Ive said all along that I dont think they will make any moves until 2016... thats the key year with the B10 getting their new 1st tier contract AND it gives them time to file for the waiver, attempt to expand the playoff and also to see how often they are going to get shutout.

A one time event wont get them to expand.

The thing is---this stuff can blow up fast and there is little time to react. If we lost 2 of our top basketball attractions, one of the primary selling points of the league is heavily damaged and it would be difficult to repair it once basketball was depleted.

I think we should be pro-active. Add Wichita and one other strong non-football basketball power. That would provide us a cheap hedge that would allow AAC basketball to take a hit, and still remain VERY attractive to TV and other basketball schools. That allows us to always have the power to reload after a hit. Plus, it costs us little and only increases the current perception of the basketball league if no raid occurs.

(12-08-2014 09:37 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  They won't get it. The rest of the P5 almost got screwed by having two teams in the playoff bc their lack of ccg. All it would have taken was OSU and FSU to lose. You had better believe the rest of the commissioners are going to say 'F off' to the B12.

Doesn't the P4 outside the B12 need votes from the B12 to complete their agenda, whatever that may be? If one of the P5 block some of that agenda, doesn't that come back and bite them?

(12-08-2014 09:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is---this stuff can blow up fast and there is little time to react. If we lost 2 of our top basketball attractions, one of the primary selling points of the league is heavily damaged and it would be difficult to repair it once basketball was depleted.

I think we should be pro-active. Add Wichita and one other strong non-football basketball power. That would provide us a cheap hedge that would allow AAC basketball to take a hit, and still remain VERY attractive to TV and other basketball schools. That allows us to always have the power to reload after a hit. Plus, it costs us little and only increases the current perception of the basketball league if no raid occurs.

I thought that hybrid conference idea was extinct, passing with the Big East.

(12-08-2014 09:39 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:37 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:18 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:07 PM)JRR_IV Wrote:  Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
"At Big 12 function in NY: no one ever talked to Cincy, OU’s Joe C wasn't at UCF & SMU’s BOR report UM/Cincy getting invites wrong"

"Every person I spoke to today that’s from Big 12 or Big 12 school: league is not expanding"

I expect the Big 12 to try and get a waiver for a 10 team conference championship game before going the expansion route.

They won't get it. The rest of the P5 almost got screwed by having two teams in the playoff bc their lack of ccg. All it would have taken was OSU and FSU to lose. You had better believe the rest of the commissioners are going to say 'F off' to the B12.

Actually that's a reason for them to let them have one. As you said this year there were no upsets in the 4 CGs of the P5 had there been one the Big12 gets a team in and had OSU and FSU lost both TCU and Baylor could had been in the playoffs.

I understand your methodology but the other P5 had to expand to 12 to get their game, also what does it say about your regular season matchup if you play the same team in the postseason? So head to head counts but not really because CCG trumps head to head. This season the B12 had three good teams in Baylor, KSU and TCU. Okie and Okie lite flopped hard, Texas is rebuilding, Tech/KU/ISU and WVU no way. 3 out of 10. Essentially there was also no real way of comparing them to other conferences since they either didn't schedule P5 ooc or didn't win the games. The exception TCU winning against a mediocre Minnesota in a beleaguered B10. So if the P5 gives the B12 a ccg waiver what they're saying is go ahead schedule whomever you wish and is long as you slog it through your ccg, you're in. Sounds counter-intuitive to me but the P5 commissioners are a bunch of greedy fat cats anyway, so you may be right idk.

(12-08-2014 09:56 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:39 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:37 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:18 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:07 PM)JRR_IV Wrote:  Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
"At Big 12 function in NY: no one ever talked to Cincy, OU’s Joe C wasn't at UCF & SMU’s BOR report UM/Cincy getting invites wrong"

"Every person I spoke to today that’s from Big 12 or Big 12 school: league is not expanding"

I expect the Big 12 to try and get a waiver for a 10 team conference championship game before going the expansion route.

They won't get it. The rest of the P5 almost got screwed by having two teams in the playoff bc their lack of ccg. All it would have taken was OSU and FSU to lose. You had better believe the rest of the commissioners are going to say 'F off' to the B12.

Actually that's a reason for them to let them have one. As you said this year there were no upsets in the 4 CGs of the P5 had there been one the Big12 gets a team in and had OSU and FSU lost both TCU and Baylor could had been in the playoffs.

I understand your methodology but the other P5 had to expand to 12 to get their game, also what does it say about your regular season matchup if you play the same team in the postseason? So head to head counts but not really because CCG trumps head to head. This season the B12 had three good teams in Baylor, KSU and TCU. Okie and Okie lite flopped hard, Texas is rebuilding, Tech/KU/ISU and WVU no way. 3 out of 10. Essentially there was also no real way of comparing them to other conferences since they either didn't schedule P5 ooc or didn't win the games. The exception TCU winning against a mediocre Minnesota in a beleaguered B10. So if the P5 gives the B12 a ccg waiver what they're saying is go ahead schedule whomever you wish and is long as you slog it through your ccg, you're in. Sounds counter-intuitive to me but the P5 commissioners are a bunch of greedy fat cats anyway, so you may be right idk.

Because of you look at the history of the Big12 when they had a CG. The higher ranked team lost more often than in any other CG game. So more likely that they could be upset.
As for the repeat well Oregon had a rematch with Zona this year and there is always a chance of that in all CG.
This year was a anomaly there were no upsets which would knock teams OUT of the playoff spots.

I have no idea what the Big 12 is going to do --- but I do know that when you're sitting at the table it 'benefits you not' to show your hand.

Why are we acknowledging this guy with his real name? I miss McMustache. :(

(12-08-2014 09:53 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is---this stuff can blow up fast and there is little time to react. If we lost 2 of our top basketball attractions, one of the primary selling points of the league is heavily damaged and it would be difficult to repair it once basketball was depleted.

I think we should be pro-active. Add Wichita and one other strong non-football basketball power. That would provide us a cheap hedge that would allow AAC basketball to take a hit, and still remain VERY attractive to TV and other basketball schools. That allows us to always have the power to reload after a hit. Plus, it costs us little and only increases the current perception of the basketball league if no raid occurs.

I thought that hybrid conference idea was extinct, passing with the Big East.

I actually agree with Attackcoog... I really think the AAC should look into strengthen the basketball side.

Someone on one of the UC boards with "some knowledge" said the earliest it would happen is 2016-2017 (Due to TV). That was before this latest fire drill over popcorn left on too long in the microwave.

I do believe there was dialog between the B12 and UC, but there is turmoil in the organization and there is not a consensus on where to go from here.

The one thing the B12 can agree on is they are not taking a paycut to add teams. If UC can keep adding to its facilities etc, I think they will eventually make it. Unfortunately, it may be 5-10 years away.

(12-08-2014 10:11 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  Someone on one of the UC boards with "some knowledge" said the earliest it would happen is 2016-2017 (Due to TV). That was before this latest fire drill over popcorn left on too long in the microwave.

I do believe there was dialog between the B12 and UC, but there is turmoil in the organization and there is not a consensus on where to go from here.

The one thing the B12 can agree on is they are not taking a paycut to add teams. If UC can keep adding to its facilities etc, I think they will eventually make it. Unfortunately, it may be 5-10 years away.

And unfortunately for UC, or any other similarly situated program, the revenue just isn't there to keep up with the Joneses. IMHO, we don't have 5-10 years.

Bloggers on expansion:



Yet, I (we) post and speculate anyways.

(12-08-2014 09:29 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:18 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Welcome back everyone

This from the same guy who tells me that the MW has a slot reserved for Houston, but, the Coogs have to keep beating them off....

Jokers to the left of me, clowns to the right...

(12-08-2014 10:14 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 10:11 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  Someone on one of the UC boards with "some knowledge" said the earliest it would happen is 2016-2017 (Due to TV). That was before this latest fire drill over popcorn left on too long in the microwave.

I do believe there was dialog between the B12 and UC, but there is turmoil in the organization and there is not a consensus on where to go from here.

The one thing the B12 can agree on is they are not taking a paycut to add teams. If UC can keep adding to its facilities etc, I think they will eventually make it. Unfortunately, it may be 5-10 years away.

And unfortunately for UC, or any other similarly situated program, the revenue just isn't there to keep up with the Joneses. IMHO, we don't have 5-10 years.

If there is no P5 expansion in 10 years what will the AAC look like? Will we have earned enough prestige and fan following to be attractive enough for teams to stay? Is the AAC going to be aggressive and invite two more teams? i don't think the AAC should sit still.

Anyone remember miko? He would have enjoyed the panic on this board.

(12-08-2014 10:07 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:53 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is---this stuff can blow up fast and there is little time to react. If we lost 2 of our top basketball attractions, one of the primary selling points of the league is heavily damaged and it would be difficult to repair it once basketball was depleted.

I think we should be pro-active. Add Wichita and one other strong non-football basketball power. That would provide us a cheap hedge that would allow AAC basketball to take a hit, and still remain VERY attractive to TV and other basketball schools. That allows us to always have the power to reload after a hit. Plus, it costs us little and only increases the current perception of the basketball league if no raid occurs.

I thought that hybrid conference idea was extinct, passing with the Big East.

I actually agree with Attackcoog... I really think the AAC should look into strengthen the basketball side.

Yeah, because that worked so well with Big East 2.0!!!

I don't know why you clowns keep banging the non-football members drum, it's not gonna happen.

Cincinnati's President Ono, recently returned from a trip where he visited Manhattan, Kansas - KSU's President - and Dallas, Texas.

No word on the reason for the visit, but I'm sure Dr. Ono did not sell KSU's president on the viability of UC as a B12 candidate.

(12-08-2014 10:42 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Yeah, because that worked so well with Big East 2.0!!!

I don't know why you clowns keep banging the non-football members drum, it's not gonna happen.

So if Kentucky wanted to come for BB only, you would turn them down?

(12-08-2014 10:34 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Anyone remember miko? He would have enjoyed the panic on this board.

He just started a thread on the CR board saying that UCONN turned down a Big 12 invite...

Need a few bb schools in the worst way. League is really in danger of being a 1 bid league this season.

(12-08-2014 10:11 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  Someone on one of the UC boards with "some knowledge" said the earliest it would happen is 2016-2017 (Due to TV). That was before this latest fire drill over popcorn left on too long in the microwave.

I do believe there was dialog between the B12 and UC, but there is turmoil in the organization and there is not a consensus on where to go from here.

The one thing the B12 can agree on is they are not taking a paycut to add teams. If UC can keep adding to its facilities etc, I think they will eventually make it. Unfortunately, it may be 5-10 years away.

The trouble is that the game is over in two years.

Ten years is completely irrelevant. Ten years from now, we will be, for all intents and purposes, FCS.