I don't know if this means things are getting slightly less ridiculous because the number is coming down to something more practical or if things are getting more ridiculous because this process should not be remotely this public.
McMurphy and Trotter say Big 12 has pared down list to at least 12 candidates
Interesting thing to me is that schools like Air Force, SMU, Tulane, Temple, and Rice made the next round. They'll give personal presentations to Big 12 leaders in the coming week. That would seem to suggest they are under serious consideration.
(09-01-2016 03:26 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if this means things are getting slightly less ridiculous because the number is coming down to something more practical or if things are getting more ridiculous because this process should not be remotely this public.
McMurphy and Trotter say Big 12 has pared down list to at least 12 candidates
Interesting thing to me is that schools like Air Force, SMU, Tulane, Temple, and Rice made the next round. They'll give personal presentations to Big 12 leaders in the coming week. That would seem to suggest they are under serious consideration.
There should be very little information missing about any candidate with all the years of vetteing. To me, it sounds like due process is being followed per the B12 offices set of procedures
I wish this thing would move along quicker
Yes! Spend that money! Spend that money knowing the majority have no hope whatsoever.
True enough, but there may be some political value in allowing unlikely schools to at least make their formal pitches, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. It gives those schools' leadership and elected representatives the ability to go to their constituents and say how they went to bat for them (even if they lost), and it shows more respect (even if on a pro forma basis) than a quick metaphorical middle-finger dismissal.
(09-02-2016 01:14 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]True enough, but there may be some political value in allowing unlikely schools to at least make their formal pitches, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. It gives those schools' leadership and elected representatives the ability to go to their constituents and say how they went to bat for them (even if they lost), and it shows more respect (even if on a pro forma basis) than a quick metaphorical middle-finger dismissal.
Do you actually think the Big 12 will expand? If so, will they extend the GOR?
(09-02-2016 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:14 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]True enough, but there may be some political value in allowing unlikely schools to at least make their formal pitches, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. It gives those schools' leadership and elected representatives the ability to go to their constituents and say how they went to bat for them (even if they lost), and it shows more respect (even if on a pro forma basis) than a quick metaphorical middle-finger dismissal.
Do you actually think the Big 12 will expand? If so, will they extend the GOR?
That's a really hard question to answer, as I've seen so many plausible theories (even if I haven't been on CSNBBS much in a while) that it's hard to make a clear prediction for any one path.
Expanding without extending the GOR would definitely be at best a mixed message, but if I had to guess I'd probably lean toward expansion by 2 for now, without an extension of the GoR. Who those 2 will be is difficult to say - I do agree with the apparent consensus that Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU are the favorites. If we see a revision to BYU's honor code in the news prior to any formal announcement, I think that will be the metaphorical white smoke. Houston does appear to have the political inside track for spot #1.
If they were to go to 14 (which I think is much less likely), it would make it an easier decision to get all of those 3, and I think the other finalist would be either CSU to pair with BYU and broaden a mountain time zone presence, or UConn to bolster the hoops inventory with another top-tier brand.
(09-02-2016 01:41 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:14 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]True enough, but there may be some political value in allowing unlikely schools to at least make their formal pitches, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. It gives those schools' leadership and elected representatives the ability to go to their constituents and say how they went to bat for them (even if they lost), and it shows more respect (even if on a pro forma basis) than a quick metaphorical middle-finger dismissal.
Do you actually think the Big 12 will expand? If so, will they extend the GOR?
That's a really hard question to answer, as I've seen so many plausible theories (even if I haven't been on CSNBBS much in a while) that it's hard to make a clear prediction for any one path.
Expanding without extending the GOR would definitely be at best a mixed message, but if I had to guess I'd probably lean toward expansion by 2 for now, without an extension of the GoR. Who those 2 will be is difficult to say - I do agree with the apparent consensus that Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU are the favorites. If we see a revision to BYU's honor code in the news prior to any formal announcement, I think that will be the metaphorical white smoke. Houston does appear to have the political inside track for spot #1.
If they were to go to 14 (which I think is much less likely), it would make it an easier decision to get all of those 3, and I think the other finalist would be either CSU to pair with BYU and broaden a mountain time zone presence, or UConn to bolster the hoops inventory with another top-tier brand.
I lean toward no expansion, but I could see two without a GOR extension.
(09-02-2016 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:41 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:14 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]True enough, but there may be some political value in allowing unlikely schools to at least make their formal pitches, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. It gives those schools' leadership and elected representatives the ability to go to their constituents and say how they went to bat for them (even if they lost), and it shows more respect (even if on a pro forma basis) than a quick metaphorical middle-finger dismissal.
Do you actually think the Big 12 will expand? If so, will they extend the GOR?
That's a really hard question to answer, as I've seen so many plausible theories (even if I haven't been on CSNBBS much in a while) that it's hard to make a clear prediction for any one path.
Expanding without extending the GOR would definitely be at best a mixed message, but if I had to guess I'd probably lean toward expansion by 2 for now, without an extension of the GoR. Who those 2 will be is difficult to say - I do agree with the apparent consensus that Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU are the favorites. If we see a revision to BYU's honor code in the news prior to any formal announcement, I think that will be the metaphorical white smoke. Houston does appear to have the political inside track for spot #1.
If they were to go to 14 (which I think is much less likely), it would make it an easier decision to get all of those 3, and I think the other finalist would be either CSU to pair with BYU and broaden a mountain time zone presence, or UConn to bolster the hoops inventory with another top-tier brand.
I lean toward no expansion, but I could see two without a GOR extension.
I could also see that, but with the whole thing being so public this time, I think they risk a big P.R. hit if they don't expand at all.
(09-02-2016 02:25 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:41 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:14 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]True enough, but there may be some political value in allowing unlikely schools to at least make their formal pitches, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. It gives those schools' leadership and elected representatives the ability to go to their constituents and say how they went to bat for them (even if they lost), and it shows more respect (even if on a pro forma basis) than a quick metaphorical middle-finger dismissal.
Do you actually think the Big 12 will expand? If so, will they extend the GOR?
That's a really hard question to answer, as I've seen so many plausible theories (even if I haven't been on CSNBBS much in a while) that it's hard to make a clear prediction for any one path.
Expanding without extending the GOR would definitely be at best a mixed message, but if I had to guess I'd probably lean toward expansion by 2 for now, without an extension of the GoR. Who those 2 will be is difficult to say - I do agree with the apparent consensus that Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU are the favorites. If we see a revision to BYU's honor code in the news prior to any formal announcement, I think that will be the metaphorical white smoke. Houston does appear to have the political inside track for spot #1.
If they were to go to 14 (which I think is much less likely), it would make it an easier decision to get all of those 3, and I think the other finalist would be either CSU to pair with BYU and broaden a mountain time zone presence, or UConn to bolster the hoops inventory with another top-tier brand.
I lean toward no expansion, but I could see two without a GOR extension.
I could also see that, but with the whole thing being so public this time, I think they risk a big P.R. hit if they don't expand at all.
I understand that, but it is something that can be spun fairly easily. "Well", Boren could say, "We've tried to preserve the Big 12 and to expand it for the benefit of its future, but others have said no. Therefore Oklahoma needs to look out for our own interests and the interests of our State." That simple statement doesn't violate the nature of the GOR on announcing that you will leave at the end of it, but it sends a pretty clear picture nonetheless. Texas likewise can say, "Well we tried to work with the administration at Oklahoma but they just wouldn't compromise on Houston and we have state interests as well."
The story then shifts from being about expansion and becomes focused on the differences that prohibit the continuance of the conference. The public seeking of legitimate expansion candidates then becomes the impasse that leaves no doubt as to the severity of the divide within the Big 12.
It works for Texas. It works for Oklahoma. It even works for Kansas. It just doesn't work very well for the other 7.
(09-02-2016 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 02:25 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:41 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Do you actually think the Big 12 will expand? If so, will they extend the GOR?
That's a really hard question to answer, as I've seen so many plausible theories (even if I haven't been on CSNBBS much in a while) that it's hard to make a clear prediction for any one path.
Expanding without extending the GOR would definitely be at best a mixed message, but if I had to guess I'd probably lean toward expansion by 2 for now, without an extension of the GoR. Who those 2 will be is difficult to say - I do agree with the apparent consensus that Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU are the favorites. If we see a revision to BYU's honor code in the news prior to any formal announcement, I think that will be the metaphorical white smoke. Houston does appear to have the political inside track for spot #1.
If they were to go to 14 (which I think is much less likely), it would make it an easier decision to get all of those 3, and I think the other finalist would be either CSU to pair with BYU and broaden a mountain time zone presence, or UConn to bolster the hoops inventory with another top-tier brand.
I lean toward no expansion, but I could see two without a GOR extension.
I could also see that, but with the whole thing being so public this time, I think they risk a big P.R. hit if they don't expand at all.
I understand that, but it is something that can be spun fairly easily. "Well", Boren could say, "We've tried to preserve the Big 12 and to expand it for the benefit of its future, but others have said no. Therefore Oklahoma needs to look out for our own interests and the interests of our State." That simple statement doesn't violate the nature of the GOR on announcing that you will leave at the end of it, but it sends a pretty clear picture nonetheless. Texas likewise can say, "Well we tried to work with the administration at Oklahoma but they just wouldn't compromise on Houston and we have state interests as well."
The story then shifts from being about expansion and becomes focused on the differences that prohibit the continuance of the conference. The public seeking of legitimate expansion candidates then becomes the impasse that leaves no doubt as to the severity of the divide within the Big 12.
It works for Texas. It works for Oklahoma. It even works for Kansas. It just doesn't work very well for the other 7.
That is a very plausible scenario. While it doesn't definitively lock them into an exit, it would be somewhat indicative of the likelihood that something is already outlined. I know they want to keep their options open, but it's also true that there have been issues with other conferences taking any of those 3 schools (UT because of their tendency to want control, OU because of OSU and being a small state, and KU because of KSU, small state, and current train-wreck football situation).
If they aren't fairly confident of getting an invitation, it may make sense to hold their noses and bring on a couple of brands to elevate rather than waiting even longer. To be fair, I do see how a statement like the one you anticipate above is a clear setup for handling the whole "little brother" situation.
(09-02-2016 02:59 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 02:25 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2016 01:41 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]That's a really hard question to answer, as I've seen so many plausible theories (even if I haven't been on CSNBBS much in a while) that it's hard to make a clear prediction for any one path.
Expanding without extending the GOR would definitely be at best a mixed message, but if I had to guess I'd probably lean toward expansion by 2 for now, without an extension of the GoR. Who those 2 will be is difficult to say - I do agree with the apparent consensus that Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU are the favorites. If we see a revision to BYU's honor code in the news prior to any formal announcement, I think that will be the metaphorical white smoke. Houston does appear to have the political inside track for spot #1.
If they were to go to 14 (which I think is much less likely), it would make it an easier decision to get all of those 3, and I think the other finalist would be either CSU to pair with BYU and broaden a mountain time zone presence, or UConn to bolster the hoops inventory with another top-tier brand.
I lean toward no expansion, but I could see two without a GOR extension.
I could also see that, but with the whole thing being so public this time, I think they risk a big P.R. hit if they don't expand at all.
I understand that, but it is something that can be spun fairly easily. "Well", Boren could say, "We've tried to preserve the Big 12 and to expand it for the benefit of its future, but others have said no. Therefore Oklahoma needs to look out for our own interests and the interests of our State." That simple statement doesn't violate the nature of the GOR on announcing that you will leave at the end of it, but it sends a pretty clear picture nonetheless. Texas likewise can say, "Well we tried to work with the administration at Oklahoma but they just wouldn't compromise on Houston and we have state interests as well."
The story then shifts from being about expansion and becomes focused on the differences that prohibit the continuance of the conference. The public seeking of legitimate expansion candidates then becomes the impasse that leaves no doubt as to the severity of the divide within the Big 12.
It works for Texas. It works for Oklahoma. It even works for Kansas. It just doesn't work very well for the other 7.
That is a very plausible scenario. While it doesn't definitively lock them into an exit, it would be somewhat indicative of the likelihood that something is already outlined. I know they want to keep their options open, but it's also true that there have been issues with other conferences taking any of those 3 schools (UT because of their tendency to want control, OU because of OSU and being a small state, and KU because of KSU, small state, and current train-wreck football situation).
If they aren't fairly confident of getting an invitation, it may make sense to hold their noses and bring on a couple of brands to elevate rather than waiting even longer. To be fair, I do see how a statement like the one you anticipate above is a clear setup for handling the whole "little brother" situation.
They then claim they both tried to expand to help the little brother but that it just wasn't possible because of the divergent views on what to do and the failure to get to the required support with either agenda. Then they could start the selling job on why they have to do what is best for themselves. "We tried for the sake of our states to stay together, but it is now evident that the cohesion necessary for a viable conference is not present." Then they sell every man for himself.
McMurphy tweeted that Memphis is out. So 11 now?