(04-28-2013 05:31 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 05:26 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  The TV networks have spoken and said we won't invite anyone that doesn't add additional money to our TV contract. The Big 12 doesn't need or want small schools that can't average 35-40K on a yearly basis.

Remove Texas and Oklahoma from your conference, and it would be fortunate to see $2 mil per year. Let us not forget when Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St ran to the PAC 12, but were turned away.

Thats not true at all. Larry Scott tried to get 6 Big XII schools to join (Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU and CU). A&M used it as leverage with the SEC and the Buff jumped at the idea. UT and the Pac couldn't come to an agreement about the Longhorn network. So once UT backed away so did the other 3.

I think the Big 5 are set for the next decade or so. Good chance something happens in the 20s, but I'm not even going to try to guess. Only thing I'm pretty certain about is that Big 10 will make a run at UVA and UNC. They still want to go in that direction. Big 10 ADs are still predicting more expansion (but not saying when).

Only things I see even remotely possible before then is Pac 12 expansion if Houston pulls a Boise and starts being a BCS bowl regular. Maybe a UH/New Mexico combo (New Mexico would have to improve as well). Noone adds enough to the Big 12, certainly not to the east which is where they want to go.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Gang of 5 shuffles around.

(04-28-2013 05:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  Wouldn't be surprised if the Gang of 5 shuffles around.

There and the other Division 1 subdivisions are are conference realignment is likely to be going on over the next few years. For one thing, the New Big East is likely to be inviting SLU and either Dayton or Richmond, which will lead to further jostling among the non-FB subdivision. For another, both the Sunbelt and the MAC are at an odd number, and the Sunbelt is just one shy of divisional play and a CCG.

(04-28-2013 05:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Big 5 are set for the next decade or so. Good chance something happens in the 20s, but I'm not even going to try to guess. Only thing I'm pretty certain about is that Big 10 will make a run at UVA and UNC. They still want to go in that direction. Big 10 ADs are still predicting more expansion (but not saying when).

Only things I see even remotely possible before then is Pac 12 expansion if Houston pulls a Boise and starts being a BCS bowl regular. Maybe a UH/New Mexico combo (New Mexico would have to improve as well). Noone adds enough to the Big 12, certainly not to the east which is where they want to go.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Gang of 5 shuffles around.

Think of the Gang of 5 as aftershocks, much like the WAC/MWC/CUSA changed from 1998 on in response to the 1989-1996 expansion among the major conferences. They continue will jockey for position.

(04-28-2013 04:36 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 04:23 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 04:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Wow...lot of wishful thinking here.

-There will not be another TX team in the SEC
-Neither of the OK schools will not be in the SEC
-No AAC/CUSA school will be in the SEC

I could be wrong but IMO the ACC GOR means any there wont be an Armageddon scenario and most movement will be limited to backfilling for quite a while.

Who then does the SEC pluck if the B1G pulled off stealing Missouri?

The SEC's options are pretty limited if you eliminate a second Texas school.

Missouri is there to be taken if the B1G really wants it. Moreover, it was fortunate that the SEC gave it protective custody after it escaped from the Texas warden and BIG XII lockdown.

That certainly is what transpired...

Missouri to the B1G doesn't sit well with me for some reason. The SEC hasn't lost a school since the 70's and Missouri needs SEC recruiting if it wants to compete on a national stage in football.

My theory is Apocolypse 2023......the B1G takes Kansas and Oklahoma once the B12 GOR expires. The SEC moves in on K-State and OSU.

Texas just like they were 3 decades before is left behind in a dying conference but they and Texas Tech find homes in the PAC who wants to expand TV markets into Texas. UNLV and New Mexico hitch along for the ride for their markets.

The ACC smells blood and knows the time is right to pluck WVU and Cincinnati to ease travel for the northern schools in advance of their 2025 negotiations.

Iowa State and Baylor....to the AAC

KSU and OSU?

no...just no.

(04-28-2013 05:51 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  KSU and OSU?

no...just no.

I completely agree.

(04-28-2013 05:50 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That certainly is what transpired...

Missouri to the B1G doesn't sit well with me for some reason. The SEC hasn't lost a school since the 70's and Missouri needs SEC recruiting if it wants to compete on a national stage in football.

My theory is Apocolypse 2023......the B1G takes Kansas and Oklahoma once the B12 GOR expires. The SEC moves in on K-State and OSU.

Texas just like they were 3 decades before is left behind in a dying conference but they and Texas Tech find homes in the PAC who wants to expand TV markets into Texas. UNLV and New Mexico hitch along for the ride for their markets.

The ACC smells blood and knows the time is right to pluck WVU and Cincinnati to ease travel for the northern schools in advance of their 2025 negotiations.

Iowa State and Baylor....to the AAC

Apocolypse 2023 (B12 is destroyed)
B1G-> Kansas, Oklahoma
SEC-> Kansas St, Oklahoma St
PAC-> Texas, TT, UNM, UNLV (Las Vegas market!)
ACC-> WVU, Cincinnati (raids the B12)
AAC-> Baylor (nice replacement for UC)
MAC-> Iowa State (finally finds #14)
MWC-> UTEP, NMSU (MWC back to 12)
CUSA-> Arkansas State
SBC-> JMU, Lamar (finally finds #12)

In one massive event the B12 is destroyed and the P4 conferences all have 16 schools. Apocolypse 2013.

-The SEC and B1G are able to balance their divisions out from East/West better with the addition of the Kansas and Oklahoma schools.

-The PAC finally gets into Texas and upgrades BB significantly with UNLV and NMSU.

-The ACC picks up WVU and UC to recreate the oBE.

-Iowa State joins the MAC where they can actually compete...

(04-28-2013 05:51 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  KSU and OSU?

no...just no.

I agree with KSU but I would hold up on the judgement on OSU for now. I realize OU would be the gem and OSU is the little brother BUT look at the trends for the two schools. OSU seems to be making all the right moves and moving in a positive direction. OU for some reason seems to be slowly drifting in the other direction. They are still the preferred program but OSU of today is not the OSU of the past.

(04-28-2013 05:37 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 05:31 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 05:26 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  The TV networks have spoken and said we won't invite anyone that doesn't add additional money to our TV contract. The Big 12 doesn't need or want small schools that can't average 35-40K on a yearly basis.

Remove Texas and Oklahoma from your conference, and it would be fortunate to see $2 mil per year. Let us not forget when Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St ran to the PAC 12, but were turned away.

OK sure. Tech is the 29th largest fan supported University in the country and we get a ton of eye balls on TV sets. The PAC 12 handed out invites to UT, Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St but UT wouldn't give on on the LHN. It was Texas that pulled away from the PAC 12.

Wrong.... The Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St ran to the PAC 12 and were turned down. They were never given invites. Therefore, what almost caused the BIG XII to become only words that appear on Wikipedia:

Mismanagement of the BIG XII allowed the PAC 12 to possibly take Texas, Texas T., Ok, and Ok St. These schools approached the PAC 12 when the BIG XII was falling apart because of mismanagement and Texas' stubborn mentality. Texas refused to give up control of the Long Horn Network, which is why the PAC 12 didn't go forward with killing the conference. The PAC 12 saw the Long Horn Network as a way to generate more $$ for its conference. Therefore, the BIG XII would have died from mismanagement if the PAC 12 would have voted to take all four schools anyway. Furthermore, BIG XII mismanagement is why Ok wanted the previous BIG XII commissioner replaced, which occurred.

"The Pac-12 decided it won't expand further late Tuesday because commissioner Larry Scott failed to get assurance that Texas would back an equal revenue sharing plan if the league added the Longhorns, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, a source with direct knowledge told ESPN.com."

"Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech were considering a potential move from the Big 12 to the Pac-12. After expanding from the Pac-10 with new members Utah and Colorado last year, members of the new Pac-12 decided not to stretch the league farther east."

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...nd-further

"Every indication is that the Sooners have been focused on the Pac-12 for a while now, and Boren has had pointed comments about the leadership of the Big 12. But the above source told me Tuesday afternoon that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott couldn't get some of the most powerful members of his league to bring Oklahoma aboard without Texas -- and Texas didn't want to compromise its Longhorn Network television deal to join the league."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...main-place

The information that I've posted isn't speculation; it's facts. This should convince you how close your beloved
BIG XII came to extinction.... So please don't get all high and mighty when referring to the possibility of an AAC school joining the BIG XII.

Wrong again.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni...ac-10.html

Quote:On Saturday he flew from Concord, Calif., to Oklahoma City, where he met with officials from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then on Sunday it went from Oklahoma City into Texas, where it landed in College Station (Texas A&M) before continuing on to Lubbock (Texas Tech) and then on to Austin (Texas). After handing out all those invitations there was one more stop on the itinerary, Kansas City (Kansas).

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/...s-20100615

Quote:Texas on Monday turned down an invitation to join the Pacific 10 Conference, ending the near-term chances of a powerhouse 16-school league in the West and a wild week of college football speculation.

I don't really care for the Big 12 so I'm not all high and mighty. The TV execs have spoken and they have concluded that no one in the AAC adds additional money to our TV contract. Outside of ECU and their 50K fans, we don't need or want schools that can't average 35K on a yearly basis.

(04-28-2013 06:26 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Wrong again.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni...ac-10.html

Quote:On Saturday he flew from Concord, Calif., to Oklahoma City, where he met with officials from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then on Sunday it went from Oklahoma City into Texas, where it landed in College Station (Texas A&M) before continuing on to Lubbock (Texas Tech) and then on to Austin (Texas). After handing out all those invitations there was one more stop on the itinerary, Kansas City (Kansas).

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/...s-20100615

Quote:Texas on Monday turned down an invitation to join the Pacific 10 Conference, ending the near-term chances of a powerhouse 16-school league in the West and a wild week of college football speculation.

I don't really care for the Big 12 so I'm not all high and mighty. The TV execs have spoken and they have concluded that no one in the AAC adds additional money to our TV contract. Outside of ECU and their 50K fans, we don't need or want schools that can't average 35K on a yearly basis.

We'll allow those who read this thread decide which source is right. Moreover, I appreciate the fact that you've given this thread a different perspective on the near demise of the BIG XII. I'll also admit that there isn't a school in the AAC that wouldn't jump at the chance to play in the BIG XII, so you've got me there....

However, please consider that if you substituted Texas Tech and TCU for SMU and Houston, Texas Tech and TCU would make AAC $ while SMU and Houston would make BIG XII $$. So my point is that being in a conference with marquee schools like Texas and Oklahoma would raise any schools income—a fact that I think we both would agree on in a thread about speculation.

(04-28-2013 06:26 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Wrong again.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni...ac-10.html

Quote:On Saturday he flew from Concord, Calif., to Oklahoma City, where he met with officials from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then on Sunday it went from Oklahoma City into Texas, where it landed in College Station (Texas A&M) before continuing on to Lubbock (Texas Tech) and then on to Austin (Texas). After handing out all those invitations there was one more stop on the itinerary, Kansas City (Kansas).

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/...s-20100615

Quote:Texas on Monday turned down an invitation to join the Pacific 10 Conference, ending the near-term chances of a powerhouse 16-school league in the West and a wild week of college football speculation.

I don't really care for the Big 12 so I'm not all high and mighty. The TV execs have spoken and they have concluded that no one in the AAC adds additional money to our TV contract. Outside of ECU and their 50K fans, we don't need or want schools that can't average 35K on a yearly basis.

The funny thing about this whole "any new school must bring 26MM to the pile" idea is that it basically defeats the idea of bringing in anybody except the most marquee of marquee programs. Very few schools have that kind of cash draw on their own. Take the recent additions to the P5. Utah? Nope. TCU? Nope. WVU? Nope. Louisville? Nope. Rutgers? Nope. Maryland? Nope.

It's a smokescreen to suggest that new teams have to add X amount of dollars. Not only is that number absurdly high, but it completely discounts all the other factors that go into conference alignment.

If money were *all* that mattered, the Big 12 would be an 8 team league, and none of those additions I just mentioned would've gotten invites.

(04-28-2013 06:59 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 06:26 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Wrong again.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni...ac-10.html

Quote:On Saturday he flew from Concord, Calif., to Oklahoma City, where he met with officials from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then on Sunday it went from Oklahoma City into Texas, where it landed in College Station (Texas A&M) before continuing on to Lubbock (Texas Tech) and then on to Austin (Texas). After handing out all those invitations there was one more stop on the itinerary, Kansas City (Kansas).

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/...s-20100615

Quote:Texas on Monday turned down an invitation to join the Pacific 10 Conference, ending the near-term chances of a powerhouse 16-school league in the West and a wild week of college football speculation.

I don't really care for the Big 12 so I'm not all high and mighty. The TV execs have spoken and they have concluded that no one in the AAC adds additional money to our TV contract. Outside of ECU and their 50K fans, we don't need or want schools that can't average 35K on a yearly basis.

We'll allow those who read this thread decide which source is right. Moreover, I appreciate the fact that you've given this thread a different perspective on the near demise of the BIG XII. I'll also admit that there isn't a school in the AAC that wouldn't jump at the chance to play in the BIG XII, so you've got me there....

However, please consider that if you substituted Texas Tech and TCU for SMU and Houston, Texas Tech and TCU would make AAC $ while SMU and Houston would make BIG XII $$. So my point is that being in a conference with marquee schools like Texas and Oklahoma would raise any schools income—a fact that I think we both would agree on in a thread about speculation.

Underdog you've nailed it.

At this time the votes don't exist in the PAC for anymore expansion. This is the primary problem of the Texas and Oklahoma schools.

A problem big enough that Oklahoma is thinking about going North not West with its next move, IMO.

(04-28-2013 06:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 05:51 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  KSU and OSU?

no...just no.

I agree with KSU but I would hold up on the judgement on OSU for now. I realize OU would be the gem and OSU is the little brother BUT look at the trends for the two schools. OSU seems to be making all the right moves and moving in a positive direction. OU for some reason seems to be slowly drifting in the other direction. They are still the preferred program but OSU of today is not the OSU of the past.

+1

I wouldn't dismiss Kansas State though with the success they've had on the football field and travel considerations.

SEC West: K-State, Mizzou, Okie St, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU

I wouldn't dismiss the idea because KSU/OSU help on travel for Arkansas and Missouri.

(04-28-2013 07:09 PM)DonnyMost Wrote:  The funny thing about this whole "any new school must bring 26MM to the pile" idea is that it basically defeats the idea of bringing in anybody except the most marquee of marquee programs. Very few schools have that kind of cash draw on their own. Take the recent additions to the P5. Utah? Nope. TCU? Nope. WVU? Nope. Louisville? Nope. Rutgers? Nope. Maryland? Nope.

It's a smokescreen to suggest that new teams have to add X amount of dollars. Not only is that number absurdly high, but it completely discounts all the other factors that go into conference alignment.

If money were *all* that mattered, the Big 12 would be an 8 team league, and none of those additions I just mentioned would've gotten invites.

The Big 12 could not have stayed at 8. Their TV contracts require a minimum of 10 teams. TCU was the most readily available school since they had already withdrawn from the MWC and hadn't fully joined the Big East. West Virginia was chosen over Louisville and possibly Cincinnati because West Virginia was willing to challenge the Big East over the 27 month notice and the others wouldn't. After getting back to 10 schools, no other potentially available schools added any value

(04-28-2013 08:41 PM)lew240z Wrote:  The Big 12 could not have stayed at 8. Their TV contracts require a minimum of 10 teams. TCU was the most readily available school since they had already withdrawn from the MWC and hadn't fully joined the Big East. West Virginia was chosen over Louisville and possibly Cincinnati because West Virginia was willing to challenge the Big East over the 27 month notice and the others wouldn't. After getting back to 10 schools, no other potentially available schools added any value

So get a new contract... as if that's never been done before.

WVU was chosen because the Big 12 panicked and added the school with the highest football profile they could. The rules for the BCS/playoff changed soon after, making WVU's inclusion not as necessary or prudent as it once seemed.

(04-28-2013 08:52 PM)DonnyMost Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 08:41 PM)lew240z Wrote:  The Big 12 could not have stayed at 8. Their TV contracts require a minimum of 10 teams. TCU was the most readily available school since they had already withdrawn from the MWC and hadn't fully joined the Big East. West Virginia was chosen over Louisville and possibly Cincinnati because West Virginia was willing to challenge the Big East over the 27 month notice and the others wouldn't. After getting back to 10 schools, no other potentially available schools added any value

So get a new contract... as if that's never been done before.

WVU was chosen because the Big 12 panicked and added the school with the highest football profile they could. The rules for the BCS/playoff changed soon after, making WVU's inclusion not as necessary or prudent as it once seemed.

A new contract would have been for a whole lot less money. ESPN and Fox are paying the Big 12 the same for the current 10 teams that they were for 12 and a CCG. Cutting the inventory by one third would have resulted in a much smaller contract. I wouldn't say the Big 12 panicked, but there was some urgency and they took the two schools that were most available. If Air Force had said yes, WV would be in the ACC now.

(04-28-2013 07:09 PM)DonnyMost Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 06:26 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Wrong again.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni...ac-10.html

Quote:On Saturday he flew from Concord, Calif., to Oklahoma City, where he met with officials from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then on Sunday it went from Oklahoma City into Texas, where it landed in College Station (Texas A&M) before continuing on to Lubbock (Texas Tech) and then on to Austin (Texas). After handing out all those invitations there was one more stop on the itinerary, Kansas City (Kansas).

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/...s-20100615

Quote:Texas on Monday turned down an invitation to join the Pacific 10 Conference, ending the near-term chances of a powerhouse 16-school league in the West and a wild week of college football speculation.

I don't really care for the Big 12 so I'm not all high and mighty. The TV execs have spoken and they have concluded that no one in the AAC adds additional money to our TV contract. Outside of ECU and their 50K fans, we don't need or want schools that can't average 35K on a yearly basis.

The funny thing about this whole "any new school must bring 26MM to the pile" idea is that it basically defeats the idea of bringing in anybody except the most marquee of marquee programs. Very few schools have that kind of cash draw on their own. Take the recent additions to the P5. Utah? Nope. TCU? Nope. WVU? Nope. Louisville? Nope. Rutgers? Nope. Maryland? Nope.

It's a smokescreen to suggest that new teams have to add X amount of dollars. Not only is that number absurdly high, but it completely discounts all the other factors that go into conference alignment.

If money were *all* that mattered, the Big 12 would be an 8 team league, and none of those additions I just mentioned would've gotten invites.

your so right. !!!

The shifting was to beef up every conference to a point and now the adds will be about potential (Geography,population,academics,) Big 12 and ACC need for the future teams to evolve a little more to show more value. But it is Not going to change the fact that they all want to get to 16 or 20. I have always felt they are working together on this. ESPN,FOX,NBC will pay.