[Farm93]

Oh there is no WAY the Pac-16 would have been better for all of you concerned about tradition and Stanford rivalries.

It is clear that Texas is...well....the thing Brown\'s staffer called Whitman.

Texas was clearly just going to move to the conference that would give it the best terms.  The Pac-10 already had TV revenue hoarding, so that must have looked good to Texas.  Once it was clear the Big 12 would give Texas everything they wanted and more, Texas decided to stay.

Texas would CLEARLY have been the football force in the Pac-16.  Every time renegotiations would have come up, they would have joined forces with USC and threatened to leave if their combined share of the TV revenue dropped below, pick a number, 70%.

Every single thing Texas would demand they would get in the Pac-16.  The others would crumble and support Texas for fear of losing their 2% share of this new Pac-16 TV revenue.  Each school would become addicted to the Texas ticket purchases, and every school would behave like a sad addict to Texas related revenue.  It would be a nightmare.

Texas would never sign up for 9 conference games, so Stanford likely would have 4 or even 5 non-conference games.  Think UCD, SJSU, SacSt every year in front of 15,000 fans.  :(

And make no mistake...the concerns of Stanford\'s little local fan base would not even enter any of the conversations.  If Texas decided it wanted to play SC every year, then I\'d bet on the trade.  Stanford, UCLA and C.a.l you get...Texas Tech.  We will get SC.  But hey, you still get to keep your 2% of this big Pac-16 pie so consider yourselves lucky because people don\'t follow our conference to watch your teams.

Ugh!  We were lucky like a guy that gets arrested before doing anything with that pretty, but HIV+ whXXX.

[Farm93]

Oh there is no WAY the Pac-16 would have been better for all of you concerned about tradition and Stanford rivalries.

It is clear that Texas is...well....the thing Brown\'s staffer called Whitman.

Texas was clearly just going to move to the conference that would give it the best terms.  The Pac-10 already had TV revenue hoarding, so that must have looked good to Texas.  Once it was clear the Big 12 would give Texas everything they wanted and more, Texas decided to stay.

Texas would CLEARLY have been the football force in the Pac-16.  Every time renegotiations would have come up, they would have joined forces with USC and threatened to leave if their combined share of the TV revenue dropped below, pick a number, 70%.

Every single thing Texas would demand they would get in the Pac-16.  The others would crumble and support Texas for fear of losing their 2% share of this new Pac-16 TV revenue.  Each school would become addicted to the Texas ticket purchases, and every school would behave like a sad addict to Texas related revenue.  It would be a nightmare.

Texas would never sign up for 9 conference games, so Stanford likely would have 4 or even 5 non-conference games.  Think UCD, SJSU, SacSt every year in front of 15,000 fans.  :(

And make no mistake...the concerns of Stanford\'s little local fan base would not even enter any of the conversations.  If Texas decided it wanted to play SC every year, then I\'d bet on the trade.  Stanford, UCLA and C.a.l you get...Texas Tech.  We will get SC.  But hey, you still get to keep your 2% of this big Pac-16 pie so consider yourselves lucky because people don\'t follow our conference to watch your teams.

Ugh!  We were lucky like a guy that gets arrested before doing anything with that pretty, but HIV+ whXXX.