At this point, I just don't see any conference poaching a Big 12 team not named Texas. While schools like Kansas might be an attractive option to the Big Ten, I do not think the Big Ten would want to do anything that would risk killing the Big 12 and thus send Texas into one of the other rival conferences.

Basically, while the B1G might very well want Kansas, if the price of taking Kansas is having Texas go to the ACC, SEC or PAC, then Kansas isn't going to be in the B1G.

School B(aylor) then sues ESPN for essentially transferring money from one conference to another while holding a contract with both. From what I've gathered, it sucks to be ESPN in case like that.

(02-15-2014 07:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Cinci, Colorado St, Rice are probably the targets.

I think those are the most likely of what remains, in that order no less.

That doesn't mean BYU and Air Force won't be approached, but I suspect BYU won't care for the terms and AFA will just feel overwhelmed.

UNM's the kind of school they want: big, flagship, and in an "urban" market. Problem is, it has to be a big statey in a really small state. The Lobos were in the mix to be in the original twelve, but were squeezed out. I wonder if the Big XII ever goes back to them.

(02-17-2014 12:17 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  School B(aylor) then sues ESPN for essentially transferring money from one conference to another while holding a contract with both. From what I've gathered, it sucks to be ESPN in case like that.

No suit against ESPN arose from the ACC plucking Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville. I'm not sure the GOR's do not empower ESPN to continue any influence they may have in CR with even less concern its actions may result in a suit, since ESPN actually owns the rights with a GOR.

Maybe I'm missing something?

I think movement is done unless one of 3 teams are willing to do something. Those 3 are

Texas
ND
UNC

If those 3 remain content with how things are then I don't see any changes coming for quite a while. I believe UNC and Texas would rather run conferences than just be members of a higher paying conferece, and ND wants to be indy at all costs. I don't see anything really on the horizon that's going to change any of those things. Outside of those 3 I don't see anyone that the SEC, B1G, or PAC would be willing or able to get that would greatly increase their value.

(02-17-2014 02:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I think movement is done unless one of 3 teams are willing to do something. Those 3 are

Texas
ND
UNC

If those 3 remain content with how things are then I don't see any changes coming for quite a while. I believe UNC and Texas would rather run conferences than just be members of a higher paying conference, and ND wants to be indy at all costs. I don't see anything really on the horizon that's going to change any of those things. Outside of those 3 I don't see anyone that the SEC, B1G, or PAC would be willing or able to get that would greatly increase their value.

I think there's a big difference between UT and UNC (aside from the fact one of them has a history of football success). I think UNC understands that it is important for the stability of the ACC, but it's been a long time since they were able to "run" anything. They were outvoted in the first expansion move ten years ago, and are losing more control by the day.

Texas, on the other hand, isn't avoiding other conferences because they want to run the one they're in. I think their ego is big enough that they believe they would run any conference they joined.

(02-17-2014 03:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 02:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I think movement is done unless one of 3 teams are willing to do something. Those 3 are

Texas
ND
UNC

If those 3 remain content with how things are then I don't see any changes coming for quite a while. I believe UNC and Texas would rather run conferences than just be members of a higher paying conference, and ND wants to be indy at all costs. I don't see anything really on the horizon that's going to change any of those things. Outside of those 3 I don't see anyone that the SEC, B1G, or PAC would be willing or able to get that would greatly increase their value.

I think there's a big difference between UT and UNC (aside from the fact one of them has a history of football success). I think UNC understands that it is important for the stability of the ACC, but it's been a long time since they were able to "run" anything. They were outvoted in the first expansion move ten years ago, and are losing more control by the day.

Texas, on the other hand, isn't avoiding other conferences because they want to run the one they're in. I think their ego is big enough that they believe they would run any conference they joined.

As long as they're getting away with what they do, they're still running the show. When the day comes that UNC is actually put in its place by some governing body, they will no longer run things.

Crazy they got a week off before playing @ ECU this year after getting throttled at home last year. Wonder how on earth they got the ACC to set that one up?

(02-17-2014 03:13 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 03:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 02:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I think movement is done unless one of 3 teams are willing to do something. Those 3 are

Texas
ND
UNC

If those 3 remain content with how things are then I don't see any changes coming for quite a while. I believe UNC and Texas would rather run conferences than just be members of a higher paying conference, and ND wants to be indy at all costs. I don't see anything really on the horizon that's going to change any of those things. Outside of those 3 I don't see anyone that the SEC, B1G, or PAC would be willing or able to get that would greatly increase their value.

I think there's a big difference between UT and UNC (aside from the fact one of them has a history of football success). I think UNC understands that it is important for the stability of the ACC, but it's been a long time since they were able to "run" anything. They were outvoted in the first expansion move ten years ago, and are losing more control by the day.

Texas, on the other hand, isn't avoiding other conferences because they want to run the one they're in. I think their ego is big enough that they believe they would run any conference they joined.

As long as they're getting away with what they do, they're still running the show. When the day comes that UNC is actually put in its place by some governing body, they will no longer run things.

Crazy they got a week off before playing @ ECU this year after getting throttled at home last year. Wonder how on earth they got the ACC to set that one up?

And here I thought it was mostly State fans that were paranoid about UNC.

(02-17-2014 12:15 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  At this point, I just don't see any conference poaching a Big 12 team not named Texas. While schools like Kansas might be an attractive option to the Big Ten, I do not think the Big Ten would want to do anything that would risk killing the Big 12 and thus send Texas into one of the other rival conferences.

Basically, while the B1G might very well want Kansas, if the price of taking Kansas is having Texas go to the ACC, SEC or PAC, then Kansas isn't going to be in the B1G.

Agreed. I made this point a couple of weeks ago from the Pac-12 perspective -- the Pac's first choice is to get UT in the Pac, and their second choice, by far, is for UT to stay in the Big 12 and not go to the SEC or Big Ten. So they're pretty content to leave the Horns where they are, and really no one wants to further destabilize the Big 12 unless they can acquire the Horns for their own league.

(02-16-2014 01:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:50 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 07:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  I do think the last domino will be the B12 needing two more for a championship game - that's too much money on the table to be without one -

Cinci, Colorado St, Rice are probably the targets.

I'm not convinced BXII is in any hurry to move, and "need" is a strong word since they don't "need" a champ game.

When they do add, it will be for reasons other than the champ game.

One reason I think they will want to add is to keep pace with the four "big" (sized) P5 conferences (the so-called "Big"12 now looks relatively small).

I think they still need to shore up Texas to keep SEC in check. If they decide to add Rice (along with TCU previously) just to fill the A&M void, then it is not a bad tactical move.

They also need to get a geographic partner for WVU - and Cincinnati is a nice fit there.

There could be a dozen more schools with a good case for inclusion if/when B12 goes to 12 (or more). I'm not going to argue pro/con of those here but just say that I like Cinci+Rice as one option.

I don't know what their grand plan is for geographic footprint, but I would sure like to see them get back to 12 (and embrace the conference name) or jump to 14 (and roll out a new name)

I see what you did there with Rice. If I were an Owl fan, I'd probably make the same argument. But with 40% of the league already from Texas, I doubt they feel that state needs shoring up.

But my question is: why does WVU need a geographic partner, or a "travel partner" as it is sometimes called? At best, that's one away game every couple of years that you might be able to take a bus to instead of flying. How much is that worth to WVU? More importantly, what's that worth to ESPN or Fox?

Poor choice of words on my part. Ironically, after quibbling with the OP on what the B12 "needs" to get to a champ game, I said they "need" to shore up the state of TX. They don't. They are the conference with TX's signature program and they have 4 of the top 5 of the state's programs in the conference.

However- before TAMU left, they had a virtual lockdown as the lead college story on every local sports media in the state. If A&M and UT are not playing that day, TxTech vs OkSt was more important than LSU-Auburn, even 10 hours away in Houston.

So they are still #1 in the state but do they feel that's good enough? A&M and the SEC have served notice with billboards strategically located throughout Texas proclaiming "This is SEC Country". Saying it doesn't make it true, but it is a shot across the bow. It's also good to see A&M grow a set and start getting over the inferiority complex to it's "big brother".

One more reason to bolster the state is access to TX for other programs as the league expands geographically. Yes they are 40% TX but if they expand they ought not dilute that too much, if they want to offer all 12 or 14 "enough" games in the state.

As for WVU, the geography is only partly about travel (for all sports, not just football every 2 yrs) - but like the TX perceived "dominance" - it is more about media.
You will get media coverage of the whole conference in pockets around each member school. But if you can place 2-3 schools in a region- then collectively you have fans of those 2-3 schools to reach a tipping point in a much larger region. This (in theory) leads to more conference exposure, more eyeballs on TV watching games they might not otherwise follow, etc.

That is just one criteria, but it is one that I believe gets a close look each time around. And the local media coverage drives interest conference-wide which, or course, drives the value to the big media for their contracts.

Come on guys, it's Ivan Meisel. He is a senior writer, aka ESPN's direct mouthpiece of choice.

I told ya that the ACC's coming out about changing of the rules was all about showing the conference commissioners of the Majors are still working together. This used to be the battle cry of the Big 12's Commish but now Swofford lent his weight.

This is a pseudo battle with the Networks. "We will push this through if you don't come through with the big cash to add some of the NFL flavor to college football."

Well, this is most likely ESPN's public response. It is a negotiation. Whatever money the conferences wanted ESPN to pony up, they are negotiating it down and they are countering the public game in order to put some of the pressure back on the Commissioners and the conferences.

(02-18-2014 09:04 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 01:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:50 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 07:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  I do think the last domino will be the B12 needing two more for a championship game - that's too much money on the table to be without one -

Cinci, Colorado St, Rice are probably the targets.

I'm not convinced BXII is in any hurry to move, and "need" is a strong word since they don't "need" a champ game.

When they do add, it will be for reasons other than the champ game.

One reason I think they will want to add is to keep pace with the four "big" (sized) P5 conferences (the so-called "Big"12 now looks relatively small).

I think they still need to shore up Texas to keep SEC in check. If they decide to add Rice (along with TCU previously) just to fill the A&M void, then it is not a bad tactical move.

They also need to get a geographic partner for WVU - and Cincinnati is a nice fit there.

There could be a dozen more schools with a good case for inclusion if/when B12 goes to 12 (or more). I'm not going to argue pro/con of those here but just say that I like Cinci+Rice as one option.

I don't know what their grand plan is for geographic footprint, but I would sure like to see them get back to 12 (and embrace the conference name) or jump to 14 (and roll out a new name)

I see what you did there with Rice. If I were an Owl fan, I'd probably make the same argument. But with 40% of the league already from Texas, I doubt they feel that state needs shoring up.

But my question is: why does WVU need a geographic partner, or a "travel partner" as it is sometimes called? At best, that's one away game every couple of years that you might be able to take a bus to instead of flying. How much is that worth to WVU? More importantly, what's that worth to ESPN or Fox?

Poor choice of words on my part. Ironically, after quibbling with the OP on what the B12 "needs" to get to a champ game, I said they "need" to shore up the state of TX. They don't. They are the conference with TX's signature program and they have 4 of the top 5 of the state's programs in the conference.

However- before TAMU left, they had a virtual lockdown as the lead college story on every local sports media in the state. If A&M and UT are not playing that day, TxTech vs OkSt was more important than LSU-Auburn, even 10 hours away in Houston.

So they are still #1 in the state but do they feel that's good enough? A&M and the SEC have served notice with billboards strategically located throughout Texas proclaiming "This is SEC Country". Saying it doesn't make it true, but it is a shot across the bow. It's also good to see A&M grow a set and start getting over the inferiority complex to it's "big brother".

One more reason to bolster the state is access to TX for other programs as the league expands geographically. Yes they are 40% TX but if they expand they ought not dilute that too much, if they want to offer all 12 or 14 "enough" games in the state.

As for WVU, the geography is only partly about travel (for all sports, not just football every 2 yrs) - but like the TX perceived "dominance" - it is more about media.
You will get media coverage of the whole conference in pockets around each member school. But if you can place 2-3 schools in a region- then collectively you have fans of those 2-3 schools to reach a tipping point in a much larger region. This (in theory) leads to more conference exposure, more eyeballs on TV watching games they might not otherwise follow, etc.

That is just one criteria, but it is one that I believe gets a close look each time around. And the local media coverage drives interest conference-wide which, or course, drives the value to the big media for their contracts.

To quote Frank Broyles, what makes a great rivalry is proximity, the fans of the two schools have to interact with each other. I doubt there are many Ohio State fans who don't know at least a few Michigan fans they have to contend with. Alabama - Auburn isn't a great rivalry if the fans aren't stuck and unable to spend a day without being confronted by some sign of the enemy camp.

West Virginia needs a neighbor in the Big XII, they need a school that their fans bump into from time to time. They need a road trip the fans can make without boarding an airplane or taking off Friday and driving like hell to reach for a Saturday game. They need someone close enough by to bind them into the league.

I don't really see any school's the big 12 could bring in that would be WVU rival, they will have no rival in the big 12. UConn, UCF, USF, byu or Cincy? none of them strike me as a rival to wvu. Now if you put wvu in the big 10, sec or acc, than they got rivals. If conferences limit themselves to not going past 16, than conference peace probably does last for awhile Yet, if the big 10, pac 12, sec, or acc go with the 18 team format, than everything is open.