…but becoming the sun of the Big XII with the other nine teams revolving around you might not be what’s best for your school or football program over the long haul.

Do you honestly think that what’s happened in the last 5-6 days is the end of this? We lost 2 teams from our conference. We’re going to HAVE to change our schedules. Why don’t you see how Texas reacts before throwing us under a bus.

I agree that Clay Travis is a bit over the top in his article, but you guys are just responding to his name-calling with more name-calling, rather than actually looking at the issue that he raises, which is that Texas will, for the foreseeable future, only have one top 25 team on its schedule. If I were a Texas fan, that would worry me.

He’s not a bit over the top; he’s simply spewing garbage to get a rise out of people. How do you know that for the “foreseeable future” Texas will only play one top 25 team? Just a couple years ago, the Big 12 South had as many as four teams in the Top 10. Texas ran a gauntlet featuring #1 Oklahoma, #11 Mizzou, #7 OSU, and #6 Texas Tech. He’s making the dumb argument that Texas did not want to leave because it is scared. Texas is clearly not scared of anyone, and anyone who knows anything about college football knows that Texas would be dangerous in whatever conference it was in. The reasons Texas stayed are varied and still not wholly known, but obviously with so much money on the line, one reason was most certainly not that Texas was being cowardly. That’s analysis from a simpleton, which Travis proved to be here.

It’s true that Cal has played UW and Wazzu each year, but we’ve also had to play USC, Oregon and very good OSU, UCLA, ASU and Zona programs too (the Furd sucks and always will in my book).

And again, Texas has played dangerous teams in Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Missouri. Are these elite programs? No, they are not. Neither are UCLA, ASU, and ’Zona. But they are capable of fielding competent squads that are dangerous on any given Saturday, and every once in a while they may field pretty good teams. This is not much different than the Pac-10: There are bottom dwellers, there are elite program (or at least one), and there are programs in the middle that, in any given year, can challenge at the top or go towards the bottom. Incidentally, this descriptive of the SEC as well, although there are generally more teams at the middle and top.

By adding a rebuilding Colorado program and a very competitive Utah program I think we’re adding to the competitive nature of our league. By losing Nebraska and Colorado, the Big XII has arguably decreased the level of competition.

Colorado can definitely rebuild, but right now that program is a mess and they were arguably the worst team in the Big 12 last year (Hawkins needs to go). Still, both of those programs are good additions by the Pac-10, in my estimation. Losing both NU and CU hurts the prestige of the Big 12, but Colorado hasn’t been relevant in football for a while and Nebraska has been down for a bit as well. It certainly doesn’t hurt basketball at all that these teams left.

If I were Texas, I’d look to add some teams from the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-10 to my future schedules rather than teams like Wyoming, North Texas, UTEP, Central Florida, Florida Atlantic and Rice.

Texas has sometimes tried to schedule “tougher” teams but things didn’t fall through. For example, Texas tried to schedule Utah, but Utah ultimately declined. And was just a few years ago that Texas had a series with Ohio State and played TCU in 2007 (Unluckily for Texas, that was not a particularly strong TCU team).

The Pac-10 is built on fairness and parity, which is why from time to time any team can become incredibly competitive. I’m not so sure that the same can be said for the restructured Big XII.

How is not “fair” for Texas to keep more TV revenue when it makes the most for the conference? That said, I’m not against complete revenue sharing, but it’s a little silly that people are complaining that Texas is making simply what it is earning (and the released numbers for the 2008 season showed Oklahoma at #1). And the “Pac-10 is built on parity” bit rings a little hollow when USC has dominated the conference the past decade (granted, Reggie Bush was getting paid). The Pac-10 isn’t exactly the ACC.

I get that you guys love Texas and want to see your football team do well every year — every college fan wants that for their team — but becoming the sun of the Big XII with the other nine teams revolving around you might not be what’s best for your school or football program over the long haul.

Believe me, we hate Oklahoma, but it would be foolish to discount them as a constant threat as long as Bob Stoops is there. As USC found out from time to time, it can be difficult even beating bad teams in your conference when everyone puts a bullseye on your back. Financially and in athletics in general, Texas may be the strongest program in the Big 12, but that hardly guarantees that Texas will always finish at the top in football. And if Texas does… that’s actually very good for the football program, because that means the recruits will keep coming and we’ll keep going to and winning BCS games.