(12-08-2014 08:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:59 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Big 12 go after schools that might actually be more competitive in football? Like Boise, Marshall, or ECU?

Cincinnati has done well the past five years (but only ended up ranked in the AP top 25 once). Memphis has did well this year, but will it be there long term? Regardless, neither team ended the season ranked.

Because football isn't the only sport the Big XII plays. Have you seen ECU, Marshall or Boise's basketball records the past ten years? At least ECU does offer good baseball, but other than football that's about it.

(12-08-2014 05:05 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:59 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Big 12 go after schools that might actually be more competitive in football? Like Boise, Marshall, or ECU?

Cincinnati has done well the past five years (but only ended up ranked in the AP top 25 once). Memphis has did well this year, but will it be there long term? Regardless, neither team ended the season ranked.

Because football isn't the only sport the Big XII plays. Have you seen ECU, Marshall or Boise's basketball records the past ten years? At least ECU does offer good baseball, but other than football that's about it.

because most of the b12 are state flagship schools and compared to them, the three you mentioned are kinda cheesey

(12-08-2014 05:34 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:59 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Big 12 go after schools that might actually be more competitive in football? Like Boise, Marshall, or ECU?

Cincinnati has done well the past five years (but only ended up ranked in the AP top 25 once). Memphis has did well this year, but will it be there long term? Regardless, neither team ended the season ranked.

Memphis and Cincy are as much about geography as they are anything. That's a gaping hole between WVU and the rest of the conference.

Memphis is one of the most delusional fanbases in America, but they would do well in the Big XII. They play in a 60k seat stadium that they'd fill regularly with a Big XII schedule, I'm not saying they average 60k, probably not even 50k, but they averaged 28k in 2013 in a 3-9 season and this year averaged 34k, you don't think that with a semi competitive team they could average 45k in the Big XII? That would be better than Kansas and right there with TCU and Baylor.

Cincinnati plays in a 35k seat stadium and averaged 28k this year, in the Big XII you have to think they fill that stadium and are looking to expand within a decade, again, they aren't shooting to the top of the Big XII attendance, but they could jump Kansas and jump into the mix with TCU, Baylor and Memphis, and not too far behind the likes of the rest of the conference save for Texas and OU. The other five members of the conference(Texas Tech, Kansas State, Ok State, Iowa State, and WVU) all averaged between 52k and 59k. Those numbers wouldn't be out of reach on a strong year for Memphis.

The Big XII may not have the academic standards of the ACC, B1G or Pac 12, but there are some fine schools in that conference that likely want nothing to do with Boise, ECU or Marshall.

Anyhow, Marshall certainly has no shot as long as the Mountaineers are members.

There's been some talk of Colorado State and I think they make sense and could certainly happen, but they do nothing to help WVU on their island.

Thanks for the replies. I see what you all are saying. The geography issue in re: WVU makes the most sense. I was just thinking from a strength of schedule perspective, bringing in non-competitive teams may not help the Big12 as much CCG or no CCG.

(12-08-2014 07:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Just an odd idea: could UAB be Navy's all-sports stand-in in the AAC? They could even fit in the West, the same division where Navy is scheduled to play football starting in 2015.

(12-08-2014 07:49 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 05:05 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:59 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Big 12 go after schools that might actually be more competitive in football? Like Boise, Marshall, or ECU?

Cincinnati has done well the past five years (but only ended up ranked in the AP top 25 once). Memphis has did well this year, but will it be there long term? Regardless, neither team ended the season ranked.

Because football isn't the only sport the Big XII plays. Have you seen ECU, Marshall or Boise's basketball records the past ten years? At least ECU does offer good baseball, but other than football that's about it.

because most of the b12 are state flagship schools and compared to them, the three you mentioned are kinda cheesey

UT, Baylor, Tech, & TCU are Flagships of their own systems but TX doesn't have a true flagship school. I believe the same holds true on OK.
Not delving into KS or WV but that doesn't make the majority any State's Flagship. They may get the most attention or the big bucks and are better known but the B12 isn't truly comprised of State Flagships.

(12-08-2014 09:08 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:03 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Just an odd idea: could UAB be Navy's all-sports stand-in in the AAC? They could even fit in the West, the same division where Navy is scheduled to play football starting in 2015.

Not a bad idea, but not sure they would go for it. Hope something comes up for UAB though.

I like that idea but based on what UAB's President said they wont have the money to travel in a nationwide conference. Look for UAB to try a good Basketball league that is eastern time zone based.

Actually he said that all football subsidies will now be given to the other sports, so they should have more money than ever.

Don't know if I believe him but that's what he said.

Hmmm....what about the Big East? Though I doubt they would fit into that conference institutionally (though there were rumors of a potential VCU add at one time - but it might be telling they didn't go the public route back then).

(12-08-2014 07:49 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 05:05 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:59 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Big 12 go after schools that might actually be more competitive in football? Like Boise, Marshall, or ECU?

Cincinnati has done well the past five years (but only ended up ranked in the AP top 25 once). Memphis has did well this year, but will it be there long term? Regardless, neither team ended the season ranked.

Because football isn't the only sport the Big XII plays. Have you seen ECU, Marshall or Boise's basketball records the past ten years? At least ECU does offer good baseball, but other than football that's about it.

because most of the b12 are state flagship schools and compared to them, the three you mentioned are kinda cheesey

UT, Baylor, Tech, & TCU are Flagships of their own systems but TX doesn't have a true flagship school. I believe the same holds true on OK.
Not delving into KS or WV but that doesn't make the majority any State's Flagship. They may get the most attention or the big bucks and are better known but the B12 isn't truly comprised of State Flagships.

well, ut-austin with 50,000 students and the full unlimited backing of the state government and actually founded as the state flagship university seems to me to be a state flagship school. if you walk, ride, drive around the state you see ut stickers, caps, sweatshirts everywhere . sure we are a large state and some other schools have come along and have their own system and claim to fame but none of them represent the whole state. if you think that anyone out in the rest of the country thinks of baylor or txst when college sports and texas are mentioned, I would be surprised. yes, we are not a one horse state like arkansas or louisiana and have plenty of good programs but texas is for sure the state flagship school.

(12-08-2014 10:37 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:59 PM)slycat Wrote:  Twitter pretty certain Big 12 won't expand this year.

4 letter reporting that BIG 12 won't expand, cites comments by Bowlsby to that effect . . . . . Hopefully he comes to his senses and adds two, F&$K ....

If the CCG proposal eventually gets passed, the Big XII would look stupid for adding just to get to 12. He's in a prime spot to hurry up and wait without losing anything. Only the Big XII would add Memphis or Cinci (assuming they're the primary options), so there's nothing to lose by waiting on the proposal.

I'd say he's not the one that needs to come to his senses (other than not naming Baylor the outright champ).

(12-08-2014 10:37 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:59 PM)slycat Wrote:  Twitter pretty certain Big 12 won't expand this year.

4 letter reporting that BIG 12 won't expand, cites comments by Bowlsby to that effect . . . . . Hopefully he comes to his senses and adds two, F&$K ....

Looking for a way out?

(12-09-2014 07:58 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:49 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 05:05 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:06 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:59 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Big 12 go after schools that might actually be more competitive in football? Like Boise, Marshall, or ECU?

Cincinnati has done well the past five years (but only ended up ranked in the AP top 25 once). Memphis has did well this year, but will it be there long term? Regardless, neither team ended the season ranked.

Because football isn't the only sport the Big XII plays. Have you seen ECU, Marshall or Boise's basketball records the past ten years? At least ECU does offer good baseball, but other than football that's about it.

because most of the b12 are state flagship schools and compared to them, the three you mentioned are kinda cheesey

UT, Baylor, Tech, & TCU are Flagships of their own systems but TX doesn't have a true flagship school. I believe the same holds true on OK.
Not delving into KS or WV but that doesn't make the majority any State's Flagship. They may get the most attention or the big bucks and are better known but the B12 isn't truly comprised of State Flagships.

well, ut-austin with 50,000 students and the full unlimited backing of the state government and actually founded as the state flagship university seems to me to be a state flagship school. if you walk, ride, drive around the state you see ut stickers, caps, sweatshirts everywhere . sure we are a large state and some other schools have come along and have their own system and claim to fame but none of them represent the whole state. if you think that anyone out in the rest of the country thinks of baylor or txst when college sports and texas are mentioned, I would be surprised. yes, we are not a one horse state like arkansas or louisiana and have plenty of good programs but texas is for sure the state flagship school.

None is a pretty strong word and very debatable.

I think there is a Tier 1 university located 90 miles away from Austin with over 5,000 more main campus students than the one in Austin (56,620 vs 51,313) which also has a valid claim to statewide flagship status.

Although the original legislation had A&M as a branch, the Legislature never gave the University of Texas authority over the older school (first class in 1876 for A&M vs actual 1883 founding year for University of Texas). Everything else that you described applies to A&M as well.

"I think there is a Tier 1 university located 90 miles away from Austin with over 5,000 more main campus students than the one in Austin (56,620 vs 51,313) which also has a valid claim to statewide flagship status.

Although the original legislation had A&M as a branch, the Legislature never gave the University of Texas authority over the older school (first class in 1876 for A&M vs actual 1883 founding year for University of Texas). Everything else that you described applies to A&M as well."

Prior to the 1980s there was no public university in Texas that came close to matching UT in size, influence, endowment, and research. TAMU didn't offer PHD before the 1940s and didn't get serious about growth or tier-one pursuit till the 1960s. If it weren't for the crucial decisions made by president Rudder in '60s, TAMU would be just another Citadel or VMI of Texas. The gap is a lot narrower today, but it wasn't always the case.

(12-09-2014 12:54 PM)theothermav Wrote:  "I think there is a Tier 1 university located 90 miles away from Austin with over 5,000 more main campus students than the one in Austin (56,620 vs 51,313) which also has a valid claim to statewide flagship status.

Although the original legislation had A&M as a branch, the Legislature never gave the University of Texas authority over the older school (first class in 1876 for A&M vs actual 1883 founding year for University of Texas). Everything else that you described applies to A&M as well."

Prior to the 1980s there was no public university in Texas that came close to matching UT in size, influence, endowment, and research. TAMU didn't offer PHD before the 1940s and didn't get serious about growth or tier-one pursuit till the 1960s. If it weren't for the crucial decisions made by president Rudder in '60s, TAMU would be just another Citadel or VMI of Texas. The gap is a lot narrower today, but it wasn't always the case.

I totally agree.

Things change. Sometimes change is to the negative. Sometimes change is for the better. As a third generation Aggie who was on campus during that time, I'm glad that Rudder as well as some of his successors had a positive influence on A&M. Rudder met with a lot of resistance, but I'm glad he perservered.

(My daughter has two daughters who I hope will make it fifth generation. It's a family tradition. )
----------------
To move this back closer to the original topic, I'm in the //Big12 needs to add two teams// camp. I thought the conference should have made the move when A&M and Missouri departed.

(12-09-2014 12:54 PM)theothermav Wrote:  "I think there is a Tier 1 university located 90 miles away from Austin with over 5,000 more main campus students than the one in Austin (56,620 vs 51,313) which also has a valid claim to statewide flagship status.

Although the original legislation had A&M as a branch, the Legislature never gave the University of Texas authority over the older school (first class in 1876 for A&M vs actual 1883 founding year for University of Texas). Everything else that you described applies to A&M as well."

Prior to the 1980s there was no public university in Texas that came close to matching UT in size, influence, endowment, and research. TAMU didn't offer PHD before the 1940s and didn't get serious about growth or tier-one pursuit till the 1960s. If it weren't for the crucial decisions made by president Rudder in '60s, TAMU would be just another Citadel or VMI of Texas. The gap is a lot narrower today, but it wasn't always the case.

A-M got serious about growth when they began letting women in and made corps membership not mandatory. A-M is a terrific school but back when I was choosing a college those were two of the factors that kept them from the top of my list. my step son graduated from there and ut med school. didnt mean to slight the aggies..