(01-26-2011 10:28 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Does the Big East replace Miami and Virginia Tech with Cincinnati and South Florida?

UofL, UC, and USF are a big step below VTech and Miami in terms of national FB prestige. Adding those three schools did not come close to replacing the prestige VTech and Miami brought the league. I'm not embarrassed at all to say that either. Miami has 5 national titles, a .637 % win clip, 7 HoFers, and won 9 Big East titles (with multiple undefeated seasons).

So to answer your question, no the Big East did not even come close to replacing what it lost with Miami and VTech. What it did manage to do is take the best teams/athletic programs that were available at the time. Those teams have proven to be valuable to the Big East but you are kidding yourself if you think they are anywhere as appealing as Miami.

(01-26-2011 10:33 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I don't see the SDSU quote as anything more than "I cant talk about that" = "I cant talk about any league but I'll drum up attention before signing day".

BYU would add a lot though.

BYU would help for strength of schedule and name recognition, but Stoops and Brown don't want a 12-team league with a title game, and ESPN/Fox will not pay a 12-team Bevo Conference more than a 10-team Bevo Conference. Also, UT already has a contract to play BYU in football in which BYU has to play twice in Austin but only gets one game in Provo. (Side note: Is that really the best deal you could get, BYU? That 2-for-1 is the same deal that UT gives to Rice. You don't have as much clout as you think if you can't get UT to play a 1-for-1 series.)

(01-27-2011 01:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:33 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I don't see the SDSU quote as anything more than "I cant talk about that" = "I cant talk about any league but I'll drum up attention before signing day".

BYU would add a lot though.

BYU would help for strength of schedule and name recognition, but Stoops and Brown don't want a 12-team league with a title game, and ESPN/Fox will not pay a 12-team Bevo Conference more than a 10-team Bevo Conference. Also, UT already has a contract to play BYU in football in which BYU has to play twice in Austin but only gets one game in Provo. (Side note: Is that really the best deal you could get, BYU? That 2-for-1 is the same deal that UT gives to Rice. You don't have as much clout as you think if you can't get UT to play a 1-for-1 series.)

"We don't want a title game"

TRANSLATION

"We are fine as is until we find a mutually acceptable team 12"

(01-27-2011 01:19 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:33 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I don't see the SDSU quote as anything more than "I cant talk about that" = "I cant talk about any league but I'll drum up attention before signing day".

BYU would add a lot though.

BYU would help for strength of schedule and name recognition, but Stoops and Brown don't want a 12-team league with a title game, and ESPN/Fox will not pay a 12-team Bevo Conference more than a 10-team Bevo Conference. Also, UT already has a contract to play BYU in football in which BYU has to play twice in Austin but only gets one game in Provo. (Side note: Is that really the best deal you could get, BYU? That 2-for-1 is the same deal that UT gives to Rice. You don't have as much clout as you think if you can't get UT to play a 1-for-1 series.)

"We don't want a title game"

TRANSLATION

"We are fine as is until we find a mutually acceptable team 12"

That might be the Don Beebe translation. But the coaches prefer 10. If New Mexico had the football success of BYU, they'd get a look, but that's like saying that if pigs had wings they could fly. Actually pigs sprouting wings might be more likely than UNM developing a football program that wins 9 games a year and sells out their stadium.

A big obstacle now would be divisions. The old divisions were unbalanced with the south being dominant for most of the Big 12 years (outside the first couple), but the north at least had a big national name in Nebraska. If they divide the conference now, they only have 2 super power names and they are really going to want to be in the same divisions (their rivalry in the Big 12 south as worked well for both). A Big 12 with the current north schools and BYU and someone like SDSU is going to be far weaker than the south.

(01-27-2011 05:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A big obstacle now would be divisions. The old divisions were unbalanced with the south being dominant for most of the Big 12 years (outside the first couple), but the north at least had a big national name in Nebraska. If they divide the conference now, they only have 2 super power names and they are really going to want to be in the same divisions (their rivalry in the Big 12 south as worked well for both). A Big 12 with the current north schools and BYU and someone like SDSU is going to be far weaker than the south.

No, you split Texas and OU. Then you adopt the SEC system with a set cross-division game to maintain the Texas-OU game. Then you pray that you get a repeat in the CCG.

(01-26-2011 10:33 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I don't see the SDSU quote as anything more than "I cant talk about that" = "I cant talk about any league but I'll drum up attention before signing day".

BYU would add a lot though.

That's a good point on NSD...haha. Also....I was watching the BYU game last night and wow...what a crowd and arena they had there! I could definitely see BYU in the Big 12 mix, if they're going to expand. And BYU not playing on Sundays wouldn't be an issue, at all. How many Big 12 Sunday Night games has anyone seen?

If i were running the big 12, i'd break the divisions down to:

n- okla, ok state, kansas, kan state, missouri, iowa state
s- texas, tex a&M, tex tech, baylor, byu, team x

play a 5-1-2 schedule with texas keeping ou as an annual game. Teams to consider for team x (i don't believe any bcs schools are interested but sure call arkansas, lousiville, nd but after getting a no):

new mexico
san diego state
AFA- possible football only which would make byu a football only

i would add new mexico for the following reasons:

1) state flagship not in bcs area
2) excellent hoops which the big 12 is lacking more so than football
3) could be somewhat of a rival to a few big 12 school's
4) fits geography
5) growing part of the country

(01-27-2011 11:09 AM)bluesox Wrote:  i would add new mexico for the following reasons:

1) state flagship not in bcs area
2) excellent hoops which the big 12 is lacking more so than football
3) could be somewhat of a rival to a few big 12 school's
4) fits geography
5) growing part of the country

Ummmm... you sure about that? Here is this week's coaches' poll:

1 Ohio State (31) 20-0 775
2 Pittsburgh 19-1 727
3 Duke 18-1 712
4 San Diego State 20-0 677
5 Connecticut 16-2 624
6 Kansas 18-1 618
7 Villanova 17-2 580
8 Texas 16-3 563
9 Brigham Young 19-1 533
10 Syracuse 18-2 498
11 Texas A&M 17-2 436
12 Purdue 17-3 421
13 Missouri 17-3 398

(01-27-2011 08:55 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 05:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A big obstacle now would be divisions. The old divisions were unbalanced with the south being dominant for most of the Big 12 years (outside the first couple), but the north at least had a big national name in Nebraska. If they divide the conference now, they only have 2 super power names and they are really going to want to be in the same divisions (their rivalry in the Big 12 south as worked well for both). A Big 12 with the current north schools and BYU and someone like SDSU is going to be far weaker than the south.

No, you split Texas and OU. Then you adopt the SEC system with a set cross-division game to maintain the Texas-OU game. Then you pray that you get a repeat in the CCG.

I think that's what would have to happen if the Big 12 ever got back to 12 again.

However, here's a BIG thing people are missing (and why 10 is a good number for that conference for now). The biggest complaint of the "Little 4" has been about conference TV revenue distribution, which is based on TV appearances. That created a large divide between the Big 12 North and Big 12 South schools where pretty much any non-Nebraska Big 12 North game was shunted off to 3rd tier TV providers. With the round-robin, though, EVERY school is now guaranteed to play Texas AND Oklahoma every year. Even if nothing changes about the Big 12's TV revenue distribution formula, the round robin schedule in and of itself will equalize TV revenue more than before. BYU is a good school for TV purposes, but it's nowhere close to either UT or OU. San Diego State is a complete non-factor for national TV purposes - the Big 12's TV contracts are completely about national TV as opposed to markets.

The fans of the Little 4 schools may complain about UT and OU, but the actual leaders of the Little 4 know that their national TV appearances are heavily reliant on UT and OU. I think you're going to have a VERY hard time getting the Little 4 to agree to give up annual games against both UT and OU from this point forward.

(01-27-2011 05:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A big obstacle now would be divisions. The old divisions were unbalanced with the south being dominant for most of the Big 12 years (outside the first couple), but the north at least had a big national name in Nebraska. If they divide the conference now, they only have 2 super power names and they are really going to want to be in the same divisions (their rivalry in the Big 12 south as worked well for both). A Big 12 with the current north schools and BYU and someone like SDSU is going to be far weaker than the south.

I think there is a very practical and balanced way to set up Big 12 divisions. For example:

Division #1
Texas
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Missouri
Baylor
Colorado St (recapture some of the Denver market)

Division #2
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
BYU


Each division has two Texas teams. That means a guaranteed trip to Texas for recruiting each and every year. By separating UT from OU, you are allowing for a good possibility that both will land in the Big 12 championship with some frequency (good for TV ratings, attendance, etc). You also have the chance of landing at UT/Texas A&M Championship game as well which would probably draw astronomical numbers in Texas (though I'm not sure how well it would do nationally). To preserve rivalry games, the conference switches to a 9 game conference slate made up of 5 divisional opponents and 4 cross divisional opponents. Of those 4 cross divisional games, two will be permanent games and two will be rotating games. Permanent rivalry games would be:

Texas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M

Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
BYU

Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech

Missouri
Iowa St
Kansas St

Baylor
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

Colorado St
BYU
Iowa St

Some of those games aren't rivalry games and won't be big TV ratings grabbers (no divisional alignment will preserve 100% of the rivalries). However, most of the major rivalries are preserved and will generate TV buzz.

(01-27-2011 01:10 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:28 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Does the Big East replace Miami and Virginia Tech with Cincinnati and South Florida?

UofL, UC, and USF are a big step below VTech and Miami in terms of national FB prestige. Adding those three schools did not come close to replacing the prestige VTech and Miami brought the league. I'm not embarrassed at all to say that either. Miami has 5 national titles, a .637 % win clip, 7 HoFers, and won 9 Big East titles (with multiple undefeated seasons).

So to answer your question, no the Big East did not even come close to replacing what it lost with Miami and VTech. What it did manage to do is take the best teams/athletic programs that were available at the time. Those teams have proven to be valuable to the Big East but you are kidding yourself if you think they are anywhere as appealing as Miami.

I agree with your Miami analysis.

VPI was really a creation of the Big East, though, and an easy schedule year in and year out. Check the records, VPI usually played one of the easiest schedules in all of D1 football. That is how they racked up the "great" record. They would play in conference and possibly one other good school. Teams whose real goal is a championship usually play strong schools that can beat them. I think Schiano is following this plan (sorry, Brista).

L'ville, Cincy and USF have easily matched or exceeded what VPI did for the Big East. Within a few more years and you can through BC in the VPI category, too.

(01-27-2011 01:22 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:10 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:28 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Does the Big East replace Miami and Virginia Tech with Cincinnati and South Florida?

UofL, UC, and USF are a big step below VTech and Miami in terms of national FB prestige. Adding those three schools did not come close to replacing the prestige VTech and Miami brought the league. I'm not embarrassed at all to say that either. Miami has 5 national titles, a .637 % win clip, 7 HoFers, and won 9 Big East titles (with multiple undefeated seasons).

So to answer your question, no the Big East did not even come close to replacing what it lost with Miami and VTech. What it did manage to do is take the best teams/athletic programs that were available at the time. Those teams have proven to be valuable to the Big East but you are kidding yourself if you think they are anywhere as appealing as Miami.

I agree with your Miami analysis.

VPI was really a creation of the Big East, though, and an easy schedule year in and year out. Check the records, VPI usually played one of the easiest schedules in all of D1 football. That is how they racked up the "great" record. They would play in conference and possibly one other good school. Teams whose real goal is a championship usually play strong schools that can beat them. I think Schiano is following this plan (sorry, Brista).

L'ville, Cincy and USF have easily matched or exceeded what VPI did for the Big East. Within a few more years and you can through BC in the VPI category, too.

Virginia Tech played for a national championship while in the Big East. Let me know the next time a current member does.

(01-27-2011 09:16 AM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:33 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I don't see the SDSU quote as anything more than "I cant talk about that" = "I cant talk about any league but I'll drum up attention before signing day".

BYU would add a lot though.

And BYU not playing on Sundays wouldn't be an issue, at all. How many Big 12 Sunday Night games has anyone seen?

Baseball, Basketball, volleyball, softball play a lot on Sunday's. That's were the issue lies with BYU. Football is a work around but the other sports is where you have logistical problems.

(01-27-2011 01:22 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  VPI was really a creation of the Big East, though, and an easy schedule year in and year out. Check the records, VPI usually played one of the easiest schedules in all of D1 football. That is how they racked up the "great" record. They would play in conference and possibly one other good school. Teams whose real goal is a championship usually play strong schools that can beat them. I think Schiano is following this plan (sorry, Brista).

L'ville, Cincy and USF have easily matched or exceeded what VPI did for the Big East. Within a few more years and you can through BC in the VPI category, too.

Don't get me wrong. I think UC, UofL, and USF were valuable additions to the Big East. However, material value (on-the-field performance, facilities, attendance, whatever other objective metric you want to include) is only part of the equation. The other half is more abstract/subjective and involves a combination of national TV appeal, a program's "prestige" and tradition (whether deserved or not), academics, etc.

Let's take the example of Boston college and UofL. UofL has higher attendance for both major sports, much better facilities for both major sports, has the most profitable basketball program in the nation, is considered one of the Top 10/15 all-time basketball programs by most analysts, has appearances in the Final Four/BCS/World Series over the last decade, has a more competitive athletic department across the board, etc. As a UofL fan, I'm extremely proud of all of that. However, I would argue that in the eyes of most casual sports fans (the people TV targets) Boston College still is a more valuable commodity than UofL's. BC has more tradition/prestige attached to its name than UofL does (has any school milked a single play more than the Flutie Hail Mary?) and more national appeal. Part of the reason is that UofL is a newcomer to the upper echelon (power conference) of college athletics.

Ultimately, my point was that there is no logical way to say that a conference could completely replace three brand name teams with three teams from a lower conference (none of whom have an outstanding football tradition). It isn't a 1:1 substitution. Over time, those teams may eventually become as valuable as the defectors, but they'll need time and success on the national stage to do so.

(01-27-2011 01:21 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 05:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A big obstacle now would be divisions. The old divisions were unbalanced with the south being dominant for most of the Big 12 years (outside the first couple), but the north at least had a big national name in Nebraska. If they divide the conference now, they only have 2 super power names and they are really going to want to be in the same divisions (their rivalry in the Big 12 south as worked well for both). A Big 12 with the current north schools and BYU and someone like SDSU is going to be far weaker than the south.

I think there is a very practical and balanced way to set up Big 12 divisions. For example:

Division #1
Texas
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Missouri
Baylor
Colorado St (recapture some of the Denver market)

Division #2
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
BYU


Each division has two Texas teams. That means a guaranteed trip to Texas for recruiting each and every year. By separating UT from OU, you are allowing for a good possibility that both will land in the Big 12 championship with some frequency (good for TV ratings, attendance, etc). You also have the chance of landing at UT/Texas A&M Championship game as well which would probably draw astronomical numbers in Texas (though I'm not sure how well it would do nationally). To preserve rivalry games, the conference switches to a 9 game conference slate made up of 5 divisional opponents and 4 cross divisional opponents. Of those 4 cross divisional games, two will be permanent games and two will be rotating games. Permanent rivalry games would be:

Texas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M

Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
BYU

Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech

Missouri
Iowa St
Kansas St

Baylor
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

Colorado St
BYU
Iowa St

Some of those games aren't rivalry games and won't be big TV ratings grabbers (no divisional alignment will preserve 100% of the rivalries). However, most of the major rivalries are preserved and will generate TV buzz.

I think the basic idea is right in doing a "semi-zipper" division setup like the P12 did with the Cali Schools playing each other every year.

CSU is option 9 or 10 though at best. I would take AFA over them any day.

(01-27-2011 02:25 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  CSU is option 9 or 10 though at best. I would take AFA over them any day.

Honestly, the only reason why I picked CSU and BYU was because they were the first two teams that came to mind. I need 12 teams to propose how a 12 team conference could work and I simply went with the first two that I thought of while typing.

Ultimately, I think the lack of consensus/slam dunk candidates is what will stall Big 12 expansion more than anything else. Candidates that the Big 12 would love to have (Arkansas, LSU, ND, etc) aren't leaving their respective situations and candidates that are available (BYU, CSU, Air Force, NMU, etc) probably don't have enough supporters among the current 10 members.

Laugh out load at the Big 12 looking to expand with SDSU. One of the best programs in the country is in their back yard and going to the Big East. Hey Big 12? Do you want a good football conference or not?

(01-27-2011 02:38 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:25 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  CSU is option 9 or 10 though at best. I would take AFA over them any day.

Honestly, the only reason why I picked CSU and BYU was because they were the first two teams that came to mind. I need 12 teams to propose how a 12 team conference could work and I simply went with the first two that I thought of while typing.

Ultimately, I think the lack of consensus/slam dunk candidates is what will stall Big 12 expansion more than anything else. Candidates that the Big 12 would love to have (Arkansas, LSU, ND, etc) aren't leaving their respective situations and candidates that are available (BYU, CSU, Air Force, NMU, etc) probably don't have enough supporters among the current 10 members.

Seems like BYU would be a no brainer. #12 is the question. CSU looks like it would be solely for the Denver market that was lost.

(01-27-2011 04:25 PM)West Coast Johnny Wrote:  Laugh out load at the Big 12 looking to expand with SDSU. One of the best programs in the country is in their back yard and going to the Big East. Hey Big 12? Do you want a good football conference or not?

I am assuming you mean TCU? I quite agree that TCU would make so much more sense in the BigXII(-2). But apparently they are not interested in another Texas school, as the conference is already heavy with them.