Is it over?

[TheChosenOne]

It seems to me that in this age of conference hopping they'd remove the numbers from their names completely.

But then, we'd have two (2) conferences with the same name: Big

It looks like Utah will be the 12th member of the Pac-10.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news...=ap-pac-10-utah

[Quality Is Job 1]

Texas never liked the playoff game - they never liked the two divisions - subsequently those points you made or moot. There is little need to add any other teams unless the teams being added bring in big dollars for a TV package and none of the teams you mention will do that. While Smith might pay for Memphis to get into a BCS conf he won't pay the 10m every year so Memphis is not a long term financial gain. I do agree that the current saving of the Big 12 does make any changes for SLU unlikely at this time. Even if ND ultimately joins the Big 10 the Big East only has to add one more BB only team and that would more likely be X. By the way, all the Big 12 teams can set up their own networks if they want now so what TX got is nothing different then what the others have but I do agree that TX has a better chance to get bigger dollars.

Might not Cincinnati balk at that?

[cheeseman]

I'm not trying to be literal I thought the conversation was literally about a "mizzou network," not farming out non-con games.

It is about making money and you do that by selling TV rights to games.

[cheeseman]

especially not now. In conference Mizzou will have UT, OU, TT, and OSU, and A&M every year. The new Big 12 needs Mizzou to stay at least as good as they've been for the last few years.

You get better by playing good opponents. How do you prepare yourself for those teams you just mentioned if you are playing a complete weak non-conf schedule? I am not saying he has to schedule ND and Ohio State for all his non conf. games but he he could start by picking up one or two better opponents especially now that the IL game is over. If you can sell that game or two then that is more money for you and if money is important to keep up the the Texas and OUs then you have to capitalize where you can.

[cheeseman]

At some point, the better programs get on TV because THEY are the ones on TV and not b/c of the team they play. In the past, the few televised games for Mizzou were against schools like OU and Nebraska. I am not in the field of media, television, etc. and do not know the ratings that a home Mizzou game against a less name school would bring in but with all the cable choices, I find it difficult to believe there is NO market/interest for such a game. If UT plays this same no name school, then there would be a market/interest. How much more success does Mizzou need to achieve before even these games get televised?

They show UT playing the no name school because nobody regionally is offering them a better choice. If MU was playing Wisc. I would be very surprised if the media would still want to show the UT game at least in the midwest area.

[cheeseman]

Might not Cincinnati balk at that?

Fair point - if Cincy has control of that issue then that would bode well for us - both X and Dayton would be left out.

[MUTGR]

They show UT playing the no name school because nobody regionally is offering them a better choice. If MU was playing Wisc. I would be very surprised if the media would still want to show the UT game at least in the midwest area.

I've looked ahead at Mizzou's future football schedules. It seems they try to play one game against a weaker team from another BCS conference as their one "tough" game. They have ASU on their schedule in the future and then Indiana. Then 2-3 games against no names.

I don't like this approach and wish they would change. I think they might have to. I'd love to see them schedule a top team from a BCS conference, but even if they don't do that, they should schedule a more or less comparable team, such as a Wisconsin or Michigan State, rather than an Indiana.