If the Pac 12 really expands to the Pac 16, it will be another major change in conference affiliation, and rivalries.

Although college conferences have not really been stable in their history, there were some long traditions that are now likely be ushered out. It also means some very unwieldy conferences in terms of travel and geographical interest.

So, what would be interesting is to consider one difference before these major changes started. How likely things would be different, and yet more traditional today.

What if the Big 8 had expanded in 1990?

They take Texas, TAMU, TTech and Arkansas, and form the Big 12. Why? Establishes the famed UT/OU rivalry in conference. It also Gives the conference the championship game, making them leaders instead of followers. It also follows that Ark makes a good bball rival for Kansas, and they're already a logical rival w/ Missouri, and have a classic history w/ OU.

Things fall out such that Ark wins their bball championship a few years later, all in Nebraska's football heyday. That makes the Big 12 the power conference of the 90s.

Meanwhile, SEC has to change their expansion plans, and they don't move west. They take FSU and S. Carolina, which keeps them very much in the Southeast. ACC doesn't grab FSU, so the ACC may never expand at all. Thus the Big East keeps its traditional teams, which actually had some geographical sense, and establishes a longer history. And the ultimately, Pac 10 doesn't have anything to woo Colorado.

That leaves the question of whether the Big 10 takes Penn St if ND won't join. I think it's "yes" as they worked that issue, but the timing may have changed quite a bit.

I like those conferences better, and it keeps travel costs reasonable, and fan interest high.