(06-11-2014 12:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 12:22 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 11:58 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  They are better off waiting ten years until USF and UCF get out of infancy.

Exactly. Some of the better Go5 schools have a limited ceiling for growth while some of the Go5 schools with very high ceilings are performing far below their potential either athletically or academically. When one of those high ceiling schools starts realizing its potential, there will be a spot open.

I presume you mean that UC is one of the high-ceiling schools. We have 42,000 students and more living alums than any other G5 school (and every Big 12 school except the Longhorns for that matter). We're in a football-crazed city with rich recruiting grounds, and we only have to share them with one P5 in-state competitor (as opposed to 3 in Florida).

And we're climbing up the academic rankings quickly (21 spots in US News in the last 4 years). We've always had a solid research base but even that's improving (46th in the country in research funding among all universities, up 7 spots from last year).

Sorry, no offense intended and with all due respect, but you are still viewed as a metro school. That is just the nature of the beast.

Just like SMU is viewed as a small private school with no fan base.

(06-11-2014 04:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  No one in a decision making capacity in the ACC or SEC is talking about going to all P-5 schedules. First the math does not work, second it's an economic killer to the big stadium schools like Bama, Florida, FSU, Clemson, TN, LSU, Auburn, etc., because they will lose a 7th home game, third some of them have regional rivalries that are more important than a P-5 game with someone they don't have anything in common with and political pressure can be brought to bear on that - UNC and NC State have to play ECU from time to time. I suspect the same is true in Mississippi with Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss, as well as their natural desire to play Memphis. Louisville would likely see that with Cincinciatti, and Florida and Florida State will be under some pressure to play USF and UCF as well as other Florida schools from time to time.

All P-5 games would become another NFL and if the ACC and SEC did that, then it's just the re-assembling of the old 23 team Southern Conference that existed until 1933 with some additional teams - Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, Miami, FSU, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, ND, Louis

again that is what the whole "BYU is not worthy" was about

and USM has not played Ole' Miss since 1984 and they have not played Mississippi State since 1990

and ECU has played UNC 8 times since 2001 (before that it was 1981) and 5 of those games were in Chapel Hill

for NCST it was 1999 and then started again in 2004 and they have played 6 times since then and only two were in Greenville the others were Raleigh or one in Charlotte

Florida has played USF 1 time on 2010 in Gainsville and FSU has played them 2 times in 2009 and 2012

and UCF has played Florida in 1999 and 2006 both in Gainsville and FSU 1 time in 1995

so there is zero political pressure on these teams to play others in their state and Alabama and Auburn have not played other teams in Alabama in any type of recent history....Alabama is not even listed as a UAB opponent and Auburn in 1995 and USA doesn't have Alabama or Auburn listed as an opponent ever

Arkansas and Arkansas State not listed as ever having played

and I agree it will be more difficult than what the SEC (and especially the ACC that needs to just shut up before the SEC gets them into something they can't get out of) pretends it will be, but again that is what is touching off all of the recent BYU talk and "BYU needs a home"

it is the SEC and the ACC saying that BYU is "not worthy"

how the ACC especially feels they can step up and say that is beyond me, but I guess adding ND, getting a few million less than the other major conferences and having FSU win it all really has the ACC feeling their oats and wanting to step up behind the SEC and scream "yea what he said"

it will be unfortunate for the ACC when the SEC walks off and leaves the ACC to get their asses kicked on their own, but the ACC will just have to learn that lesson the hard way

I will give the PAC 12 credit along with others they had no comment on BYU or anything else schedule related because they know that the SEC likes to talk a lot and the Big 10 from time to time likes to write checks that their conference payout can't cover their ass with and the ACC apparently wants in on the game as well

but the reality is the discussion of this thread could be taken in the direction of the other 100 tired "BYU to" or "The Big 12 needs" threads, but those threads have stood the test of time and stupidity on their own and what is starting BYU talk this time is the SEC and ACC saying BYU is not worthy and I feel it is more interesting to discuss that in the framework of why that will be hard to keep "in force" VS another tired "BYU to" and "BYU needs a home" or "The big 12 needs" thread

(06-11-2014 04:38 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:12 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....and as for the scheduling alliance I am sure the PAC 12 would love that, but I think that would be foolish for the Big 10 and I am not sure the Big 10 would go for it

You do know that the B1G and PAC12 already reached a scheduling agreement, but that the Cali schools ultimately pulled out as they felt that the 9 game conference schedule + ND + B1G (11 P5 games) was excessive relative to ACC/SEC scheduling.

Now if somebody at BYU could come up with a convincing model for getting ND to drop its affiliation with the ACC to preserve the traditional series with USC, Furd, Michigan as part of a B1G-PAC-ND scheduling agreement with BYU stepping in to fill in tricky schedule conflicts, then BYU would be golden as an independent and would have no problem claiming a spot in the P5.

and you do realize that will not stop the SEC SEC SEC from stepping up and letting everyone know how tough their schedule already is and how they are going to make it even tougher and the media will crawl under the table and blow the SEC SEC SEC until they can't blow them anymore and then if (and they probably won't) the SEC SEC SEC doesn't follow through with their tougher schedules and BYU is not worthy talk the media will say nothing about it and let the SEC SEC SEC have a pass and still talk about how tough the SEC SEC SEC is compared to others

again I am not slamming the PAC 12 I am just pointing out that the PAC 12 will be the one that has it the toughest because of logistics if there is an actual meaningful push towards more "P5" VS "P5" schedules

and what you have pointed out proves to a degree what I am saying......the point is though that the PAC 12 seems to see what I am seeing that their scheduling is fine for now with BYU and other western "G5" teams on those schedules, but that is currently being ignored by the media in favor of "the SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc say BYU is not worthy"

which plays against the PAC 12 specifically from a point of perception and their ability to schedule and perception matters especially when the media loves to blow the SEC SEC SEC and write their stupid stories for them while ignoring the fact that what they say is often tainted with a lot of BS

so really if the PAC 12 was smart they would make a comment on all of this even without mentioning BYU and the problem for the PAC 12 is they have done plenty of their own trashing of BYU as well lately......but the REALITY is BYU and Boise are probably going to be two of the stronger available western based non-PAC 12 teams available for the PAC 12 to schedule

but the PAC 12 is watching BYU getting trashed and deemed "not worthy" by the SEC SEC SEC and laughably by the ACc Acc acc and the PAC 12 has thrown BYU under the bus plenty as well.....but in the future the may damn well need them unless they want to play Boise and the MWC and Idaho/NMSU of the Sunbelt and UTEP of the CUSA.......while BYU looks like a tougher available opponent most years.....and while Utah in particular does face the political pressure to play BYU

(06-11-2014 04:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  I believe New Mexico is a classic example of a potential high ceiling school. A state with no pro sports and a higher growth rate. If they could just put together a decent football program, they would already be in a P5 conference.

other examples of potential long - term power teams are UNLV, Boise, Hawaii, Arkansas State, and Missouri State.

Agree. NM has no red flags. They're academically decent at both the undergrad and research level. They're geographically well suited for both the PAC and BigXII. NMSU falling off the map gives sole ownership of an expanding market. Basketball is good but not great. The University is in the largest metro area which is good for travel. It's just not culturally a football hotbed, which could change with some success. UNM is sort of in the same position Utah was in. It's on the border of two major conferences neither of which would expand for the sole purpose of taking that school, but neither of which would object to taking the school if it smoothed out the numbers in the primary expansion move.

(06-11-2014 05:19 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  I believe New Mexico is a classic example of a potential high ceiling school. A state with no pro sports and a higher growth rate. If they could just put together a decent football program, they would already be in a P5 conference.

other examples of potential long - term power teams are UNLV, Boise, Hawaii, Arkansas State, and Missouri State.

Agree. NM has no red flags. They're academically decent at both the undergrad and research level. They're geographically well suited for both the PAC and BigXII. NMSU falling off the map gives sole ownership of an expanding market. Basketball is good but not great. The University is in the largest metro area which is good for travel. It's just not culturally a football hotbed, which could change with some success.

UNM's "red flag" in the context of major college sports is that New Mexico doesn't have a high growth rate and didn't have a high population to begin with. The state has grown much more slowly since 1970 than Colorado, Arizona, Utah, or Nevada. The Albuquerque metro area has a population of only about 900,000. The entire state has about as many people (2 million) as the county in which UNLV is located.

(06-11-2014 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  No one in a decision making capacity in the ACC or SEC is talking about going to all P-5 schedules. First the math does not work, second it's an economic killer to the big stadium schools like Bama, Florida, FSU, Clemson, TN, LSU, Auburn, etc., because they will lose a 7th home game, third some of them have regional rivalries that are more important than a P-5 game with someone they don't have anything in common with and political pressure can be brought to bear on that - UNC and NC State have to play ECU from time to time. I suspect the same is true in Mississippi with Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss, as well as their natural desire to play Memphis. Louisville would likely see that with Cincinciatti, and Florida and Florida State will be under some pressure to play USF and UCF as well as other Florida schools from time to time.

All P-5 games would become another NFL and if the ACC and SEC did that, then it's just the re-assembling of the old 23 team Southern Conference that existed until 1933 with some additional teams - Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, Miami, FSU, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, ND, Louis

again that is what the whole "BYU is not worthy" was about

and USM has not played Ole' Miss since 1984 and they have not played Mississippi State since 1990

and ECU has played UNC 8 times since 2001 (before that it was 1981) and 5 of those games were in Chapel Hill

for NCST it was 1999 and then started again in 2004 and they have played 6 times since then and only two were in Greenville the others were Raleigh or one in Charlotte

Florida has played USF 1 time on 2010 in Gainsville and FSU has played them 2 times in 2009 and 2012

and UCF has played Florida in 1999 and 2006 both in Gainsville and FSU 1 time in 1995

so there is zero political pressure on these teams to play others in their state and Alabama and Auburn have not played other teams in Alabama in any type of recent history....Alabama is not even listed as a UAB opponent and Auburn in 1995 and USA doesn't have Alabama or Auburn listed as an opponent ever

Arkansas and Arkansas State not listed as ever having played

and I agree it will be more difficult than what the SEC (and especially the ACC that needs to just shut up before the SEC gets them into something they can't get out of) pretends it will be, but again that is what is touching off all of the recent BYU talk and "BYU needs a home"

it is the SEC and the ACC saying that BYU is "not worthy"

how the ACC especially feels they can step up and say that is beyond me, but I guess adding ND, getting a few million less than the other major conferences and having FSU win it all really has the ACC feeling their oats and wanting to step up behind the SEC and scream "yea what he said"

it will be unfortunate for the ACC when the SEC walks off and leaves the ACC to get their asses kicked on their own, but the ACC will just have to learn that lesson the hard way

I will give the PAC 12 credit along with others they had no comment on BYU or anything else schedule related because they know that the SEC likes to talk a lot and the Big 10 from time to time likes to write checks that their conference payout can't cover their ass with and the ACC apparently wants in on the game as well

but the reality is the discussion of this thread could be taken in the direction of the other 100 tired "BYU to" or "The Big 12 needs" threads, but those threads have stood the test of time and stupidity on their own and what is starting BYU talk this time is the SEC and ACC saying BYU is not worthy and I feel it is more interesting to discuss that in the framework of why that will be hard to keep "in force" VS another tired "BYU to" and "BYU needs a home" or "The big 12 needs" thread

All of the games between ECU and UNC and NC State are politically generated - if you lived in NC you would know that. Just because we have avoided those games being an annual affair does not mean they are not played for political purposes - we play them every so often so that ECU interests in the NC General Assembly do not make it a law.

Like I said, no one in the ACC said anything about BYU's worth, but the plain fact is they are not in a B-5 conference. You are trying to make more out of that than it is.

Only a couple of coaches in the SEC have said ANYTHING about playing just P-5 teams - you know that and you also know they are blowing smoke.

(06-11-2014 12:21 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 11:58 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 10:49 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Among other things this is a major obstacle that BYU or anyone faces in terms of getting into the Big 12 conference:

From the above linked article:

After several conversations with Big 12 officials, it's clear the league is ready to ride out the first wave of College Football Playoff play with a 10-team setup.

Those 10 teams split $220 million, and that doesn't include third-tier rights. That's one way to make a living.

The Big 12 doesn't need to expand and doesn't have to expand. If someone wants in, they need to recognize the Big 12 holds the power there, and they must do whatever they can to make themselves valuable to that conference, not make demands about how the league should change to accommodate them.

Exactly why I find all the BYU talk to the Big 12 foolish. BYU at most is honestly worth maybe six million a year. And every other team available is worth even less. Adding two teams to the big 12 right now would not increase the money or competition.

They are better off waiting ten years until USF and UCF get out of infancy.

When teams have moved into power conferences, they get pro rata shares of revenue -at a buy in rate for awhile in the valuable conferences. Revenues probably aren't an issue as far as BYU getting an increase eventually to full share, but BYU being added would mean that bowl money, playoff money, ncaa money would be split off more ways for the existing members there. The Big 12 has clauses in their contracts though to accommodate expansion on a pro rata basis

Again what would be the real reasoning behind splitting the money two more ways? They wont add BYU by themselves because that would be expanding just to expand. If they expand it would have to be by two members and no matter how much anyone wants there to be expansion there simply are not any two teams that would increase the pay out or strength of any power conference.

The Big 10 does not want Uconn so this round of expansion for P5 teams is over.

(06-11-2014 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  No one in a decision making capacity in the ACC or SEC is talking about going to all P-5 schedules. First the math does not work, second it's an economic killer to the big stadium schools like Bama, Florida, FSU, Clemson, TN, LSU, Auburn, etc., because they will lose a 7th home game, third some of them have regional rivalries that are more important than a P-5 game with someone they don't have anything in common with and political pressure can be brought to bear on that - UNC and NC State have to play ECU from time to time. I suspect the same is true in Mississippi with Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss, as well as their natural desire to play Memphis. Louisville would likely see that with Cincinciatti, and Florida and Florida State will be under some pressure to play USF and UCF as well as other Florida schools from time to time.

All P-5 games would become another NFL and if the ACC and SEC did that, then it's just the re-assembling of the old 23 team Southern Conference that existed until 1933 with some additional teams - Mizzou, Arkansas, TAMU, Miami, FSU, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, ND, Louis

again that is what the whole "BYU is not worthy" was about

and USM has not played Ole' Miss since 1984 and they have not played Mississippi State since 1990

and ECU has played UNC 8 times since 2001 (before that it was 1981) and 5 of those games were in Chapel Hill

for NCST it was 1999 and then started again in 2004 and they have played 6 times since then and only two were in Greenville the others were Raleigh or one in Charlotte

Florida has played USF 1 time on 2010 in Gainsville and FSU has played them 2 times in 2009 and 2012

and UCF has played Florida in 1999 and 2006 both in Gainsville and FSU 1 time in 1995

so there is zero political pressure on these teams to play others in their state and Alabama and Auburn have not played other teams in Alabama in any type of recent history....Alabama is not even listed as a UAB opponent and Auburn in 1995 and USA doesn't have Alabama or Auburn listed as an opponent ever

Arkansas and Arkansas State not listed as ever having played

and I agree it will be more difficult than what the SEC (and especially the ACC that needs to just shut up before the SEC gets them into something they can't get out of) pretends it will be, but again that is what is touching off all of the recent BYU talk and "BYU needs a home"

it is the SEC and the ACC saying that BYU is "not worthy"

how the ACC especially feels they can step up and say that is beyond me, but I guess adding ND, getting a few million less than the other major conferences and having FSU win it all really has the ACC feeling their oats and wanting to step up behind the SEC and scream "yea what he said"

it will be unfortunate for the ACC when the SEC walks off and leaves the ACC to get their asses kicked on their own, but the ACC will just have to learn that lesson the hard way

I will give the PAC 12 credit along with others they had no comment on BYU or anything else schedule related because they know that the SEC likes to talk a lot and the Big 10 from time to time likes to write checks that their conference payout can't cover their ass with and the ACC apparently wants in on the game as well

but the reality is the discussion of this thread could be taken in the direction of the other 100 tired "BYU to" or "The Big 12 needs" threads, but those threads have stood the test of time and stupidity on their own and what is starting BYU talk this time is the SEC and ACC saying BYU is not worthy and I feel it is more interesting to discuss that in the framework of why that will be hard to keep "in force" VS another tired "BYU to" and "BYU needs a home" or "The big 12 needs" thread

All of the games between ECU and UNC and NC State are politically generated - if you lived in NC you would know that. Just because we have avoided those games being an annual affair does not mean they are not played for political purposes - we play them every so often so that ECU interests in the NC General Assembly do not make it a law.

Like I said, no one in the ACC said anything about BYU's worth, but the plain fact is they are not in a B-5 conference. You are trying to make more out of that than it is.

Only a couple of coaches in the SEC have said ANYTHING about playing just P-5 teams - you know that and you also know they are blowing smoke.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...el-for-acc

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/578...e.html.csp

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ll-playoff

the above article is wrong it is not an NCAA requirement it is an SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc wish

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...layoff-era

again I am commenting on what has sparked all of this BYU talk again for the 500th time

you can pretend that it is the same old "Big 12 needs to" or "who will the Big 12 have to" or "Can the Big 12 survive with 10" talk, but if the SEC SEC SEC and their new big talking little brother the ACc Acc acc had not brought up teams that "count" in their scheduling hopes and dreams then the BYU talk would not be existing right now

(06-11-2014 04:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I've always said the ACC should double down in Florida with USF and UCF. Turn themselves into the Florida conference.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Why would Florida State and Miami ever agree to elevate two GIANT public schools to their level? Hell, why would any ACC team want that?

For the same reason Cincinnati and Pitt were/are never going to get an invite to join the B1G, USF and UCF are never going to get an invitation to join the ACC - well, at least as long as FSU and the U are members of that league. All that does is lessen the power of the existing league schools in those markets. Just as there is no way on this Earth that Ohio State and/or Penn State would ever agree to allow in-state schools to come in and infringe on their B1G turf, neither Florida State nor Miami are ever going to allow UCF or USF to horn in on their turf either.

If say, Florida State and Clemson were to defect to the SEC, then I believe that UCF and USF, not UConn and Cincinnati, would likely be Nos. 1 and 1A on the ACC's replacement list for the reasons you state. However, as things currently stand, it makes no sense for the ACC to add anyone, much less two Florida teams.

Speaking of that principle, I still have no idea why the B12 chose to allow TCU to join its league ahead of both West Virginia and Louisville? That was a very strange decision at the time and it seems even more odd in retrospect.

There has been a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and second guessing over the whole WVU or UofL decision but really the strange choice was for the No. 9 spot, not the 10th spot.

The B12 already had three Texas teams in tow in Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas and I have to assume that combo - or even just the University of Texas alone - would have given them that Dallas market. TCU seems slightly redundant and there's no way they are going to keep pace with Louisville long term as the Cardinals have one of the largest athletic budgets in the nation.

I still think the B12 will eventually expand and when they do, I think THEY will go after the twin Florida directionals before they fo after Cincinnati, BYU, etc. At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.

(06-11-2014 05:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:38 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:12 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....and as for the scheduling alliance I am sure the PAC 12 would love that, but I think that would be foolish for the Big 10 and I am not sure the Big 10 would go for it

You do know that the B1G and PAC12 already reached a scheduling agreement, but that the Cali schools ultimately pulled out as they felt that the 9 game conference schedule + ND + B1G (11 P5 games) was excessive relative to ACC/SEC scheduling.

Now if somebody at BYU could come up with a convincing model for getting ND to drop its affiliation with the ACC to preserve the traditional series with USC, Furd, Michigan as part of a B1G-PAC-ND scheduling agreement with BYU stepping in to fill in tricky schedule conflicts, then BYU would be golden as an independent and would have no problem claiming a spot in the P5.

and you do realize that will not stop the SEC SEC SEC from stepping up and letting everyone know how tough their schedule already is and how they are going to make it even tougher and the media will crawl under the table and blow the SEC SEC SEC until they can't blow them anymore and then if (and they probably won't) the SEC SEC SEC doesn't follow through with their tougher schedules and BYU is not worthy talk the media will say nothing about it and let the SEC SEC SEC have a pass and still talk about how tough the SEC SEC SEC is compared to others

again I am not slamming the PAC 12 I am just pointing out that the PAC 12 will be the one that has it the toughest because of logistics if there is an actual meaningful push towards more "P5" VS "P5" schedules

and what you have pointed out proves to a degree what I am saying......the point is though that the PAC 12 seems to see what I am seeing that their scheduling is fine for now with BYU and other western "G5" teams on those schedules, but that is currently being ignored by the media in favor of "the SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc say BYU is not worthy"

which plays against the PAC 12 specifically from a point of perception and their ability to schedule and perception matters especially when the media loves to blow the SEC SEC SEC and write their stupid stories for them while ignoring the fact that what they say is often tainted with a lot of BS

so really if the PAC 12 was smart they would make a comment on all of this even without mentioning BYU and the problem for the PAC 12 is they have done plenty of their own trashing of BYU as well lately......but the REALITY is BYU and Boise are probably going to be two of the stronger available western based non-PAC 12 teams available for the PAC 12 to schedule

but the PAC 12 is watching BYU getting trashed and deemed "not worthy" by the SEC SEC SEC and laughably by the ACc Acc acc and the PAC 12 has thrown BYU under the bus plenty as well.....but in the future the may damn well need them unless they want to play Boise and the MWC and Idaho/NMSU of the Sunbelt and UTEP of the CUSA.......while BYU looks like a tougher available opponent most years.....and while Utah in particular does face the political pressure to play BYU

Okay, get your facts straight: long before the SEC really started emphasizing its conference strength, the Big Ten had been emphasizing their conference strength on a regular basis. You couldn't watch any channel without hearing Big Ten this or Big Ten that. After Auburn was denied under Tubberville, the SEC finally decided to take the Big Ten to task on their claim of being a really good conference. Every single game, including bowl games, that matched up an SEC opponent vs a Big Ten opponent were heavily hyped by SEC media and fans. When the SEC's strategy began to pay off, the national media slowly began to back away from the Big Tewelve. The ACC went a slightly different route by recruiting teams from the Northeast, but emphasized beating SEC and Big Ten teams.

Where was the Pac 12 in all of this? Nowhere to be found or siding with the Big Ten which has been proven to be a mistake for the Pac 12, IMO. The Pac 12 has got to get the attention of the East Coast media and hold it!! Too many East Coast folks are lazy (not staying up to watch West Coast games), IMO, and don't want to give Pac 12 and western programs a fair shake, and that's very wrong to do, IMO. Oregon has as much potential as 'Bama does, IMO, and Oregon State has just as much as Auburn, IMHO. I can easily see Arizona State being another UGa out west. It's just going to take the Pac 12 getting an East Coast media advocate(s) and exposure to really show folks what it can do.

(06-11-2014 10:24 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Speaking of that principle, I still have no idea why the B12 chose to allow TCU to join its league ahead of both West Virginia and Louisville? That was a very strange decision at the time and it seems even more odd in retrospect.

There has been a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and second guessing over the whole WVU or UofL decision but really the strange choice was for the No. 9 spot, not the 10th spot.

The B12 already had three Texas teams in tow in Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas and I have to assume that combo - or even just the University of Texas alone - would have given them that Dallas market. TCU seems slightly redundant and there's no way they are going to keep pace with Louisville long term as the Cardinals have one of the largest athletic budgets in the nation.

I still think the B12 will eventually expand and when they do, I think THEY will go after the twin Florida directionals before they fo after Cincinnati, BYU, etc. At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.

After A&M left, the BYU discussions fell through and the Big East schools (WVU, UL, & Pitt who actually jumped to the ACC, but had been talking with the B12 previously) were not sure that the B12 was going to stay together and were not ready to jump ship to be A&M's replacement at that time, especially after OU president Boren's wallflower declaration. The B12 had to get to 10 or it's TV contract would be voided. TCU was the most valuable school (according to the networks) who could join ASAP and was willing to say yes during the uncertainty surrounding the B12. So TCU was picked. They were the best available in that situation. Later after MU left and the B12 needed another, new 10th school, WVU and UL battled it out, and the B12 picked WVU who was willing to join immediately to keep that TV contract in place.

(06-11-2014 10:55 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 05:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:38 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:12 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....and as for the scheduling alliance I am sure the PAC 12 would love that, but I think that would be foolish for the Big 10 and I am not sure the Big 10 would go for it

You do know that the B1G and PAC12 already reached a scheduling agreement, but that the Cali schools ultimately pulled out as they felt that the 9 game conference schedule + ND + B1G (11 P5 games) was excessive relative to ACC/SEC scheduling.

Now if somebody at BYU could come up with a convincing model for getting ND to drop its affiliation with the ACC to preserve the traditional series with USC, Furd, Michigan as part of a B1G-PAC-ND scheduling agreement with BYU stepping in to fill in tricky schedule conflicts, then BYU would be golden as an independent and would have no problem claiming a spot in the P5.

and you do realize that will not stop the SEC SEC SEC from stepping up and letting everyone know how tough their schedule already is and how they are going to make it even tougher and the media will crawl under the table and blow the SEC SEC SEC until they can't blow them anymore and then if (and they probably won't) the SEC SEC SEC doesn't follow through with their tougher schedules and BYU is not worthy talk the media will say nothing about it and let the SEC SEC SEC have a pass and still talk about how tough the SEC SEC SEC is compared to others

again I am not slamming the PAC 12 I am just pointing out that the PAC 12 will be the one that has it the toughest because of logistics if there is an actual meaningful push towards more "P5" VS "P5" schedules

and what you have pointed out proves to a degree what I am saying......the point is though that the PAC 12 seems to see what I am seeing that their scheduling is fine for now with BYU and other western "G5" teams on those schedules, but that is currently being ignored by the media in favor of "the SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc say BYU is not worthy"

which plays against the PAC 12 specifically from a point of perception and their ability to schedule and perception matters especially when the media loves to blow the SEC SEC SEC and write their stupid stories for them while ignoring the fact that what they say is often tainted with a lot of BS

so really if the PAC 12 was smart they would make a comment on all of this even without mentioning BYU and the problem for the PAC 12 is they have done plenty of their own trashing of BYU as well lately......but the REALITY is BYU and Boise are probably going to be two of the stronger available western based non-PAC 12 teams available for the PAC 12 to schedule

but the PAC 12 is watching BYU getting trashed and deemed "not worthy" by the SEC SEC SEC and laughably by the ACc Acc acc and the PAC 12 has thrown BYU under the bus plenty as well.....but in the future the may damn well need them unless they want to play Boise and the MWC and Idaho/NMSU of the Sunbelt and UTEP of the CUSA.......while BYU looks like a tougher available opponent most years.....and while Utah in particular does face the political pressure to play BYU

Okay, get your facts straight: long before the SEC really started emphasizing its conference strength, the Big Ten had been emphasizing their conference strength on a regular basis. You couldn't watch any channel without hearing Big Ten this or Big Ten that. After Auburn was denied under Tubberville, the SEC finally decided to take the Big Ten to task on their claim of being a really good conference. Every single game, including bowl games, that matched up an SEC opponent vs a Big Ten opponent were heavily hyped by SEC media and fans. When the SEC's strategy began to pay off, the national media slowly began to back away from the Big Tewelve. The ACC went a slightly different route by recruiting teams from the Northeast, but emphasized beating SEC and Big Ten teams.

Where was the Pac 12 in all of this? Nowhere to be found or siding with the Big Ten which has been proven to be a mistake for the Pac 12, IMO. The Pac 12 has got to get the attention of the East Coast media and hold it!! Too many East Coast folks are lazy (not staying up to watch West Coast games), IMO, and don't want to give Pac 12 and western programs a fair shake, and that's very wrong to do, IMO. Oregon has as much potential as 'Bama does, IMO, and Oregon State has just as much as Auburn, IMHO. I can easily see Arizona State being another UGa out west. It's just going to take the Pac 12 getting an East Coast media advocate(s) and exposure to really show folks what it can do.

I giggle every time I see the WV situation compared to the Louisville situation. Not that WVU did not make a huge improvement but having class definitely paid off for Louisville in the end.

(06-11-2014 10:24 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Speaking of that principle, I still have no idea why the B12 chose to allow TCU to join its league ahead of both West Virginia and Louisville? That was a very strange decision at the time and it seems even more odd in retrospect.

There has been a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and second guessing over the whole WVU or UofL decision but really the strange choice was for the No. 9 spot, not the 10th spot.

The B12 already had three Texas teams in tow in Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas and I have to assume that combo - or even just the University of Texas alone - would have given them that Dallas market. TCU seems slightly redundant and there's no way they are going to keep pace with Louisville long term as the Cardinals have one of the largest athletic budgets in the nation.

I still think the B12 will eventually expand and when they do, I think THEY will go after the twin Florida directionals before they fo after Cincinnati, BYU, etc. At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.

I think in terms of what youa re talking about TCU is a bit different due to being a private school. In being private it is highly unlikely that it can cut into the overall Texas market in any noticeable manner. The Florida schools, Pitt, and Cincinnati are all larger public schools which might be perceived more of a threat or at least more likely to affect their market share.

(06-11-2014 10:24 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Speaking of that principle, I still have no idea why the B12 chose to allow TCU to join its league ahead of both West Virginia and Louisville? That was a very strange decision at the time and it seems even more odd in retrospect.

There has been a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and second guessing over the whole WVU or UofL decision but really the strange choice was for the No. 9 spot, not the 10th spot.

The B12 already had three Texas teams in tow in Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas and I have to assume that combo - or even just the University of Texas alone - would have given them that Dallas market. TCU seems slightly redundant and there's no way they are going to keep pace with Louisville long term as the Cardinals have one of the largest athletic budgets in the nation.

I still think the B12 will eventually expand and when they do, I think THEY will go after the twin Florida directionals before they fo after Cincinnati, BYU, etc. At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.

Based on all the news then and since it seems that at the time TCU was 5th in line.

WV & UL were approached but reluctant to get out of the Big East and the 27 month bylaw/neccessary lawsuit on the timetable required.

BYU's Sunday policy and other tv factors soured FOX on them. Took too long and league had to move.

AFA was not willing to move due to the physical toll on the players.

After that TCU was the best option available that could move quickly. Their tv ratings were as good or better than any of the nonaq crowd and their budget & facilities were a cut above as well. Their progams in football and baseball were very strong and they had some national cache after winning the Rose Bowl and making it to the fiesta the year before.

Had WVU & UL been moving quicker TCU probably isn't in.

(06-12-2014 01:13 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 10:24 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Speaking of that principle, I still have no idea why the B12 chose to allow TCU to join its league ahead of both West Virginia and Louisville? That was a very strange decision at the time and it seems even more odd in retrospect.

There has been a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and second guessing over the whole WVU or UofL decision but really the strange choice was for the No. 9 spot, not the 10th spot.

The B12 already had three Texas teams in tow in Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas and I have to assume that combo - or even just the University of Texas alone - would have given them that Dallas market. TCU seems slightly redundant and there's no way they are going to keep pace with Louisville long term as the Cardinals have one of the largest athletic budgets in the nation.

I still think the B12 will eventually expand and when they do, I think THEY will go after the twin Florida directionals before they fo after Cincinnati, BYU, etc. At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.

I think in terms of what youa re talking about TCU is a bit different due to being a private school. In being private it is highly unlikely that it can cut into the overall Texas market in any noticeable manner. The Florida schools, Pitt, and Cincinnati are all larger public schools which might be perceived more of a threat or at least more likely to affect their market share.

Public vs Private isn't the issue. USC, ND, Miami... all private and get tons of media coverage. It depends more on the program than whether it gets public money.

(06-12-2014 01:22 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Public vs Private isn't the issue. USC, ND, Miami... all private and get tons of media coverage. It depends more on the program than whether it gets public money.

Size is more of an issue than public/private, IMO. USC has more students than most public FBS schools.

Smaller schools, including Notre Dame and Miami, need a history of a lot of success to get traction in CFB that is comparable to other "big name" programs. Even then, programs like Miami are in more danger of "falling off the map" after a long dry spell than Texas or Ohio State will ever be.

BYU was at the top of the list to replace TAMU, but had a laundry list of conditions. Bad mistake on their part.

(06-12-2014 02:33 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 10:55 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 05:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:38 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:12 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....and as for the scheduling alliance I am sure the PAC 12 would love that, but I think that would be foolish for the Big 10 and I am not sure the Big 10 would go for it

You do know that the B1G and PAC12 already reached a scheduling agreement, but that the Cali schools ultimately pulled out as they felt that the 9 game conference schedule + ND + B1G (11 P5 games) was excessive relative to ACC/SEC scheduling.

Now if somebody at BYU could come up with a convincing model for getting ND to drop its affiliation with the ACC to preserve the traditional series with USC, Furd, Michigan as part of a B1G-PAC-ND scheduling agreement with BYU stepping in to fill in tricky schedule conflicts, then BYU would be golden as an independent and would have no problem claiming a spot in the P5.

and you do realize that will not stop the SEC SEC SEC from stepping up and letting everyone know how tough their schedule already is and how they are going to make it even tougher and the media will crawl under the table and blow the SEC SEC SEC until they can't blow them anymore and then if (and they probably won't) the SEC SEC SEC doesn't follow through with their tougher schedules and BYU is not worthy talk the media will say nothing about it and let the SEC SEC SEC have a pass and still talk about how tough the SEC SEC SEC is compared to others

again I am not slamming the PAC 12 I am just pointing out that the PAC 12 will be the one that has it the toughest because of logistics if there is an actual meaningful push towards more "P5" VS "P5" schedules

and what you have pointed out proves to a degree what I am saying......the point is though that the PAC 12 seems to see what I am seeing that their scheduling is fine for now with BYU and other western "G5" teams on those schedules, but that is currently being ignored by the media in favor of "the SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc say BYU is not worthy"

which plays against the PAC 12 specifically from a point of perception and their ability to schedule and perception matters especially when the media loves to blow the SEC SEC SEC and write their stupid stories for them while ignoring the fact that what they say is often tainted with a lot of BS

so really if the PAC 12 was smart they would make a comment on all of this even without mentioning BYU and the problem for the PAC 12 is they have done plenty of their own trashing of BYU as well lately......but the REALITY is BYU and Boise are probably going to be two of the stronger available western based non-PAC 12 teams available for the PAC 12 to schedule

but the PAC 12 is watching BYU getting trashed and deemed "not worthy" by the SEC SEC SEC and laughably by the ACc Acc acc and the PAC 12 has thrown BYU under the bus plenty as well.....but in the future the may damn well need them unless they want to play Boise and the MWC and Idaho/NMSU of the Sunbelt and UTEP of the CUSA.......while BYU looks like a tougher available opponent most years.....and while Utah in particular does face the political pressure to play BYU

Okay, get your facts straight: long before the SEC really started emphasizing its conference strength, the Big Ten had been emphasizing their conference strength on a regular basis. You couldn't watch any channel without hearing Big Ten this or Big Ten that. After Auburn was denied under Tubberville, the SEC finally decided to take the Big Ten to task on their claim of being a really good conference. Every single game, including bowl games, that matched up an SEC opponent vs a Big Ten opponent were heavily hyped by SEC media and fans. When the SEC's strategy began to pay off, the national media slowly began to back away from the Big Tewelve. The ACC went a slightly different route by recruiting teams from the Northeast, but emphasized beating SEC and Big Ten teams.

Where was the Pac 12 in all of this? Nowhere to be found or siding with the Big Ten which has been proven to be a mistake for the Pac 12, IMO. The Pac 12 has got to get the attention of the East Coast media and hold it!! Too many East Coast folks are lazy (not staying up to watch West Coast games), IMO, and don't want to give Pac 12 and western programs a fair shake, and that's very wrong to do, IMO. Oregon has as much potential as 'Bama does, IMO, and Oregon State has just as much as Auburn, IMHO. I can easily see Arizona State being another UGa out west. It's just going to take the Pac 12 getting an East Coast media advocate(s) and exposure to really show folks what it can do.

I giggle every time I see the WV situation compared to the Louisville situation. Not that WVU did not make a huge improvement but having class definitely paid off for Louisville in the end.

Curious statement. By all measures WVU is in a better conference, and were selected ahead of Louisville by that better conference on behalf of the tv networks. WVU accepted an offer to move to a better conference. Louisville had no offer or opportunity to go elsewhere until Maryland left the ACC and BC blocked UConn. What about any of that conveys "class" or lack thereof? One incident that stands out from reports of that time is that after the Big 12 had invited WVU and they had accepted, UL sent in Mconnell who then tried to get the WVU invite overturned and UL added in their place--what about that move conveys "class"?

(06-12-2014 02:03 PM)orangefan Wrote:  BYU was at the top of the list to replace TAMU, but had a laundry list of conditions. Bad mistake on their part.

Does indeed appear to be the case. BYU made demands instead of accepting a potential invitation without stipulations. It is understandable that they would want to know that OU was remaining, but once that was clear they still wanted a conditional invitation. Even now its not apparent that they've changed demands such as being on tv a certain number of times or being able to rebroadcast Big 12 product on BYUtv.

The Big 12 doesn't intend to expand so BYU or anyone would need to put on a major push to change things.