Texas A&M Planning to Join SEC, Wooing Oklahoma; Kansas to Get Pac-10 Invite?
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 13, 2010 7:54 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print
Chip Brown and Orangebloods continue to provide us with the latest high school gossip on who-wants-to-date-who in college sports. Now it's Texas A&M's time to play Serena van der Woodsen.
For those who are lazy and don't want to read the whole article, here are the bullet points.
- Texas A&M would be considered the top academic institution in the SEC rather than having to ride Texas's coattails. Basically, they'd rather be the biggest nerd in their conference as opposed to joining the nerdiest conference and being one in the crowd (EDIT: by academic institution, I meant the best research school in the SEC).
- The wooing campaign has begun for Oklahoma to the SEC. Plenty of Sooners prefer the SEC to the Pac-10. However, their fate is probably tied in with Texas.
- It would be Kansas, not Utah, that would get the next Pac-10 invite if the Aggie-SEC marriage goes through.
- Also, Oklahoma State is firmly against letting their big brother Sooners go and could get help from the legislature in keeping a split from happening. They'll probably end up whereever Oklahoma ends up.
- Texas Tech and Oklahoma State remain firm in their commitment to the Pac-10, but they're pawns in this game. If Texas and Oklahoma make a surprising about-face and leave for the SEC, then it's hard to say whether the invitations will stay open or Commissioner Scott will look elsewhere.
- Now, the only danger is if Oklahoma somehow sways Texas and Oklahoma State to join the SEC with them, because Oklahoma and Texas can't leave each other--the hate is too strong (like an aging couple who cheat on each other maliciously but stay in the marriage anyway).
- Texas seems committed to the Pac-10 though--the SEC does not fit them culturally or academically, and president Bill Powers is B.A. Chemistry, Cal '67. And unlike Oklahoma, they're clearly willing to firmly divorce A&M. No more games, no more rivalry, no more nothing. They'll find a way to keep the Red River Shootout going, but the Aggies are dead to them.
That is your latest gossip rag of who wants to date who in college sports. If you Cal fans thought the Pac-16 was too good to be true, well, sometimes the most ambitious marriages fall apart at the last second.
109 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Vanderbilt?
I know they’ve had limited athletic success, but Vandy’s pretty legit academically…
so much that they stick out like a sore thumb in the SEC
Samuels said. "That last-minute shot at halftime sums it up. Shooting off one leg? C'mon, man."
True
I do believe A&M’s research programs are considered more extensive though.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 13, 2010 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I do not take any school from Texas seriously on the academic front, let alone Texas A&M.
by 33SwisherSweet on Jun 13, 2010 8:32 AM PDT reply actions
Texas is an OK school. Excellent is seriously pushing it. They’d be the sixth best school in the Pac-10, firmly behind Washington in the academic pecking order, and well behind Cal/UCLA/Furd/U$C.
2006 Holiday Bowl Game
I remember when Cal was playing A&M on like ABC or ESPN or whatever and when they showed a senior on A&M who’s major was Leadership & Agriculture haha
I pitty the fool, other than Bill, who is taggin' Hillary.
by 33SwisherSweet on Jun 13, 2010 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
In other words, how could anyone get it up for that lady?
by 33SwisherSweet on Jun 13, 2010 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
We have a strange relationship, built completely around our hate for the other. Kinda sweet in a way.
Spend enough time around Oklahomans and you’ll understand.
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Completely off topic, but...
Wasn’t Gale Gilbert a Cal QB? This is Garrett Gilbert’s dad.
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep. Garrett didn’t want to come to Cal though. He’s showing promise though.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 13, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
So we are like, family?
The Gilbert family live in the Austin area and GG grew up in the shadow of Texas football. Stories about him always say he just knew where he wanted to go. I don’t think it was anything against Cal as a school.
Pretty impressive so far. He’s 18, thrown into a national championship game with very few minutes of playing time at the college level and basically kept us in the game until the last quarter. And a really great kid overall. We’re happy with our starting QB.
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Gale was the QB and Kim, his wife, was a cheerleader. But Gale has a very checkered history on the west coast, including here, and it was not a surprise that their offspring did not look west.
Sr. must have cleaned up his act. He has raised an outstanding person (and a very good student).
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Not only did Gale Gilbert play quarterback for Cal, he was our starting quarterback in the 1982 Big Game, the game where The Play occurred! (The opposing team’s quarterback for that game was some loser named Elway.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fZCCAqoSwY
Exit, Pursued By A Bear
Had a cup of coffee in the league. Pulled a muscle in his tuckus. Retired. Ended up selling cars. Nothing important.
Hey, Kodiak! Gale Gilbert was on five Superbowl teams! Four with the Buffalo Bills and one with the San Diego Chargers.
(Okay, they were all losses, and he was the backup quarterback, and he only actually played in one game for San Diego, in garbage time. But still . . .)
Exit, Pursued By A Bear
Or were you asking about that Elway guy, dimecoverage? Not sure what became of him.
Exit, Pursued By A Bear
Yes, that Elway guy. He didn’t do much, did he?
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
The only things I can seem to remember about that guy were his 1-3 record in games against Cal, and something about a Superbowl against the 49ers. 55-10 . . . does that ring a bell with anyone?
Exit, Pursued By A Bear
Oh, and this:
This was an insult to college football… it was just a farce. They [the officials] didn’t have control of the whole game. They ruined my last game as a college football player.
Whiner.
Exit, Pursued By A Bear
Also, question:
Even if A+M wants to go to the SEC, does the SEC want them? I haven’t seen anything about that.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
They apparently have the votes from the regents. Plus the SEC commissioner was in College Station this weekend, so something was up.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 13, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Why do I feel like its 2004 all over again?
Mack Brown is going to plead for the SEC and Texas is going to screw up again.
by Sick_tosh_on_'em on Jun 13, 2010 9:06 AM PDT reply actions
No. The SEC is not a possibility for Texas. Never has been, never will be.
Forever and ever, amen.
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m OK with Kansas, but frankly I think Utah would be a better fit.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
The PAC vs. the SEC
With USC’s sanctions, this seems like the ideal moment for Texas et al. to jump to the new PAC. (Can we get rid of the number and just call it the Pacific Athletic Conference?)
I’m a little concerned what this might mean for Cal’s recruiting, with extra competition for the Golden State’s best. On the flip side, Coach Tedford and his staff have really set themselves up well by already establishing a firm recruiting base in both Colorado and Texas.
I’d rather see Kansas stick with geographic rivals Missouri and/or Nebraska. Thus, assuming aTm goes east, why not invite Colorado State or Air Force to come along with the Buffs?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jun 13, 2010 9:28 AM PDT reply actions
How are Air Force or CSU in any way preferable to Utah?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 13, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Only geographically, given Colorado has already joined
I’d be thrilled with Utah, too, and a BYU-Utah tandem was what I’ve most wanted to join the PAC.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jun 13, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, so the trip is slightly longer SLC-DEN, but if you fly it’s a lot easier, and having the SLC market and a better school like Utah is vastly superior financially, demographically, athletically, academically, etc… than Colorado State or Air Force.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 13, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
This is an opportunity for Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. They should caucus figure out who they want to be connected to for their division and tell the Pac-10 who to invite to join them w/ Colorado and the Arizona schools in the Turf division of the Surf and Turf conference. It matters a lot to them, as I suspect they will see a lot more of this school than the Surf members of the Conference.
Given the importance of rivalries, concerns about travel, and “culture” issues you might think they would want Kansas. And think of the hoops!
Reading about Texas A&M, it really sounds like they are being driven by intangibles – culture, resentment of Texas, personal ties to SEC, historical rivalries, etc. These things probably come into play for Texas and the others, and I wonder if Kansas lines up better for them despite the smaller population. Kansas comes with links to K-State, which could complicate things.
jh
I’m not so sure Kansas is tied to Kansas State. The reports that there was a state law were greatly exaggerated. No such animal exists.
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
it may not turn out to be the official name ...
but I could see that would stick to be one of the “unofficial” names for the conference
by ximiankernel on Jun 13, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Add College Station to the Nowheresvilles of the SEC. I’m a little surprised about Kansas over Utah, maybe the basketball fans have won out.
From the William Powers link:
William Powers received his B.A. (Chemistry) from the University of California at Berkeley in 1967, and his J.D., magna cum laude, from the Harvard Law School in 1973.He is the Chosen One, here to deliver us to the promised land of the Pac-16.
I thought Larry Scott was the chosen one?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 13, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Texas A&M Wouldn't Be Top-3 Academically in the SEC!
No one would mention TAMU in the same breathe as Vandy. Vandy is a top-20 or, at worst, a top-25 program. TAMU isn’t in the top-60. Add Florida as a second top-50 school (ahead of UT in the USNWR ranking) and Georgia as top-60 schools academically, and it’s pretty clear that they drop in academic stature by joining the SEC.
As for the PAC 10 academically? Definitely better than the SEC, but not as much better as you might think. Stanford is off the charts, but the next three PAC 10 schools are below Vandy and UW just a bit better than UF. After those 5, the remaining 5 (WSU, the Oregon and Arizona schools) are nothing to brag about academically.
by Curious Cardinal on Jun 13, 2010 9:47 AM PDT reply actions
Hi Curious Cardinal
I assume you are one of the few Furd fans we’ve had trouble finding? Welcome to CGB!
I should’ve been more specific—A&M would become the top research institution, not have the best undergrad programs in the conference.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 13, 2010 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
furd troll claiming vandy is better than everyone but furd? there’s a good one.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 13, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I give this point a red card.
Cooler than a Polar Bear's toenails.
by Thoroughbred on Jun 13, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I usually click through on a new person:
Curious Cardinal
joined Jun 13, 2010 last login Jun 13, 2010 posts 0 comments 1
Could be St. Louis or Louisville or Arizona or Lincoln High School in Portland, OR
But I don’t think so…
SEC Academics slam doesn't hold up
A little research before will show the bigotry against SEC institutions is misplaced. Currently three of SEC schools are ranked higher than Texas A&M (Florida, Georgia and Vanderbilt.) With the addition of non-top tier schools Oklahoma State and Texas Tech the PAC 10 will have three non-top-tier schools (including Oregon State) to the SECs two (the Mississippi schools). I teach at an SEC school and I can say that the conference affiliation and the academic quality have little to do with each other. Why do you think the PAC 10 is willing to add two non- top tier schools? Clearly the PAC Ten includes many schools with wonderful academic programs but the SEC does too.
The industry standard in university rankings:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-top-public
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings
Yeah, now I know I should've been more specific
See the comment right above yours for clarification.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 13, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Prof or a lecturer? If you’re a research prof, you know it’s not about the US News rankings…it’s about federally-funds (NIH, NSF, DOE, etc).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
When I was at UAB we were one of the highest ranked medical research institutions based on federal funding (it still is.) No one is asking the Blazers to join their conference. Sorry, athletic affiliation has nothing to do with federal research funding except if a cooperative is formed outside the athletic departments by the schools. So the point is silly. I would say it is meaningless except the conference moves are being pushed by ego driven university presidents who are obsessed by lists and try to positively frame their universities to their peers in more and more obscure ways.
A few points
A few points…
1. Time zones – One complaint that PAC 10 schools have had is that their games have not been watched much in the East. They are right. With regional coverage on ABC and late starts for night games on Fox Sports channels only the big games get a lot of viewers out here. I think much of this drive has been to expand into the central time zone. But if most of the PAC 10 games are played in divisions based on geography I think this will change little for West Coast PAC-10 teams.
2. A spouse with a past – Be wary of what you wish for because your are marrying teams with a past. Are you sure you want the influence of these teams in your conference? The conference is going to be regionally separated and isn’t that what people are saying caused so much trouble in the Big 12?
3. Flagship institutions – What the big four traditional conferences have most in common is that the vast majority of the schools are flagship institutions that bring a whole state of fans, not just alumni. This is why much of the speculation about raiding the Big East by conferences doesn’t make a lot of sense. But on this level the PAC 10 raid of the Big 12 does make sense.
4. 16 is too many – I blame the PAC 10 (and the Big East) on this movement. One of the fun aspects of college sports is hating rival conferences team by team. But I have found with the move from 8 to 16 teams by the Big East in B-ball the teams tend to lose identity and become just a blob of Big East gumbo. And the desire to watch all conference games in my conference wanes as the conferences explodes. The PAC 10 had it right when they had 10 teams (except for the conference championship game… well maybe they had that right too.
time zones are not an issue. if media time slots are the issue, game start times can be easily adjusted.
16 teams is a challenge to manage, but the 2 division format division keeps some order. the big east basketball format is a giant mess without any clear structure. plus the fact that only half the schools play football makes it extremely disjointed.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 13, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Wilner’s got a decent piece up:
* Here’s your invitation.
Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott and his deputy, Kevin Weiberg — the former commish of the Big 12 — reportedly met with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State officials on Saturday and are headed to Texas to do the same, at least with UT and TTU.
None of the schools can officially join the Pac-10 until the regents approve a move. The Texas regents are reportedly set to meet on Tuesday, while the Oklahoma regents will likely gather on Wednesday.
* Not so fast?
The Daily Oklahoman reported that there will be a last-gasp effort to save the Big 12 on Monday, with athletic directors and TV execs discussing the options.
The key question: Is there enough revenue available in a 10-team league (no Colorado or Nebraska) to warrant keeping the Big 12 intact?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I have to be honest that I am not going to be sad if this all falls apart and we end up with the Pac12 w/Colorado and Utah. That feels very comfortable/right, and culturally appropriate. It preserves the Pac10 I love while expanding it enough to do some new, good things. Also, it keeps the Rose Bowl dream alive.
The Pac16 is an exciting idea, mostly for the financial relief it would provide to the athletic department and the angry discussions with the faculty it would quiet, but in my mind it’s like the Dust Bowl division wouldn’t really exist, and we’d just continue on with the Beach schools. That’s great, and I support it, but it’s not life changing.
I have to conclude that I’m cool with it either way. Awesome dude, and now I’m off to the beach on this glorious day.
Really, you’d be ok with only Colorado and Utah? I feel like our conference would still carry an inferior image only adding those 2. We’d still suffer from east coast bias and be screwed out of BCS games, etc…
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 13, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I really would. We’re going to suffer from east coast bias and lack of attention no matter what. The vast majority of our games are always going to be in Pacific and Mountain timezones, and no matter whether it’s officially “too late” for someone in the East to watch, by the time the SEC evening game gets over people in the east are done with football for the day. We are never going to capture their eyes in football or basketball, no matter who joins the conference. It’s geography.
I don’t believe we, as a conference, get screwed out of BCS games. We do that to ourselves, by scheduling a full round robin and tougher out of conference slates than other conferences. We choose to do this. I believe it’s the right thing to do. It also affects our getting a second team into the BCS bowls. So be it.
Scootie makes a number of excellent points and I can’t complete disagree with any of them.
I think we’ll always have the time zone issue to overcome, but I feel that it can at least be somewhat attenuated by having superior marketing and tv contracts. The NFL manages to keep national interest for the best times by varying game times. If it means more viewers, I’d bet that tv execs would rather see Texas or Oklahoma vs. sc/Oregon than some middle of the pack/bottom of the pack east coast clash. Why couldn’t they show the big Pac-16 game early and save the big SEC clash for their evening game? The more exposure our conference gets on national tv, the more likely people will tune in because they recognize “hey – School X is supposed to be pretty good.” It’s what I do right now when I decide whether to watch or switch the channel. For good or ill, I suspect that branding/image does have a substantial impact on the viewership of college teams outside of their normal fan base.
I can’t dispute that our conference makes it harder on ourselves in the BCS by not playing the game, so to speak, with the patsies and non-round robin schedule. I agree that this is the right thing to do – it helps to maintain the integrity of the game. However, I am also painfully aware that the BCS, AP polls, and Heisman voting are strongly momentum and exposure driven. Teams and players are routinely overrated and underrated simply because of hype or the lack thereof. More $$$ and tv exposure for our conference may not be a panacea, but I think it would improve our chances.
That said, I think a part of me will be saddened if/when this does come to pass. I really wanted us to finally break through and have an undisputed/untarnished/unquestioned Pac-10 championship and Rose Bowl year. But, I suppose that time and progress march on and it’s adapt or perish.
Don’t give up the dream yet. We still have 2010, maybe 2011. With Kevin Riley, an unsettled OL, a star LB, and a new secondary, the time is now!
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 13, 2010 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
New plan for B12 to stay together
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803
Seems like a bit of a longshot (the Pac-16 plan would likely bring more money for everyone), but Texas is considering it. This is probably the only thing that could scuttle the merger at this point.
Interesting turn of events. This seems odd to me. I predict strongly that before making any decisions, Texas and other BigXII schools made an analysis of what money a BigXII channel could make. They compared that to what money a Pac16 could make and, I guess, what money a Texas alone channel could make. So, it seems as if they are making, generally, the determination that a BigXII channel could make less than a Pac16 channel. That makes sense to me.
Now, they are looking at a proposal for a BigXII channel….with 2 fewer teams. Including a tradition laden, Nebraska team, which has a huge following, and a Colorado team that brings an entire state’s worth of viewers with it. It would seem to me that this BigXII minus two channel would, thus, make less money than what they potentially looked at before.
This is all conjecture, of course. I’m not privy to the private information in the decision making here. However, this seems unlikely to me. Who knows?
This might also be a PR stunt. So, Texas can say they looked at everything and tried everything.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
They lose two schools—NEBRASKA!—and expect their contract value to rise by 70%? A Big 12 didn’t command close to what the SEC does, but a Big 12-minus two would?
I can understand Beebe and UT want to publicize some show-of-faith gesture by looking into keeping the conference intact, but the details are nonsensical.
The value expectation is based upon the ACC’s recent contract renewal. They more than doubled the value of their contract ($155M/year vs the old deal of $67M/year) without changing a thing in their shitty football conference. Hence, the Big12’s expectation that they could greatly increase the value of their deal even without Nebraska. They calculate Colorado’s value as $0 (ouch).
Agreed, it looks pretty unlikely that the math will work out for the B12 staying together with only 10 teams and no Nebraska. The only reason Texas might go for it if they think it’ll let them start their own network, which is something they have wanted to do for a while . . . though even that option seems less likely to make them more money than joining the Pac-10.
PR stunt only. We are heading west with the Land Thieves.
by dimecoverage on Jun 13, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
this post is crap
What happen to responsible unbiased journalism. All f this is opinion and heresay. If you look at hard facts, The SEC is top shelf academically as well. A number of its schools rank among the top academically. Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina all claim top 10 status among public universities in Business, Law, or other colleges. You can easily do a search and look at US News rankings. In fact the University of Georgia was rated as one of the best buys for college education! This is value of degree ($$$$ in the workforce), college life, and cost of education.
It is amusing that Pac 10 schools think tehy are better academically and that their conference is better athletically. Last time I checked, the PAC 10 has a losing record against the SEC. this includes the last several years Head to Head. See LSU/Washington , Georgia / ASU…The Pac 10 is a good conference, I live in LA, but it is nothing compared to the SEC on Saturday. TX, TAMU, OK are more aking to history and tradition to the SEC than they are to the SEC. It boils down to TX is afraid of playing in a competitive conference. They have lost quite a bit recently to SEC teams. See Arkansas and Houston Nutt beating them 2 years in row, or even last year when AL beat them for the National Championship. The BCS championship has been owned by the SEC and TX knows they are not good enough top to bottom to make it through the conference unscathed yet alone play for the championship.
Nobody here is claiming the Pac-10 is better in football than the SEC. As for athletically as a whole, the Pac-10 is the best conference in the nation, at least if your standard is national championships.
Regarding academics, read the comments above from Avinash clarifying his writing. Your anger is misplaced.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
SEC top shelf academically? You are delusional to say that. As a conference, the SEC is at the bottom of the BCS conferences in academics.
Texas has an interest in boosting the value of their institution. Joining the SEC would lower the value of a Texas degree. That’s why Texas has never had the slightest interest in the SEC.
And arguing that Texas has more in common with the SEC is asinine. Have you ever been to Austin? It’s a thriving city with a diverse economy and growing high-tech sector. In other words, much more like the west coast cities than the SEC small town backwaters.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 13, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
even in the golden era of SEC football
Pac-10 Football has a winning percentage against the SEC. Pac-10 Football has a winning percentage against all major conferences this past decade.
Pac-10 athletics—the whole department—is the best in the nation. Has there been any year in which the Pac-10 has not won the most team national titles?
The Pac-10, Big Ten, Big Twelve, and ACC have better academics—by any metric—than the SEC. The only conference the SEC has beat is the Big East football configuration, but if you consider Big East schools outside of football, that margin becomes either negligible or in favor of the Big East.
Claiming a school is an academic best buy, doesn’t make it a good school.
When you say:
This is value of degree ($$$$ in the workforce), college life, and cost of education.
I agree that money in the work place references the quality of the education and academics at the school the degree was received from, but ‘college life’ and ‘cost of education’ have no merits being mentioned as determining factors in the quality of academics. If these are the factors you use to determine what establishes a conference as being top shelf, I thoroughly question the credibility of your statement.
To continue through your rant, you then suddenly transfer what started as a rebuttle to the initial article citing Texas A&M’s bullet points regarding the SEC’s research merits into an argument about who has better football. The two are completely unrelated. Furthermore, you make baseless accusations about the University of Texas’ intentions, when you have no knowledge of their intentions whatsoever. Hence, your comments on the subject are irrelevant and a waste of time.
Let’s be fair here, chowder. For starters, I appreciate that our guest decided to drop by and visit our site. Let’s just pause and reflect for a bit on what a momentous occasion this represents. Someone from the SEC managed to get his hands on a computer, connect to the internet, and post on a blog. That’s like the modern day equivalent of Shakespeare and the thousand monkeys! What’s next? Using that weird white bowl in the water closet?
Considering the circumstances, it’s quite excusable that he apparently ignored a few minor details like how the majority of the post was a recap of articles printed elsewhere, that it was noted several times to be on the level of “gossip,” and that there was no mention whatsoever comparing the relative merits of the different conference football programs. Facts and coherence are largely overrated, anyhow.
He does make a solid point – even the most ardent homer wouldn’t dare compare Pac-10 football fans to the fanatics of the SEC. Sadly enough, the denizens of the west coast find their attentions divided by all sorts of crazy hobbies and activities that don’t involve driving fast in circles, dating a relative, or turning allergy medication into a recreational narcotic. And, I don’t know about you, but I find that daily bathing takes up a pretty hefty chunk of time.
It’s all good, chowder. Let’s just be gracious hosts and enjoy the minor miracle that has occurred before our very eyes. It’s like the lil’ bulldog is all growed up!
or turning allergy medication into a recreational narcotic
Something the South can’t even take credit for inventing. The process for cooking meth came from good old-fashioned California ingenuity.
But it never really blossomed
Until it married itself to southern poverty.
California Golden Blogs! It`s dat Woo WHOOOOO!
oh, I don't know about that....
the backwaters of CA have been cooking it up for a LONG time.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jun 14, 2010 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
TL;DR
Red card.
Cooler than a Polar Bear's toenails.
by Thoroughbred on Jun 13, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
LOL
What happen to responsible unbia
stopped reading here
Cal Football: Some things, you just accept, repress, and move on.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 14, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Barking Carnival
Best blog out there.Hunter S Thompson has reincarnated into the body of scipio-tex. Once described Dan Hawkins as having the courage of a strip mall karate coach.
NCAA's position on conference realignments
nothing controversial or earth shattering. Just putting it out there
NCAA statement on conference expansion
Jun 11, 2010 9:06:40 PM
By Jim Isch
NCAA interim president
Much has been and will be written regarding conference realignment. Some "experts" have questioned where the NCAA is in this process. The answer is the NCAA is exactly where it should be—not directly in the discussion but standing ready to work with the conferences when realignment is finalized.
In reality there is neither historical precedent nor legislative authority for the NCAA to be involved in conference matters such as these. Realignment and conference expansion is solely between the individual institutions and the conferences. Over the last two decades there have been about 30 conference realignments and none involved direct discussions with the NCAA. However, we are closely monitoring the developments and potential impacts. By doing so we ensure the most appropriate and responsive support to our membership.
This same philosophy was exhibited in the last round of major conference movement seven years ago when Miami (Florida), Virginia Tech and Boston College left the Big East for the ACC and set off a chain of movement that affected four other conferences.
The NCAA’s core mission — to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of higher education and to ensure the student-athlete is at the forefront of everything we do remains unchanged. We believe that is a mission shared with conferences and our member institutions. As the conference landscape unfolds in the near future, the NCAA will be an active partner with our member schools and conferences to ensure maximum participation and education opportunities and a fair playing field for more than 400,000 student-athletes who compete in NCAA sports.
Would not sweat this.
Texas fan base will not let the SEC happen.There would be outrage.Bad culture fit.
Heavy read on sunday
Athletics, Research, and Filthy Lucre: Part One of a Love Story. Over on BON
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/13/1512356/athletics-research-and-filthy?login=1276470272
by seafous on Jun 13, 2010 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Another thought I had on this new BeeBee plan. Let’s say that it is 100% true and 100% accurate and its a great plan. Let’s say that Texas see this and says “wow what a great plan, let’s stay here.” What happens if A+M decides to still go the SEC, as they are now rumored? Wouldn’t the BigXII break up anyway.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yeah, the Big XII (10) needs all ten to have a shot at remaining viable, and while they might be able to survive if they had to sub TCU for Missouri, they absolutely need Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. Those three will decide whether this league lives or dies.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
It sounds as if Oklahoma is basically doing whatever Texas is doing. Texas A+M is seemingly trying to get the fuck out. Even if the BigXII stays together in a 10 team form, how confident can Texas and others feel that A+M won’t bail near immediately given the chance????
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
The one thign that could potentially save the BigXII is if they cave on the Texas only channel issue. They were saying before that they ddint want Texas to do that, which is why Texas was looking to move to the Pac16. So, maybe this BeeBee plan allows for a Texas only channel. But that would only create the inqeuity and jealousy and imbalance that has driven the BigXII to the point of potentialdeath! So, I don’t know.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Texas to stay in 10-member Big 12
So says Chip Brown/orangebloods this morning.
In a bombshell development that could bring a halt to seismic changes in college realignment, sources tell Orangebloods.com Texas has been convinced by a plan presented by commissioner Dan Beebe to stay in a 10-member Big 12.
UT officials are expected to announce their decision to remain in the Big 12 as early as Monday.
Such a move would appear to end a courtship between Texas and the Pac-10, which all but seemed solidified as of Friday when Nebraska announced it was heading to the Big Ten and Colorado had a press conference with its new commissioner – Larry Scott of the Pac-10.
But as it became clear over the weekend that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State appeared ready join the Pac-10 and Texas A&M appeared ready to join the SEC, Beebe was able to obtain assurances that a TV deal could be reached paying each of the 10 remaining members of the Big 12 between $14 million and $17 million.
Under Beebe’s plan, schools would also be able to explore their own distribution platforms, including networks.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
