(06-06-2014 12:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:46 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it would not bother me if the Big 12 did something with BYU similar to the ACC and ND

I have no issue with BYU from a strength of opponent perspective I think they can step up and be a strong team and they have been in the past and they would be even more likely to be a strong team if they had an affiliation with a top conference

I also have no issue with them not wanting to play on Sundays or with Mormons in general in fact I have very much liked 100% of the Mormons I have ever met and found them to be some of the best people I have known

I do however have no interest in cutting any portion of income for any current member of the Big 12 by even 1 dollar and as of now that is why I am opposed to Big 12 expansion because there are no teams that bring enough revenue to cover themselves much less add any additional dollars and really there are few if any that bring any type of real strength of schedule as well

I think BYU would gladly take less money or even no money if BYU was allowed to keep 100% of the income from their home games for all sports......the truth of the matter is ND takes LESS money with their NBC deal and their 1/15th of 20% from the ACC than they would take with a full share, but that is how they prefer it so go for it

I would also expect (though I am not sure it would happen) that the Big 12 would push for and support BYU being included in the rotation of teams that take the second Orange Bowl slot that is available to ND, the SEC SEC SEC, PAC 12 or Big 10 and if BYU qualified for it the same way that ND is eligible to qualify for it they would get the same payout and I would expect that the Big 12 would push for BYU to get all the other considerations financial and otherwise that ND gets

if BYU agreed to that and the money was the same or better for all current members of the Big 12 then I would prefer the Big 12 go with a hybrid schedule where they played 8 conference games with pseudo divisions that kept rivalries in tact like UT/OU and KU/KSU and then half play the BYU games and the other half are free to schedule how they see fit for that now available OOC game and of course BYU would rotate around

I would prefer the Big 12 get back to where there were 8 conference games so the conference overall has the ability to have more teams with better overall records because of ability to schedule for their needs and the reduction in the fact that a conference game means 1 win for the conference AND 1 loss no matter what where an OOC game brings the chance to get a win for the conference strength without a loss for the conference as well

if it worked and IF WVU DESIRED IT I would not even mind if WVU was opted out of the BYU games and given the ability to schedule every year on the east coast against an OOC opponent of their choosing......again this would be BY DESIRE OF WVU and provided it worked for everyone else

as for the "strength" of BYU and what the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC think well I think both of them are being stupid about BYU in particular and I think that BYU has the chance to be as strong or stronger every year as many of the lower level teams in the big 10 and SEC so pretendign that BYU would hurt you in the schedule is laughable especially from the SEC SEC SEC that has never been shy about all having a D1-AA game on the schedule much less very weak D1-A teams

and as for WVU perhaps opting out of the BYU game (because of distance and their position in the east coast) people forget that in the new playoff format the goal is to win and be as highly ranked as possible period it really does not matter if your wins and strength come from the conference, conference "affiliates" or from the OOC as long as you have the strength in your schedule and you win the games you will make the cut and as long as WVU still has the same chance to make The Sugar bowl access game as every other member I think they would prefer 8 conference games and more scheduling freedom

conferences in these days and times bring three things guaranteed opponents and conference money and an access bowl slot if you qualify for it......as long as WVU still got 100% of what they get now and they had the freedom in the schedule and they DESIRED that then I think it would be great for the Big 12

the Big 12 would have fewer conference games which increases the CHANCE to have a win for conference strength without a conference loss and WVU would be free to try and place better ranked teams on their schedule from other conferences to try and bring overall strength (from a win of course) to the Big 12 and if BYU stayed good and they were beating a lot of other teams outside of the Big 12 and going to and winning bowl games and the Big 12 was doing well against BYU then that helps the Big 12 overall

and as to BYU and "strength" and how they count I think placing BYU "at a lower level" really is an issue for the PAC 12 as much or more than any other conference (and besides for BYU of course)

if BYU is "at a lower level" what does that mean for the members of the MWC, Sunbelt (Idaho NMSU) and CUSA (UTEP) that are available for the PAC 12 to play in the Mountain or wesss coass time zone and that are even remotely close for them to play in the OOC

even if they can get teams from the Big 12, SEC SEC SEC, Big 10 and ACC to come play them home and home with a 9 game conference schedule that still means that the PAC 12 teams will be doing a lot of travel eastward.....each team coming to play them will be making that one trip, but the PAC 12 teams have those 3 games to fill and east coast teams have so many more choices so much closer

and all the worse is when you have the 5 home games in conference it will still be difficult to get more than 6 total home games without playing a buy in game and so you will probably be having to travel east for two of those games because the prior (or next year) when you are needing two home OOC games to get to 6 home games you of course have to "pay that back" and travel two times the next year

so the years when you are thinking "5 conference games at home advantage us" you are still faced with traveling east 2 times to get that desired "strength"

removing BYU from that equation or "demoting" them as less than desirable automatically makes it that much more difficult

since the BCS started in 1998 BYU has played PAC 12 teams:

ASU 1 time 1998
AU 3 times 2006, 07 and 08
Cal 3 99, 01 and 05
CU none
UO 06
OSU 09, 11 and 12
USC 03 and 04
Stanford 03 and 04
UCLA 07 and 08 (and a bowl game)
Utah 16 every year
UW 5 98, 99, 08, 10 and 13
WSU 1 2012 and they would have played in 2013 if mike did not do what mike does best and duck a tougher opponent for a weak D1-AA team

so especially lately it is not like the PAC 12 has been ducking BYU and especially Utah (that can hardly afford to pay buy in games) would be losing a game they prefer and their fans want

so if the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 are serious about "only playing approved teams" (lets be real they are not) well besides BYU it is the PAC 12 that will have the hardest time with BYU becoming "non approved" because that pretty much leaves the PAC 12 with MWC, CUSA and SunBelt teams (and really really bad Sunbelt and CUSA teams) that are west of the rockies or in the Mountain or wesss coasss time zones and I think the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially are not going to like the results of their lower level teams playing "approved" teams and I think the top SEC SEC SEC teams might find it is more detrimental than it is helpful and I think given the proper opportunity BYU could bring plenty of "strength" to a schedule relative to other conferences lower level teams and available OOC games even with "approved" teams

I think done properly BYU and the Big 12 could really work something beneficial and I don't think right at the start that they could push for BYU inclusion in the Orange Bowl mix, but once things worked out of they did and once the PAC 12 sees they they might like BYU as an "approved team" there could be two conferences bushing for BYU to get a deal like ND

I would not be in favor of the Big 12 working a deal like this with any other school unless something drastic needed to be done and then it would be with Hawaii to get the 13th game and that would be a deal where programs like Texas and OU and OkState that have the cash to take trips to Hawaii and possibly the need to get that 13th game in for schedule strength have a great deal of flexibility along with whoever is "strong" in the Big 12 like Baylor now or KSU being able to swap that game around and some other games (possibly including BYU) so that those teams that look to have a strong season have max ability to schedule to get into the playoffs

in other words if the Big 12 can game the system, keep current team revenues and access bowl opportunities the same and increase chances of making the playoffs then I would not be opposed to working with BYU and possibly even Hawaii because of the uniqueness each of those programs presents

ditto.

Can't expect them to be eligible for the Orange if they aren't eligible for the Cotton. Big 12 can push all they want but the ACC owns the Orange. Perhaps if the SEC pushes for BYU's inclusion in the Cotton something can be worked out. I know that both the SEC and Big 12 own the Cotton so perhaps the Big 12 can ask the SEC if that would be doable.

the Big 12 and SEC SEC SEC have an agreement for The Sugar Bowl not the Cotton Bowl

and Notre Dame does not get a spot in The Orange Bowl unless they rank so high and it would be against an ACC team if ND does not get in then the highest ranked Big 10, SEC SEC SEC or PAC 12 team that is not in the Sugar or Rose Bowl or playoffs (if they have one) goes to the Orange Bowl against the highest ranked ACC team that is not in the playoffs (if they have one)

and the ACC does not own The Orange Bowl

(06-06-2014 09:45 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  I have no doubt that the coach wants into a power conference. That's a no brainer. But, IIRC, two programs actually spurned the B12. AFA declined as they were worried about being able to compete... and I'm pretty sure BYU declined (maybe not officially, but I think they were approached), as they preferred independence and broader exposure for religious reasons. The religious aspect was huge to them. That should not have changed in just a few years. I think that BYU does not spread their message by playing in Ames, Waco, Lubbock, etc. This is not a slam on the B12, obviously a power conference in FB, just a statement on what I think was/is important to the BYU leaders.

Now obviously I'm an AAC homer, but I think their best conference option is indeed the American. Even though this NBC article (link) does not even mention the AAC AS an option for BYU (??).

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-extended/

In the near term, it's very unlikely the B12 expands. If scheduling/bowls, etc. require BYU to be in a conference, the only real options then seem to be the MWC and AAC. Well... BYU already left the MWC once, and I doubt revisiting the comparatively small markets is the type of exposure they crave. The AAC however, obviously has the much larger population bases and markets of major eastern cities. Plus, there is certainly the start of some 'smoke' in this direction, BYU and the AAC just signed one bowl agreement, and Aresco was on BYU TV a few times recently, I believe. Maybe nothing, maybe some indications of future direction.

We shall see...

Here are a couple of articles that clear things up--Air Force told the Big 12 it wasn't interested (wasn't officially invited) because they wouldn't be able to compete:

Excerpt:

Given an opportunity to join Oklahoma and Texas in a revamped Big 12, the Falcons have said thanks, but no thanks.

"We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we're not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can't recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State," Mueh said.

"That's why I turned down the Big 12. I can't do that to my kids, because they'll get beat up.


http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_19073868


and BYU was turned away by the Big 12s tv partners after negotiations when BYU had too many demands:

From article:

Blame it on television. Specifically, the Big 12's current TV partners — ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Media Group.

Although BYU's flirtation with the Big 12 may yet be renewed at some point beyond next year, The Salt Lake Tribune has confirmed what the Tulsa World first reported on Oct. 7: Big 12 talks with BYU hit a snag last week and the league, at the behest of its television partners, quickly moved to invite TCU.

"There is some rigidity at BYU in terms of what they will and won't do," Tulsa World columnist Dave Sittler wrote, quoting a Big 12 source. "Some of it has to do with [LDS Church] rules, and also the way they engage with media partners."

The Tribune has learned that the television partners had concerns with BYU's no-play-on-Sunday policy and how it might impact television plans as they related to televising non-football sports on Sundays — particularly the Big 12 conference basketball tournament championship game. That game has not been played on Sunday since 2008, but the television partners wanted to retain the Sunday option.

Additionally, BYU — which left the Mountain West Conference for more national television exposure as a football independent — apparently wanted assurances from the Big 12 that it would appear on national television a minimum, unspecified, number of times per season. The Cougars also were said to want permission to show their football games not picked up by Big 12 television partners on their own television network, BYUtv...


Big 12's television partners said no to BYU

BYU wasn't invited officially either:

from ESPN interview:

BYU director of athletics Tom Helmoe addressed his school's talks with the Big 12 in a pregame interview at BYU's game on Saturday against Oregon State.

Here's what he had to say, courtesy of BYU.

BYU and the Big 12 – were there discussions between the two?

Yes, we’ve been monitoring the landscape of conference alignment for some time. We’ve had discussions with the Big 12. I think with all that’s happened in the last little while and now that you see TCU has joined the Big 12 replacing Texas A&M, it’s probably a good time to talk about things we haven’t before.

Did the Big 12 invite BYU to join?

No. The Big 12 conference has not yet invited BYU to be in the conference.

So BYU has not turned down an invitation?

That’s right. It’s hard to turn down an offer when one hasn’t been extended.


http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...membership

Thank you.....I wish every body on this board would read this.

There was actually a thread on our premie board today about BYU and expansion. One of our insiders(not one of the twitter morons) did confirm their have been talks between the Big 12 and BYU recently and that expansion isn't dead.

(06-06-2014 03:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:45 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  I have no doubt that the coach wants into a power conference. That's a no brainer. But, IIRC, two programs actually spurned the B12. AFA declined as they were worried about being able to compete... and I'm pretty sure BYU declined (maybe not officially, but I think they were approached), as they preferred independence and broader exposure for religious reasons. The religious aspect was huge to them. That should not have changed in just a few years. I think that BYU does not spread their message by playing in Ames, Waco, Lubbock, etc. This is not a slam on the B12, obviously a power conference in FB, just a statement on what I think was/is important to the BYU leaders.

Now obviously I'm an AAC homer, but I think their best conference option is indeed the American. Even though this NBC article (link) does not even mention the AAC AS an option for BYU (??).

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-extended/

In the near term, it's very unlikely the B12 expands. If scheduling/bowls, etc. require BYU to be in a conference, the only real options then seem to be the MWC and AAC. Well... BYU already left the MWC once, and I doubt revisiting the comparatively small markets is the type of exposure they crave. The AAC however, obviously has the much larger population bases and markets of major eastern cities. Plus, there is certainly the start of some 'smoke' in this direction, BYU and the AAC just signed one bowl agreement, and Aresco was on BYU TV a few times recently, I believe. Maybe nothing, maybe some indications of future direction.

We shall see...

Here are a couple of articles that clear things up--Air Force told the Big 12 it wasn't interested (wasn't officially invited) because they wouldn't be able to compete:

Excerpt:

Given an opportunity to join Oklahoma and Texas in a revamped Big 12, the Falcons have said thanks, but no thanks.

"We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we're not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can't recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State," Mueh said.

"That's why I turned down the Big 12. I can't do that to my kids, because they'll get beat up.


http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_19073868


and BYU was turned away by the Big 12s tv partners after negotiations when BYU had too many demands:

From article:

Blame it on television. Specifically, the Big 12's current TV partners — ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Media Group.

Although BYU's flirtation with the Big 12 may yet be renewed at some point beyond next year, The Salt Lake Tribune has confirmed what the Tulsa World first reported on Oct. 7: Big 12 talks with BYU hit a snag last week and the league, at the behest of its television partners, quickly moved to invite TCU.

"There is some rigidity at BYU in terms of what they will and won't do," Tulsa World columnist Dave Sittler wrote, quoting a Big 12 source. "Some of it has to do with [LDS Church] rules, and also the way they engage with media partners."

The Tribune has learned that the television partners had concerns with BYU's no-play-on-Sunday policy and how it might impact television plans as they related to televising non-football sports on Sundays — particularly the Big 12 conference basketball tournament championship game. That game has not been played on Sunday since 2008, but the television partners wanted to retain the Sunday option.

Additionally, BYU — which left the Mountain West Conference for more national television exposure as a football independent — apparently wanted assurances from the Big 12 that it would appear on national television a minimum, unspecified, number of times per season. The Cougars also were said to want permission to show their football games not picked up by Big 12 television partners on their own television network, BYUtv...


Big 12's television partners said no to BYU

BYU wasn't invited officially either:

from ESPN interview:

BYU director of athletics Tom Helmoe addressed his school's talks with the Big 12 in a pregame interview at BYU's game on Saturday against Oregon State.

Here's what he had to say, courtesy of BYU.

BYU and the Big 12 – were there discussions between the two?

Yes, we’ve been monitoring the landscape of conference alignment for some time. We’ve had discussions with the Big 12. I think with all that’s happened in the last little while and now that you see TCU has joined the Big 12 replacing Texas A&M, it’s probably a good time to talk about things we haven’t before.

Did the Big 12 invite BYU to join?

No. The Big 12 conference has not yet invited BYU to be in the conference.

So BYU has not turned down an invitation?

That’s right. It’s hard to turn down an offer when one hasn’t been extended.


http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...membership

Thank you.....I wish every body on this board would read this.

Which is why I think the AAC or MW are the only 2 conferences that are really an option. No P5 conference needs them enough to to deal with their issues. The MW and AAC are the only 2 G5 conferences they would even consider. The AAC would be the easiest to deal with since both BYU and the AAC are wholly owned ESPN contracts. Frankly, I think BYU stays indy with the second most likely option being a Notre Dame type deal with one of the two conferences.

(06-06-2014 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:45 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  I have no doubt that the coach wants into a power conference. That's a no brainer. But, IIRC, two programs actually spurned the B12. AFA declined as they were worried about being able to compete... and I'm pretty sure BYU declined (maybe not officially, but I think they were approached), as they preferred independence and broader exposure for religious reasons. The religious aspect was huge to them. That should not have changed in just a few years. I think that BYU does not spread their message by playing in Ames, Waco, Lubbock, etc. This is not a slam on the B12, obviously a power conference in FB, just a statement on what I think was/is important to the BYU leaders.

Now obviously I'm an AAC homer, but I think their best conference option is indeed the American. Even though this NBC article (link) does not even mention the AAC AS an option for BYU (??).

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-extended/

In the near term, it's very unlikely the B12 expands. If scheduling/bowls, etc. require BYU to be in a conference, the only real options then seem to be the MWC and AAC. Well... BYU already left the MWC once, and I doubt revisiting the comparatively small markets is the type of exposure they crave. The AAC however, obviously has the much larger population bases and markets of major eastern cities. Plus, there is certainly the start of some 'smoke' in this direction, BYU and the AAC just signed one bowl agreement, and Aresco was on BYU TV a few times recently, I believe. Maybe nothing, maybe some indications of future direction.

We shall see...

Here are a couple of articles that clear things up--Air Force told the Big 12 it wasn't interested (wasn't officially invited) because they wouldn't be able to compete:

Excerpt:

Given an opportunity to join Oklahoma and Texas in a revamped Big 12, the Falcons have said thanks, but no thanks.

"We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we're not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can't recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State," Mueh said.

"That's why I turned down the Big 12. I can't do that to my kids, because they'll get beat up.


http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_19073868


and BYU was turned away by the Big 12s tv partners after negotiations when BYU had too many demands:

From article:

Blame it on television. Specifically, the Big 12's current TV partners — ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Media Group.

Although BYU's flirtation with the Big 12 may yet be renewed at some point beyond next year, The Salt Lake Tribune has confirmed what the Tulsa World first reported on Oct. 7: Big 12 talks with BYU hit a snag last week and the league, at the behest of its television partners, quickly moved to invite TCU.

"There is some rigidity at BYU in terms of what they will and won't do," Tulsa World columnist Dave Sittler wrote, quoting a Big 12 source. "Some of it has to do with [LDS Church] rules, and also the way they engage with media partners."

The Tribune has learned that the television partners had concerns with BYU's no-play-on-Sunday policy and how it might impact television plans as they related to televising non-football sports on Sundays — particularly the Big 12 conference basketball tournament championship game. That game has not been played on Sunday since 2008, but the television partners wanted to retain the Sunday option.

Additionally, BYU — which left the Mountain West Conference for more national television exposure as a football independent — apparently wanted assurances from the Big 12 that it would appear on national television a minimum, unspecified, number of times per season. The Cougars also were said to want permission to show their football games not picked up by Big 12 television partners on their own television network, BYUtv...


Big 12's television partners said no to BYU

BYU wasn't invited officially either:

from ESPN interview:

BYU director of athletics Tom Helmoe addressed his school's talks with the Big 12 in a pregame interview at BYU's game on Saturday against Oregon State.

Here's what he had to say, courtesy of BYU.

BYU and the Big 12 – were there discussions between the two?

Yes, we’ve been monitoring the landscape of conference alignment for some time. We’ve had discussions with the Big 12. I think with all that’s happened in the last little while and now that you see TCU has joined the Big 12 replacing Texas A&M, it’s probably a good time to talk about things we haven’t before.

Did the Big 12 invite BYU to join?

No. The Big 12 conference has not yet invited BYU to be in the conference.

So BYU has not turned down an invitation?

That’s right. It’s hard to turn down an offer when one hasn’t been extended.


http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...membership

Thank you.....I wish every body on this board would read this.

Which is why I think the AAC or MW are the only 2 conferences that are really an option. No P5 conference needs them enough to to deal with their issues. The MW and AAC are the only 2 G5 conferences they would even consider. The AAC would be the easiest to deal with since both BYU and the AAC are wholly owned ESPN contracts. Frankly, I think BYU stays indy with the second most likely option being a Notre Dame type deal with one of the two conferences.

Quite frankly BYU as a program is above both conferences and I'm not a BYU fan at all.

(06-06-2014 03:56 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:45 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  I have no doubt that the coach wants into a power conference. That's a no brainer. But, IIRC, two programs actually spurned the B12. AFA declined as they were worried about being able to compete... and I'm pretty sure BYU declined (maybe not officially, but I think they were approached), as they preferred independence and broader exposure for religious reasons. The religious aspect was huge to them. That should not have changed in just a few years. I think that BYU does not spread their message by playing in Ames, Waco, Lubbock, etc. This is not a slam on the B12, obviously a power conference in FB, just a statement on what I think was/is important to the BYU leaders.

Now obviously I'm an AAC homer, but I think their best conference option is indeed the American. Even though this NBC article (link) does not even mention the AAC AS an option for BYU (??).

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-extended/

In the near term, it's very unlikely the B12 expands. If scheduling/bowls, etc. require BYU to be in a conference, the only real options then seem to be the MWC and AAC. Well... BYU already left the MWC once, and I doubt revisiting the comparatively small markets is the type of exposure they crave. The AAC however, obviously has the much larger population bases and markets of major eastern cities. Plus, there is certainly the start of some 'smoke' in this direction, BYU and the AAC just signed one bowl agreement, and Aresco was on BYU TV a few times recently, I believe. Maybe nothing, maybe some indications of future direction.

We shall see...

Here are a couple of articles that clear things up--Air Force told the Big 12 it wasn't interested (wasn't officially invited) because they wouldn't be able to compete:

Excerpt:

Given an opportunity to join Oklahoma and Texas in a revamped Big 12, the Falcons have said thanks, but no thanks.

"We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we're not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can't recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State," Mueh said.

"That's why I turned down the Big 12. I can't do that to my kids, because they'll get beat up.


http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_19073868


and BYU was turned away by the Big 12s tv partners after negotiations when BYU had too many demands:

From article:

Blame it on television. Specifically, the Big 12's current TV partners — ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Media Group.

Although BYU's flirtation with the Big 12 may yet be renewed at some point beyond next year, The Salt Lake Tribune has confirmed what the Tulsa World first reported on Oct. 7: Big 12 talks with BYU hit a snag last week and the league, at the behest of its television partners, quickly moved to invite TCU.

"There is some rigidity at BYU in terms of what they will and won't do," Tulsa World columnist Dave Sittler wrote, quoting a Big 12 source. "Some of it has to do with [LDS Church] rules, and also the way they engage with media partners."

The Tribune has learned that the television partners had concerns with BYU's no-play-on-Sunday policy and how it might impact television plans as they related to televising non-football sports on Sundays — particularly the Big 12 conference basketball tournament championship game. That game has not been played on Sunday since 2008, but the television partners wanted to retain the Sunday option.

Additionally, BYU — which left the Mountain West Conference for more national television exposure as a football independent — apparently wanted assurances from the Big 12 that it would appear on national television a minimum, unspecified, number of times per season. The Cougars also were said to want permission to show their football games not picked up by Big 12 television partners on their own television network, BYUtv...


Big 12's television partners said no to BYU

BYU wasn't invited officially either:

from ESPN interview:

BYU director of athletics Tom Helmoe addressed his school's talks with the Big 12 in a pregame interview at BYU's game on Saturday against Oregon State.

Here's what he had to say, courtesy of BYU.

BYU and the Big 12 – were there discussions between the two?

Yes, we’ve been monitoring the landscape of conference alignment for some time. We’ve had discussions with the Big 12. I think with all that’s happened in the last little while and now that you see TCU has joined the Big 12 replacing Texas A&M, it’s probably a good time to talk about things we haven’t before.

Did the Big 12 invite BYU to join?

No. The Big 12 conference has not yet invited BYU to be in the conference.

So BYU has not turned down an invitation?

That’s right. It’s hard to turn down an offer when one hasn’t been extended.


http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...membership

Thank you.....I wish every body on this board would read this.

Which is why I think the AAC or MW are the only 2 conferences that are really an option. No P5 conference needs them enough to to deal with their issues. The MW and AAC are the only 2 G5 conferences they would even consider. The AAC would be the easiest to deal with since both BYU and the AAC are wholly owned ESPN contracts. Frankly, I think BYU stays indy with the second most likely option being a Notre Dame type deal with one of the two conferences.

Quite frankly BYU as a program is above both conferences and I'm not a BYU fan at all.

While they are certainly very P5 like in support and facilities--they are very G5 like in access. The reality is you are G5 until a P5 invites you. The last conference BYU was a member of was a G5 conference. They have never been in a power confernce (unless you want to count the WAC). Right now Utah St and Temple have better access to BCS games and bowls than BYU. I think they stay Indy, but if Utah State makes a BCS game that could change.

FB-only would resolve the Sunday Game option for BBall (it'd be an issue with subsidy sports too ~ if they got to the Big12 baseball championship game/series, they'd have to forfeit under the current schedule).

Not thinking that they have more clout than they really have would likely resolve the problems in terms of wanting a special guaranteed number of broadcast games rather then the broadcast picking the games they would like to have.

(06-06-2014 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  While they are certainly very P5 like in support and facilities--they are very G5 like in access. The reality is you are G5 until a P5 invites you. The last conference BYU was a member of was a G5 conference. They have never been in a power confernce (unless you want to count the WAC). Right now Utah St and Temple have better access to BCS games and bowls than BYU. I think they stay Indy, but if Utah State makes a BCS game that could change.

not true at all there are no BCS games

there are access games which conferences besides the Big 12, Big 10, ACC, PAC 12 and SEC SEC SEC have no access to at all and there is a 4 team playoff that everyone has the same access to based on what they are ranked

and BYU can get a tougher schedule easier than any team in the MWC because BYU can schedule 100% of their games VS MWC teams being stuck in their conference games

in other breaking news 93% of college juniors would have sex with kate upton

The P5 have annointed BYU as the whipping boy of the Go5.
1) ESPN: Go independent- you are without equal among the have nots.
2) ACC and SEC: You're still not one of us.
3) BigXii: and you won't be until we say so.
4) AAC: we know how you feel. Let's join up and challenge the status quo (maybe you can bring your cool western friends?)
5) PAC: you're too good for them. Come see us in LA. We promise we'll come see you sometime later. You're totally special.

(06-06-2014 12:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:46 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it would not bother me if the Big 12 did something with BYU similar to the ACC and ND

I have no issue with BYU from a strength of opponent perspective I think they can step up and be a strong team and they have been in the past and they would be even more likely to be a strong team if they had an affiliation with a top conference

I also have no issue with them not wanting to play on Sundays or with Mormons in general in fact I have very much liked 100% of the Mormons I have ever met and found them to be some of the best people I have known

I do however have no interest in cutting any portion of income for any current member of the Big 12 by even 1 dollar and as of now that is why I am opposed to Big 12 expansion because there are no teams that bring enough revenue to cover themselves much less add any additional dollars and really there are few if any that bring any type of real strength of schedule as well

I think BYU would gladly take less money or even no money if BYU was allowed to keep 100% of the income from their home games for all sports......the truth of the matter is ND takes LESS money with their NBC deal and their 1/15th of 20% from the ACC than they would take with a full share, but that is how they prefer it so go for it

I would also expect (though I am not sure it would happen) that the Big 12 would push for and support BYU being included in the rotation of teams that take the second Orange Bowl slot that is available to ND, the SEC SEC SEC, PAC 12 or Big 10 and if BYU qualified for it the same way that ND is eligible to qualify for it they would get the same payout and I would expect that the Big 12 would push for BYU to get all the other considerations financial and otherwise that ND gets

if BYU agreed to that and the money was the same or better for all current members of the Big 12 then I would prefer the Big 12 go with a hybrid schedule where they played 8 conference games with pseudo divisions that kept rivalries in tact like UT/OU and KU/KSU and then half play the BYU games and the other half are free to schedule how they see fit for that now available OOC game and of course BYU would rotate around

I would prefer the Big 12 get back to where there were 8 conference games so the conference overall has the ability to have more teams with better overall records because of ability to schedule for their needs and the reduction in the fact that a conference game means 1 win for the conference AND 1 loss no matter what where an OOC game brings the chance to get a win for the conference strength without a loss for the conference as well

if it worked and IF WVU DESIRED IT I would not even mind if WVU was opted out of the BYU games and given the ability to schedule every year on the east coast against an OOC opponent of their choosing......again this would be BY DESIRE OF WVU and provided it worked for everyone else

as for the "strength" of BYU and what the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC think well I think both of them are being stupid about BYU in particular and I think that BYU has the chance to be as strong or stronger every year as many of the lower level teams in the big 10 and SEC so pretendign that BYU would hurt you in the schedule is laughable especially from the SEC SEC SEC that has never been shy about all having a D1-AA game on the schedule much less very weak D1-A teams

and as for WVU perhaps opting out of the BYU game (because of distance and their position in the east coast) people forget that in the new playoff format the goal is to win and be as highly ranked as possible period it really does not matter if your wins and strength come from the conference, conference "affiliates" or from the OOC as long as you have the strength in your schedule and you win the games you will make the cut and as long as WVU still has the same chance to make The Sugar bowl access game as every other member I think they would prefer 8 conference games and more scheduling freedom

conferences in these days and times bring three things guaranteed opponents and conference money and an access bowl slot if you qualify for it......as long as WVU still got 100% of what they get now and they had the freedom in the schedule and they DESIRED that then I think it would be great for the Big 12

the Big 12 would have fewer conference games which increases the CHANCE to have a win for conference strength without a conference loss and WVU would be free to try and place better ranked teams on their schedule from other conferences to try and bring overall strength (from a win of course) to the Big 12 and if BYU stayed good and they were beating a lot of other teams outside of the Big 12 and going to and winning bowl games and the Big 12 was doing well against BYU then that helps the Big 12 overall

and as to BYU and "strength" and how they count I think placing BYU "at a lower level" really is an issue for the PAC 12 as much or more than any other conference (and besides for BYU of course)

if BYU is "at a lower level" what does that mean for the members of the MWC, Sunbelt (Idaho NMSU) and CUSA (UTEP) that are available for the PAC 12 to play in the Mountain or wesss coass time zone and that are even remotely close for them to play in the OOC

even if they can get teams from the Big 12, SEC SEC SEC, Big 10 and ACC to come play them home and home with a 9 game conference schedule that still means that the PAC 12 teams will be doing a lot of travel eastward.....each team coming to play them will be making that one trip, but the PAC 12 teams have those 3 games to fill and east coast teams have so many more choices so much closer

and all the worse is when you have the 5 home games in conference it will still be difficult to get more than 6 total home games without playing a buy in game and so you will probably be having to travel east for two of those games because the prior (or next year) when you are needing two home OOC games to get to 6 home games you of course have to "pay that back" and travel two times the next year

so the years when you are thinking "5 conference games at home advantage us" you are still faced with traveling east 2 times to get that desired "strength"

removing BYU from that equation or "demoting" them as less than desirable automatically makes it that much more difficult

since the BCS started in 1998 BYU has played PAC 12 teams:

ASU 1 time 1998
AU 3 times 2006, 07 and 08
Cal 3 99, 01 and 05
CU none
UO 06
OSU 09, 11 and 12
USC 03 and 04
Stanford 03 and 04
UCLA 07 and 08 (and a bowl game)
Utah 16 every year
UW 5 98, 99, 08, 10 and 13
WSU 1 2012 and they would have played in 2013 if mike did not do what mike does best and duck a tougher opponent for a weak D1-AA team

so especially lately it is not like the PAC 12 has been ducking BYU and especially Utah (that can hardly afford to pay buy in games) would be losing a game they prefer and their fans want

so if the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 are serious about "only playing approved teams" (lets be real they are not) well besides BYU it is the PAC 12 that will have the hardest time with BYU becoming "non approved" because that pretty much leaves the PAC 12 with MWC, CUSA and SunBelt teams (and really really bad Sunbelt and CUSA teams) that are west of the rockies or in the Mountain or wesss coasss time zones and I think the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially are not going to like the results of their lower level teams playing "approved" teams and I think the top SEC SEC SEC teams might find it is more detrimental than it is helpful and I think given the proper opportunity BYU could bring plenty of "strength" to a schedule relative to other conferences lower level teams and available OOC games even with "approved" teams

I think done properly BYU and the Big 12 could really work something beneficial and I don't think right at the start that they could push for BYU inclusion in the Orange Bowl mix, but once things worked out of they did and once the PAC 12 sees they they might like BYU as an "approved team" there could be two conferences bushing for BYU to get a deal like ND

I would not be in favor of the Big 12 working a deal like this with any other school unless something drastic needed to be done and then it would be with Hawaii to get the 13th game and that would be a deal where programs like Texas and OU and OkState that have the cash to take trips to Hawaii and possibly the need to get that 13th game in for schedule strength have a great deal of flexibility along with whoever is "strong" in the Big 12 like Baylor now or KSU being able to swap that game around and some other games (possibly including BYU) so that those teams that look to have a strong season have max ability to schedule to get into the playoffs

in other words if the Big 12 can game the system, keep current team revenues and access bowl opportunities the same and increase chances of making the playoffs then I would not be opposed to working with BYU and possibly even Hawaii because of the uniqueness each of those programs presents

ditto.

Can't expect them to be eligible for the Orange if they aren't eligible for the Cotton. Big 12 can push all they want but the ACC owns the Orange. Perhaps if the SEC pushes for BYU's inclusion in the Cotton something can be worked out. I know that both the SEC and Big 12 own the Cotton so perhaps the Big 12 can ask the SEC if that would be doable.

the Big 12 and SEC SEC SEC have an agreement for The Sugar Bowl not the Cotton Bowl

and Notre Dame does not get a spot in The Orange Bowl unless they rank so high and it would be against an ACC team if ND does not get in then the highest ranked Big 10, SEC SEC SEC or PAC 12 team that is not in the Sugar or Rose Bowl or playoffs (if they have one) goes to the Orange Bowl against the highest ranked ACC team that is not in the playoffs (if they have one)

and the ACC does not own The Orange Bowl

Oops, my bad, thanks for the correction regarding the name of the Bowl.
The ACC has the say as to who they play in the Orange Bowl. Part of the agreement. The ACC and the SEC have made their decision in regards to BYU. As we have seen. If the Big 12 wants to back BYU then great! I think that BYU can help the Big 12 in certain ways.

IF BYU were to enter into a football only scheduling alliance, the most obvious choice for BYU would be with the PAC-12. The trick is convincing the PAC-12 it's in its best interest.

Maybe If Hawaii was included too, then the PAC-12 could make a deal to play 6 games each year against both BYU and Hawaii. Plus BYU and Hawaii would be part of the Pac-12 bowl deals except for the Rose Bowl/CFP automatic spot. BYU would not be part of the pac-12 tv deal.

But that still goes back to the original problem of why would the PAC-12 agree to do this. Not sure if I can give you a good answer. Maybe someone else can.

(06-07-2014 03:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  IF BYU were to enter into a football only scheduling alliance, the most obvious choice for BYU would be with the PAC-12. The trick is convincing the PAC-12 it's in its best interest.

Maybe If Hawaii was included too, then the PAC-12 could make a deal to play 6 games each year against both BYU and Hawaii. Plus BYU and Hawaii would be part of the Pac-12 bowl deals except for the Rose Bowl/CFP automatic spot. BYU would not be part of the pac-12 tv deal.

But that still goes back to the original problem of why would the PAC-12 agree to do this. Not sure if I can give you a good answer. Maybe someone else can.

If BYU and Hawaii could get deals with the PAC like Notre Dame has with the ACC.

(06-07-2014 03:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  IF BYU were to enter into a football only scheduling alliance, the most obvious choice for BYU would be with the PAC-12. The trick is convincing the PAC-12 it's in its best interest.

Maybe If Hawaii was included too, then the PAC-12 could make a deal to play 6 games each year against both BYU and Hawaii. Plus BYU and Hawaii would be part of the Pac-12 bowl deals except for the Rose Bowl/CFP automatic spot. BYU would not be part of the pac-12 tv deal.

But that still goes back to the original problem of why would the PAC-12 agree to do this. Not sure if I can give you a good answer. Maybe someone else can.

Hawaii is an additional new market, allows for live programming to reach Asian and Australian markets, brings the aloha bowl, is a great semi-annual travel destination, and provides the opportunity for a 13th game on the schedule. That half answers the "what's in it for the PAC?" Question.

My off the wall scenario is that the PAC signs an exclusive deal with Hawaii to have each team play @Hawaii every year in a 13 game season. That would be rough on the student athletes, but it would make for a great annual vacation for each fan base and would provide regular weekly programming for Asia/Australia.

(06-07-2014 09:47 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 03:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  IF BYU were to enter into a football only scheduling alliance, the most obvious choice for BYU would be with the PAC-12. The trick is convincing the PAC-12 it's in its best interest.

Maybe If Hawaii was included too, then the PAC-12 could make a deal to play 6 games each year against both BYU and Hawaii. Plus BYU and Hawaii would be part of the Pac-12 bowl deals except for the Rose Bowl/CFP automatic spot. BYU would not be part of the pac-12 tv deal.

But that still goes back to the original problem of why would the PAC-12 agree to do this. Not sure if I can give you a good answer. Maybe someone else can.

Hawaii is an additional new market, allows for live programming to reach Asian and Australian markets, brings the aloha bowl, is a great semi-annual travel destination, and provides the opportunity for a 13th game on the schedule. That half answers the "what's in it for the PAC?" Question.

My off the wall scenario is that the PAC signs an exclusive deal with Hawaii to have each team play @Hawaii every year in a 13 game season. That would be rough on the student athletes, but it would make for a great annual vacation for each fan base and would provide regular weekly programming for Asia/Australia.

I'm not sure how much interest there is in Australia for American college football. But the timing would work. A game played in Hawaii at 4PM local time would be shown live on our west coast at 7PM, and in Australia at noon the following day.

Keep in mind that while Hawaii may be a great place to visit, an annual trip there might eat deeply into travel for bowl games (which are at a more advantageous time for a warm weather vacation trip).

Of course, the other problem is that Hawaii only gets to play 12 games, not 13. But I like the out of the box thinking.

(06-06-2014 11:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:51 AM)not_again Wrote:  Breaking news......

Every G5 school would love to be in the Big 12. That is all. Close Thread

True, but which G5 school has a $950 million dollar endowement, a 20k seat basketball arena and a 60k seat football stadium, which are both consistently filled, a football national title, 34k students, and a national fanbase?

That all sounds really impressive... until you compare it with Cincinnati:
$1.05 billion endowment
43k students, 270k alumni living nationwide (more alums than all but 1 Big 12 school and 3 ACC schools)
2 national titles in basketball
2 BCS appearances in last 6 years
Has invested over $200 million in athletic facilities in the past decade
The oldest playing field in FBS, currently undergoing a complete renovation
Consistently ranked as one of the most beautiful college campuses

(06-07-2014 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  Of course, the other problem is that Hawaii only gets to play 12 games, not 13. But I like the out of the box thinking.

Hawaii can use the "Hawaii exemption". They can play 13 every year if they want to.

(06-07-2014 10:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  That all sounds really impressive... until you compare it with Cincinnati:
$1.05 billion endowment
43k students, 270k alumni living nationwide (more alums than all but 1 Big 12 school and 3 ACC schools)
2 national titles in basketball
2 BCS appearances in last 6 years
Has invested over $200 million in athletic facilities in the past decade
The oldest playing field in FBS, currently undergoing a complete renovation
Consistently ranked as one of the most beautiful college campuses

The facilities at Cincinnati aren't even close, and the last three things you mentioned are totally irrelevant compared to what I said. Here I thought I was stretching it with BYU's football title...

but yes, Cincinnati has a very impressive endowment and alumni base.

(06-07-2014 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:47 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 03:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  IF BYU were to enter into a football only scheduling alliance, the most obvious choice for BYU would be with the PAC-12. The trick is convincing the PAC-12 it's in its best interest.

Maybe If Hawaii was included too, then the PAC-12 could make a deal to play 6 games each year against both BYU and Hawaii. Plus BYU and Hawaii would be part of the Pac-12 bowl deals except for the Rose Bowl/CFP automatic spot. BYU would not be part of the pac-12 tv deal.

But that still goes back to the original problem of why would the PAC-12 agree to do this. Not sure if I can give you a good answer. Maybe someone else can.

Hawaii is an additional new market, allows for live programming to reach Asian and Australian markets, brings the aloha bowl, is a great semi-annual travel destination, and provides the opportunity for a 13th game on the schedule. That half answers the "what's in it for the PAC?" Question.

My off the wall scenario is that the PAC signs an exclusive deal with Hawaii to have each team play @Hawaii every year in a 13 game season. That would be rough on the student athletes, but it would make for a great annual vacation for each fan base and would provide regular weekly programming for Asia/Australia.

I'm not sure how much interest there is in Australia for American college football. But the timing would work. A game played in Hawaii at 4PM local time would be shown live on our west coast at 7PM, and in Australia at noon the following day.

Keep in mind that while Hawaii may be a great place to visit, an annual trip there might eat deeply into travel for bowl games (which are at a more advantageous time for a warm weather vacation trip).

Of course, the other problem is that Hawaii only gets to play 12 games, not 13. But I like the out of the box thinking.

that's just crazy-
hey, wait a minute, that's just crazy enough to work.

(06-07-2014 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  Of course, the other problem is that Hawaii only gets to play 12 games, not 13. But I like the out of the box thinking.

Hawaii can use the "Hawaii exemption". They can play 13 every year if they want to.

You're right. Interestingly, of the six opponents who traveled to Hawaii last year, only two actually chose to play the 13th game they were allowed.