable that EVENTUALLY a new-blood football power would emerge from somewhere, like Boise State has done recently—an obscure athletic director would eventually find an obscure coach who turned out to be a genius. That team, and others like it, would continue to be a significant threat to the BCS money-making giant.

Third, such a tremendous realignment of the powers-that-be in college sports would necessarily have encouraged change from athletic directors. The old guard has proven itself largely unwilling to consider a playoff system...but with new voices in the discussion, much more would be possible.

This is the biggest tragedy of all: Since the dominoes didn't fall, we're no closer to a playoff in college football today than we were two months ago, before all the optimism came and then died.

And we have the University of Texas to thank for keeping the current system alive—we are all SO grateful...snooze...

Anyway, thanks for reading and hope you enjoyed it!