Yesterday it was announced that BYU signed a home and home with UCLA. Not much that's unusual about it, but that BYU now has an increasing number of games against Pac-10 teams, while this years match with Texas and WVU in a couple of years are the only games scheduled agains the Big 12. The games will give BYU visibility in a large media market and access to alumni, something that games in Ames, Manhattan, and Lubbock would not. BYU would rather play against Pac-10 than Big 12 teams, as the H-H with UCLA makes increasingly clear.

I think the Big 12 figures they can get BYU to join when and if they want them. However, that may only be true if Texas and OK are still in the conference. If Texas decides to go independent and Oklahoma jets off to the SEC, the conference is left with a pretty big revenue gap. If that were to happen, it would be disasterous for the Big 12. If BYU has a lots of contracts with Pac-10 teams it may decide not to join the Big-12 leftovers, which is where some of the real risk lies for Big 12 members.

In the real world of finances people are interested in risk as well as returns - how much risk do you have to take on to get a desired level of return? The insurance industry is based on this - paying in a little bit to mititgate for the rather small chance of a disaster. When looking at revenue sharing it may not make much sense for Iowa St to want to go to a 14 team conference, but when looking at the risk it makes a whole bunch of sense to lock in markets and teams on favorable terms. How much "insurance" is Iowa St willing to take out to mitigate against the chance of Texas and OK leaving? Right now Baylor is enjoying an unprecedented run of athletic success, but how long will it last and Baylor return to their long-term average - especially with Liberty U on the path to FBS membership? Losing Nebraska and A&M, which are programs conferences can build around, really hurts the risk proposition of the Big 12 here.

It seems to me that the Big 12 right now is raking in the money, partially because the big money driven by the big 2 is only shared with a small number. In the last expansion the Big 12 really blundered from a long-term risk perspective, taking TCU over Pitt, LVille, and BYU. Didn't stretch their market, and got saddled with a bad basketball team. It may be prudent for the Big 12 to start reducing their risk by adding teams while you still have something attractive to offer.

I doubt BYU's continued Pac-10 football games worry Oklahoma or Texas, as they have no risk. It is the other eight Big 12 teams that may sense increased risk now, and they might want to do something about it.

(06-06-2014 10:50 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Yesterday it was announced that BYU signed a home and home with UCLA. Not much that's unusual about it, but that BYU now has an increasing number of games against Pac-10 teams, while this years match with Texas and WVU in a couple of years are the only games scheduled agains the Big 12. The games will give BYU visibility in a large media market and access to alumni, something that games in Ames, Manhattan, and Lubbock would not. BYU would rather play against Pac-10 than Big 12 teams, as the H-H with UCLA makes increasingly clear.

I think the Big 12 figures they can get BYU to join when and if they want them. However, that may only be true if Texas and OK are still in the conference. If Texas decides to go independent and Oklahoma jets off to the SEC, the conference is left with a pretty big revenue gap. If that were to happen, it would be disasterous for the Big 12. If BYU has a lots of contracts with Pac-10 teams it may decide not to join the Big-12 leftovers, which is where some of the real risk lies for Big 12 members.

In the real world of finances people are interested in risk as well as returns - how much risk do you have to take on to get a desired level of return? The insurance industry is based on this - paying in a little bit to mititgate for the rather small chance of a disaster. When looking at revenue sharing it may not make much sense for Iowa St to want to go to a 14 team conference, but when looking at the risk it makes a whole bunch of sense to lock in markets and teams on favorable terms. How much "insurance" is Iowa St willing to take out to mitigate against the chance of Texas and OK leaving? Right now Baylor is enjoying an unprecedented run of athletic success, but how long will it last and Baylor return to their long-term average - especially with Liberty U on the path to FBS membership? Losing Nebraska and A&M, which are programs conferences can build around, really hurts the risk proposition of the Big 12 here.

It seems to me that the Big 12 right now is raking in the money, partially because the big money driven by the big 2 is only shared with a small number. In the last expansion the Big 12 really blundered from a long-term risk perspective, taking TCU over Pitt, LVille, and BYU. Didn't stretch their market, and got saddled with a bad basketball team. It may be prudent for the Big 12 to start reducing their risk by adding teams while you still have something attractive to offer.

I doubt BYU's continued Pac-10 football games worry Oklahoma or Texas, as they have no risk. It is the other eight Big 12 teams that may sense increased risk now, and they might want to do something about it.

Nice plug

Did the Pac-12 shrink?

(06-06-2014 10:50 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Yesterday it was announced that BYU signed a home and home with UCLA. Not much that's unusual about it, but that BYU now has an increasing number of games against Pac-10 teams, while this years match with Texas and WVU in a couple of years are the only games scheduled agains the Big 12. The games will give BYU visibility in a large media market and access to alumni, something that games in Ames, Manhattan, and Lubbock would not. BYU would rather play against Pac-10 than Big 12 teams, as the H-H with UCLA makes increasingly clear.

I think the Big 12 figures they can get BYU to join when and if they want them. However, that may only be true if Texas and OK are still in the conference. If Texas decides to go independent and Oklahoma jets off to the SEC, the conference is left with a pretty big revenue gap. If that were to happen, it would be disasterous for the Big 12. If BYU has a lots of contracts with Pac-10 teams it may decide not to join the Big-12 leftovers, which is where some of the real risk lies for Big 12 members.

In the real world of finances people are interested in risk as well as returns - how much risk do you have to take on to get a desired level of return? The insurance industry is based on this - paying in a little bit to mititgate for the rather small chance of a disaster. When looking at revenue sharing it may not make much sense for Iowa St to want to go to a 14 team conference, but when looking at the risk it makes a whole bunch of sense to lock in markets and teams on favorable terms. How much "insurance" is Iowa St willing to take out to mitigate against the chance of Texas and OK leaving? Right now Baylor is enjoying an unprecedented run of athletic success, but how long will it last and Baylor return to their long-term average - especially with Liberty U on the path to FBS membership? Losing Nebraska and A&M, which are programs conferences can build around, really hurts the risk proposition of the Big 12 here.

It seems to me that the Big 12 right now is raking in the money, partially because the big money driven by the big 2 is only shared with a small number. In the last expansion the Big 12 really blundered from a long-term risk perspective, taking TCU over Pitt, LVille, and BYU. Didn't stretch their market, and got saddled with a bad basketball team. It may be prudent for the Big 12 to start reducing their risk by adding teams while you still have something attractive to offer.

I doubt BYU's continued Pac-10 football games worry Oklahoma or Texas, as they have no risk. It is the other eight Big 12 teams that may sense increased risk now, and they might want to do something about it.

some of the dumbest analysis on this forum yet

the ACC has as big or bigger chance of falling apart as the Big 12 does and the ACC is saddled with more low earning poor quality teams than the Big 12 by a mile

and as for basketball unlike football it is easy for teams to become good in basketball without impacting other teams in their conference to a great degree

1. you need fewer players

2. you have way more OOC games to play and win for overall strength and you can schedule to those strength

not to mention that the Big 12 has been pretty good at getting teams into the NCAAs recently and that is with ISU being down and OkState being down as well

and with WVU on the east coast that is a Big 12 team that is recruiting for basketball well away from many other Big 12 members

if Texas and OU leave to anywhere that means that some teams from the ACC will be leaving as well especially if Texas and OU go west (almost a zero chance of that happening), but even if the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 went to 16 that still means that two other teams have to come from somewhere and that will probably be the top teams in the ACC so teams like Virginia will just as likely be left out in the cold or they will be left to join up with Big 12 leftovers and if they are lucky they will keep the better Big 12 TV and Bowl contracts

whole lot of stupid based on one two game series between a non-BCS team that has been "demoted' and UCLA especially since it is the PAC 12 that will struggle to fill "approved" OOC games of the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 mean what they babble about strength of schedule because the Big 12 is in the heart of the country with plenty of other conferences to schedule against weak or strong

The two latest members added to the PAC so far bring very little to the table. The original Pac-10 is where the larger media markets are, where BYU will get exposure to out-of-state alumni, and are the teams BYU has typically played OOC. Thus, I still use the term "Pac-10" to refer to these teams.

This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

(06-06-2014 11:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Did the Pac-12 shrink?

Only to someone who is very, very invested in wanting to forget that Utah joined the conference.

This is not the only example of denial that you can find on this board, but it ranks up there among the best.

(06-06-2014 11:26 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

They are going to be independent for a long time.

(06-06-2014 11:28 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Did the Pac-12 shrink?

Only to someone who is very, very invested in wanting to forget that Utah joined the conference.

This is not the only example of denial that you can find on this board, but it ranks up there among the best.

Even though it requires ignoring one of the biggest population centers in the Mountain time zone in Colorado, I guess its a sacrifice that's necessary to pretend that the Utes aren't in the Pac-12.

This does illustrate the challenge that BYU has, in that the Big12 schools are not all that eager to play BYU OOC, that could be an indication of how interested the Big12 as a whole is in playing BYU every year or every two years in four in conference.

(06-06-2014 11:41 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:26 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

They are going to be independent for a long time.

I hope so.

(06-06-2014 11:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Even though it requires ignoring one of the biggest population centers in the Mountain time zone in Colorado, I guess its a sacrifice that's necessary to pretend that the Utes aren't in the Pac-12.

This does illustrate the challenge that BYU has, in that the Big12 schools are not all that eager to play BYU OOC, that could be an indication of how interested the Big12 as a whole is in playing BYU every year or every two years in four in conference.

The Phoenix market it the real prize media market in the Mountain West for college sports. Denver is more of a pro sports market. BYU already has pretty good penetration into the Phoenix market. It is the CA markets that have the big numbers, with SeaTac being pretty big as well.

Since BYU hasn't played a regular-season football game with Colorado since the early 80s, and we don't have any more scheduled, which indicates to me they are not a traditional opponent for us. We have played every Pac-10 team home and away since then, as well as often in bowl games, and have a couple a year scheduled for the near future.

Ultimately, Utah is an in-state opponent. The game is huge on a local scale, not much of a blip on the national scale.

However, this is missing the main issue. What is the backup plan for the teams beside Texas and OK in the Big 12? Handing over more revenue to Texas and OK? Seems to me that they would be wise to have a backup plan. "Risk adjusted return" is the financial phrase - when does the risk of being left out not compensated for the revenue from staying small? It seems to me that BYU & BSU for football only as well as 2 Eastern teams for all sports would allow for the conference to survive if a "Black Swan" event happens. However, the question remains whether the Big 12 leftovers would be attractive enough after a Black Swan event. BYU would have jumped to the Big East in the 90s or 2000s, but turned them down when they finally called after their Black Swan event. Have to build up the conference while the conference is up to compensate for the down times.

It's curious to me that PAC 12 schools have no problem scheduling BYU in multiple sports but can't bring themselves to invite BYU into the conference. With BYU's fanbase and financial resources, they would be an excellent addition. Religion and policy stances are supposedly the reasons they are not invited but that doesn't stop PAC 12 schools from rubbing shoulders with them on the football field, etc.

(06-06-2014 12:58 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  It's curious to me that PAC 12 schools have no problem scheduling BYU in multiple sports but can't bring themselves to invite BYU into the conference. With BYU's fanbase and financial resources, they would be an excellent addition. Religion and policy stances are supposedly the reasons they are not invited but that doesn't stop PAC 12 schools from rubbing shoulders with them on the football field, etc.

It's one thing to play them now and then vs having to associate with them and their demands.

(06-06-2014 11:26 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

While there are a couple of MW schools who would like have BYU in the conference, I believe the vast majority don't want BYU due the past issues of dealing with them and then also 'The Project' fiasco.

BYU would not bring a much larger TV payout per team. They would possibly help with a SOS perspective but so does having a OOC playing a P5 team or a upper G5 team and probably more so.

Bringing BYU really doesn't help the MW exponentially as if Notre Dame or Texas were to join.

BYU and MW are permanently separated for the better and there is no going back.

(06-06-2014 12:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:41 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:26 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

They are going to be independent for a long time.

I hope so.

nope, eventually BYU and Notre Dame will come around....

BYU has no direct access to the college football playoff and just got told by the ACC and SEC that they're not worthy....they need to wake up from their delusion and join a conference. Either beg the Big XII or go with the AAC. One home and home with a PAC 12 team does not a future conference decision make

Notre Dame will be full fledged ACC in 10 years, write it down you old Irish hoagie

I could see the pac 12 expand someday without taking any prime beef big 12 teams. Yet, i would be surprised if byu was such an expansion pick, i'm talking UNLV + New Mexico to get to 14 for the pac 12. The only way i could see BYU in the pac 12 would be if the pac 12 expanded to 20 and created 2 ten team divisions. Thus, you would have 10 team division of original pac 10 members while the other division could be

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, BYU, OU, Ok State, Colorado, Utah, KU, KSU

basically, the only tie would be the football champ game with each division having their own hoop tourney. For it to work WVU goes to the acc so the GOR is void with tcu and iowa state out of luck.

(06-06-2014 01:11 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:41 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:26 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

They are going to be independent for a long time.

I hope so.

nope, eventually BYU and Notre Dame will come around....

BYU has no direct access to the college football playoff and just got told by the ACC and SEC that they're not worthy....they need to wake up from their delusion and join a conference. Either beg the Big XII or go with the AAC. One home and home with a PAC 12 team does not a future conference decision make

Notre Dame will be full fledged ACC in 10 years, write it down you old Irish hoagie

Unless everyone else forces them into a league I don't see it. Either the Big 12 or Big East/C7 would likely offer them a nonfb pairing if the ACC tried to play hardball.

(06-06-2014 12:58 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  It's curious to me that PAC 12 schools have no problem scheduling BYU in multiple sports but can't bring themselves to invite BYU into the conference. With BYU's fanbase and financial resources, they would be an excellent addition. Religion and policy stances are supposedly the reasons they are not invited but that doesn't stop PAC 12 schools from rubbing shoulders with them on the football field, etc.

I think that Stanford, and particularly Cal/Berkeley would be the primary forces that would object to BYU's PAC membership. They can't control who UCLA schedules on an ad-hoc basis, but they have enough sway to prevent BYU from being offered conference membership.

(06-06-2014 12:58 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  It's curious to me that PAC 12 schools have no problem scheduling BYU in multiple sports but can't bring themselves to invite BYU into the conference. With BYU's fanbase and financial resources, they would be an excellent addition. Religion and policy stances are supposedly the reasons they are not invited but that doesn't stop PAC 12 schools from rubbing shoulders with them on the football field, etc.

Scheduling decisions are made by coaches and athletic directors. Conference affiliation decisions are made by school presidents and governance boards. Coaches and ADs don't care about politics, religion, academics, etc when they schedule a matchup... they just want the best game that's available to them. But presidents do care about all that stuff. Scheduling an athletic event against a particular school is also a short-term commitment whereas inviting them into the conference ties you to that school forever.

(06-06-2014 01:11 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:41 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:26 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is the reason why BYU would not go back to the MWC or even entertain joining the AAC. Because BYU fans like HawkeyeCoug who realize what used to be their little brother Utah hit the jackpot and moved up to the big leagues. Notice how he says Pac-10 and how the newest additions bring nothing to the table. I can't see BYU fans getting excited about a MWC or AAC schedule when Utah down the road has a Pac-12 schedule. Not going to happen. It's either independence or the Big XII for them.

They are going to be independent for a long time.

I hope so.

nope, eventually BYU and Notre Dame will come around....

BYU has no direct access to the college football playoff and just got told by the ACC and SEC that they're not worthy....they need to wake up from their delusion and join a conference. Either beg the Big XII or go with the AAC. One home and home with a PAC 12 team does not a future conference decision make

Notre Dame will be full fledged ACC in 10 years, write it down you old Irish hoagie

Given your track record I'd watch how you speak to others on here. Combine that with Terry's track record of being highly respected, I'd be even more careful...