(08-11-2015 04:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 04:30 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  Brian Murphy ‏@murphsturph · 1h1 hour ago
Another Big 12 writer advocates for Boise State and BYU in expansion.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...g-12-image

First Berry Tramel, now Jake Trotter - ESPN Blogger.

He's not really a "Big 12" writer like Tramel. He's an ESPN blogger who blogs about the Big 12.

That's the interesting part to me. If an ESPN guy thinks this is a good move then does that mean his bosses are telling him to float that out there?

Because ESPN is going to have to pay for the expansion so one would think they would have the greatest insight into who is a genuine candidate.

(08-11-2015 09:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  That's the interesting part to me. If an ESPN guy thinks this is a good move then does that mean his bosses are telling him to float that out there?

Because ESPN is going to have to pay for the expansion so one would think they would have the greatest insight into who is a genuine candidate.

Or ESPN is just piggybacking on BigXii realignment conversations for a little free advertising for their Thursday/Friday night BYU/BSU programming. ESPN already has that inventory for much cheaper than the BigXii's payout. ESPN getting on board probably indicates that they feel comfortable with their hold on this inventory at the low current price point.

Adding BYU in football makes a lot of sense and I'm kinda surprised it hasn't happened already. The never-on-Sunday thing probably rules them out for MBB, though.

Only way Texas/Oklahoma/etc. share a conference with Boise State (!) is if the Big <XII is backed into a corner and it's P5 status is somehow hanging in the balance. We're a long, long ways off from that happening.

Why can't they just not schedule BYU's games for Sunday? Boom! Problem solved.....

Until Boise St. is rated a doctoral or a research university, they won't get in a P5 conference.

I completely get Trotter's comments and agree with him on all points, actually. But it doesn't solve the WVU issue, at all (other than making the league stronger, in general.) As a WVU fan, I am interested in more regional games that fans can get into. I'm sure few will agree with me, but if the Big12 were to add BYU and Boise State (again, a good move) I would want to see the B12 go to 14, and add Cincinnati and Memphis as two regional partners who would definitely bring about fan interest from Morgantown. (I'd also be OK with Cincinnati and UCF.)

But it's tough enough to get the B12 to see that 12 is in their interest...14 will never happen, although I think it should.

(08-11-2015 10:30 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 09:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  That's the interesting part to me. If an ESPN guy thinks this is a good move then does that mean his bosses are telling him to float that out there?

Because ESPN is going to have to pay for the expansion so one would think they would have the greatest insight into who is a genuine candidate.

Or ESPN is just piggybacking on BigXii realignment conversations for a little free advertising for their Thursday/Friday night BYU/BSU programming. ESPN already has that inventory for much cheaper than the BigXii's payout. ESPN getting on board probably indicates that they feel comfortable with their hold on this inventory at the low current price point.

I think ESPN already pays Boise State's home games to be on ESPN already. BYU also appears a bunch of times on ESPN as well. Adding those 2 would not hurt in ESPN in spending any more money. Adding other schools might hurt ESPN unless they add 2 to 4 on the east side like Northern Illinois, UCF, East Carolina, Memphis or Cincinnati. ESPN also have a contract with MAC schools as well. I see no schools like Sun Belt or C-USA could get in because they are shown on another network. The rest of MWC is on another Network.

(08-11-2015 11:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Adding BYU in football makes a lot of sense and I'm kinda surprised it hasn't happened already. The never-on-Sunday thing probably rules them out for MBB, though.

Only way Texas/Oklahoma/etc. share a conference with Boise State (!) is if the Big <XII is backed into a corner and it's P5 status is somehow hanging in the balance. We're a long, long ways off from that happening.

That BYU wasn't added, even as football-only, back when TCU and WV were added shows that the XII conference doesn't think there are worthy non-P5 teams out there to add in the present state of the conference (With Texas and Oklahoma still members).

They either won't expand or they'll try to steal other P5 teams away.


Non-P5 teams won't be added to the XII until/if the conference loses Texas and/or Oklahoma.

(08-12-2015 05:38 AM)Otacon Wrote:  Why can't they just not schedule BYU's games for Sunday? Boom! Problem solved.....

That issue, for whatever truth it even has, poses no problems for football. It was other sports.

(08-12-2015 07:16 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I completely get Trotter's comments and agree with him on all points, actually. But it doesn't solve the WVU issue, at all (other than making the league stronger, in general.) As a WVU fan, I am interested in more regional games that fans can get into. I'm sure few will agree with me, but if the Big12 were to add BYU and Boise State (again, a good move) I would want to see the B12 go to 14, and add Cincinnati and Memphis as two regional partners who would definitely bring about fan interest from Morgantown. (I'd also be OK with Cincinnati and UCF.)

But it's tough enough to get the B12 to see that 12 is in their interest...14 will never happen, although I think it should.

If WV wants more regional games, then the solution is obvious: join the AAC.

You can swap places with Houston, once the XII loses Texas and Oklahoma.

As a side note, I don't think football-only invites are realistic for a power conference. From the financial standpoint of a power conference, a football-only invite is like giving someone $1 million but then worrying about giving them an extra $1,000 on top of that. When 90% of the value of power conference realignment is derived from football, there's little reason to not just extend a full-invite. Now, it might be a bit different for G5 conferences, as they get a larger percentage of their conference revenue from the NCAA Tournament and are much more cost-sensitive regarding travel expenses.

(08-12-2015 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 05:38 AM)Otacon Wrote:  Why can't they just not schedule BYU's games for Sunday? Boom! Problem solved.....

That issue, for whatever truth it even has, poses no problems for football. It was other sports.

Red herring issue. College football doesn't play on Sunday and 2015-16 Big 12 basketball has a total of 5 out-of-conference games on Sunday (Kansas St., WVU, ISU, Oklahoma, TCU). Absolutely no Big 12 regular season conference games on Sunday.

It might affect some non-revenue sports schedules, like baseball; but the Big 12 can easily schedule BYU games on Thursday/Saturday or Saturday/Monday or any of the other weekdays. Not a big deal. At all.

By the way, out of respect for the local market, the NBA does not schedule Sunday home games for the Utah Jazz. In 2014-15, the Jazz played 5 Sunday games, all on the road (about one per month).

EDIT: And, the NCAA tournament seeds and schedules around BYU's Sunday no-play policy - prime example that it really is a non-issue.

BYU, Hawaii, Army, Navy and Air force might be the exceptions to a football only concept, i.e. it might make more sense for leagues to offer those school's football only instead of full membership. As for the big 12, i think they should put the old big 8 school's in a division and the old swc conference school's in the other divisions than build each side up to either 6 or 7 with expansion to 12 or 14. The pool would be 2-4 from BYU, Col State, Boise, Uconn, USF, UCF, Cincy and memphis.

(08-12-2015 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a side note, I don't think football-only invites are realistic for a power conference. From the financial standpoint of a power conference, a football-only invite is like giving someone $1 million but then worrying about giving them an extra $1,000 on top of that. When 90% of the value of power conference realignment is derived from football, there's little reason to not just extend a full-invite. Now, it might be a bit different for G5 conferences, as they get a larger percentage of their conference revenue from the NCAA Tournament and are much more cost-sensitive regarding travel expenses.

By adding BYU and Boise as football-only, they get most of the value of these schools without the costs of having to send their teams from the plains states (and WV) all the way to SLC and Boise.

I don't see why it isn't a good value. Especially when BYU already has a non-fb home and Boise could easily get one.

(08-12-2015 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 05:38 AM)Otacon Wrote:  Why can't they just not schedule BYU's games for Sunday? Boom! Problem solved.....

That issue, for whatever truth it even has, poses no problems for football. It was other sports.

Red herring issue. College football doesn't play on Sunday and 2015-16 Big 12 basketball has a total of 5 out-of-conference games on Sunday (Kansas St., WVU, ISU, Oklahoma, TCU). Absolutely no Big 12 regular season conference games on Sunday.

It might affect some non-revenue sports schedules, like baseball; but the Big 12 can easily schedule BYU games on Thursday/Saturday or Saturday/Monday or any of the other weekdays. Not a big deal. At all.

By the way, out of respect for the local market, the NBA does not schedule Sunday home games for the Utah Jazz. In 2014-15, the Jazz played 5 Sunday games, all on the road (about one per month).

EDIT: And, the NCAA tournament seeds and schedules around BYU's Sunday no-play policy - prime example that it really is a non-issue.

I figured it was trumped up on message boards but not an actual issue.

(08-12-2015 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 05:38 AM)Otacon Wrote:  Why can't they just not schedule BYU's games for Sunday? Boom! Problem solved.....

That issue, for whatever truth it even has, poses no problems for football. It was other sports.

Red herring issue. College football doesn't play on Sunday and 2015-16 Big 12 basketball has a total of 5 out-of-conference games on Sunday (Kansas St., WVU, ISU, Oklahoma, TCU). Absolutely no Big 12 regular season conference games on Sunday.

It might affect some non-revenue sports schedules, like baseball; but the Big 12 can easily schedule BYU games on Thursday/Saturday or Saturday/Monday or any of the other weekdays. Not a big deal. At all.

By the way, out of respect for the local market, the NBA does not schedule Sunday home games for the Utah Jazz. In 2014-15, the Jazz played 5 Sunday games, all on the road (about one per month).

EDIT: And, the NCAA tournament seeds and schedules around BYU's Sunday no-play policy - prime example that it really is a non-issue.

Over time, I've become more and more in the camp that the whole no Sunday games policy is really not an issue. Its a very small wrinkle to add to scheduling of non-revenue sports. And if the Big 12 doesn't schedule conference basketball games on Sundays anyway that's 3 sports (the highest revenue producing at that) where it doesn't even matter.

(08-12-2015 10:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a side note, I don't think football-only invites are realistic for a power conference. From the financial standpoint of a power conference, a football-only invite is like giving someone $1 million but then worrying about giving them an extra $1,000 on top of that. When 90% of the value of power conference realignment is derived from football, there's little reason to not just extend a full-invite. Now, it might be a bit different for G5 conferences, as they get a larger percentage of their conference revenue from the NCAA Tournament and are much more cost-sensitive regarding travel expenses.

By adding BYU and Boise as football-only, they get most of the value of these schools without the costs of having to send their teams from the plains states (and WV) all the way to SLC and Boise.

I don't see why it isn't a good value. Especially when BYU already has a non-fb home and Boise could easily get one.

They could easily get one, but unless they were to somehow land in the Missouri Valley, there are only three choices for Boise in the west and they all have their warts.

The WAC has been reduced to a one-bid league and is almost on life support with NMSU flirting with full membership in the Sun Belt. The Big Sky would have 13 basketball members and has never earned an at-large bid before. In addition, they would be seen as following Idaho's lead and that negates much of the work Boise has done to separate themselves from Idaho. The Big West would require them to pay a travel subsidy and the conference places a high value on men's soccer and baseball, higher than most D1 conferences. Everyone in the WAC and Big West has baseball and most of the combined members play men's soccer (exceptions being Long Beach State, Hawaii and NMSU; Chicago State pledged to add it in the future). Boise does not have either of those sports. I'm unsure as to how much of an issue that is.

(08-12-2015 01:09 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 10:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a side note, I don't think football-only invites are realistic for a power conference. From the financial standpoint of a power conference, a football-only invite is like giving someone $1 million but then worrying about giving them an extra $1,000 on top of that. When 90% of the value of power conference realignment is derived from football, there's little reason to not just extend a full-invite. Now, it might be a bit different for G5 conferences, as they get a larger percentage of their conference revenue from the NCAA Tournament and are much more cost-sensitive regarding travel expenses.

By adding BYU and Boise as football-only, they get most of the value of these schools without the costs of having to send their teams from the plains states (and WV) all the way to SLC and Boise.

I don't see why it isn't a good value. Especially when BYU already has a non-fb home and Boise could easily get one.

They could easily get one, but unless they were to somehow land in the Missouri Valley, there are only three choices for Boise in the west and they all have their warts.

The WAC has been reduced to a one-bid league and is almost on life support with NMSU flirting with full membership in the Sun Belt. The Big Sky would have 13 basketball members and has never earned an at-large bid before. In addition, they would be seen as following Idaho's lead and that negates much of the work Boise has done to separate themselves from Idaho. The Big West would require them to pay a travel subsidy and the conference places a high value on men's soccer and baseball, higher than most D1 conferences. Everyone in the WAC and Big West has baseball and most of the combined members play men's soccer (exceptions being Long Beach State, Hawaii and NMSU; Chicago State pledged to add it in the future). Boise does not have either of those sports. I'm unsure as to how much of an issue that is.

For the WAC it wouldn't be an issue since there are affiliates that cover the soccer and baseball side.

One thought on the WAC. if Boise leaves the MWC, NMSU I think almost certainly goes to the MWC for all sports. That's going to make the WAC much less of an option for Boise.

Boise State is a Nebraska in the making. They add excellent content

BYU is like a Clemson, but with some National Prestige

They would both be excellent additions. East Carolina and UCF would as well