Oh, one other thing. Oklahoma and Ok. State are not tied to Texas and probably have very little support in the Texas Legislature.
red, my understanding from USC fans is that should Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, OU, Oklahoma State, and Colorado join the PAC-10, they'd have two divisions. The old PAC-8 with USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Wazzoo, and Washington. The new southwest division with Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Tech, aTm, Oklahoma, Okie State, and Colorado. And that would likely mean USC or any team in the old PAC-8 would only play Texas or Oklahoma twice every four years. So there could be a year where they didn't even have to play Texas or OU. Also, supposedly they're discussing not even having a championship game, but just crowning division winners and demanding two BCS berths. Crazy since the two division winners could then theoretically be pitted finally against one another.. in the national championship/BCS title game.
This is what im understanding too. Wouldn't it make sense to give them two bcs births, since it's basically the big 12's birth anyway?
There is an argument that can be made for that, but recent champs in the Big 12 North Missouri and Nebraska will likely be in the Big 10.. so do they get to lay claim to part of the Big 12's automatic berth? My problem revolves more around a superconference not having a championship game. People would be upset if LSU and Florida never had to face during the year and instead got to meet in the BCS Championship, which is essentially what could happen in this PAC-16 Southwest Conference model.
the sec doesnt need anymore top fb programs. it has 6. the pac10 needs more because they have 3 at most. big11 needs to add a team to get a conf championship, not sure they need more big programs--they have 6 now with nebraska. the sec needs to add market share to keep getting the big $$$---like DC, or StLouis/KC, or DFW. I'd be leary of adding more than one big program unless there is a playoff plan in place.
