(02-26-2016 11:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have two questions. They aren't meant to be a statement about anything or any school. I just don't know what the facts are.

First, if the Big 12 were to invite BYU as a football only member, would they be permitted to put their other sports back into the Mountain West? This isn't a question of whether the MWC would want them back. Just is it within NCAA rules.

Second, is it true or just internet speculation that ESPN has agreed to keep the per school payout to the Big 12 the same if they add two teams?

It is up to the Mountain West to have BYU without football. There is no NCAA rule. The MW has stated, no football = no conference membership which is why BYU is in the WCC and not the MW.

For the second question: per Boren's comments, the TV contract keeps the per school payout for 2 teams. This would be for the Tier 1 contract (Fox and whoever splits the contract with Fox).

I know there is no rule preventing a football independent BYU from being in the MWC. The question is, is there a rule that prevents Big 12 football member BYU from doing so?

I don't know if the NCAA would allow it. Temple played football in the Big East and basketball in the A10 but the A10 didn't have D 1 football. The MWC does have football obviously. As already stated, the MWC won't allow BYU Olympic sports only membership so it's a moot point anyway. Cheers!

(02-26-2016 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:36 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have two questions. They aren't meant to be a statement about anything or any school. I just don't know what the facts are.

First, if the Big 12 were to invite BYU as a football only member, would they be permitted to put their other sports back into the Mountain West? This isn't a question of whether the MWC would want them back. Just is it within NCAA rules.

Second, is it true or just internet speculation that ESPN has agreed to keep the per school payout to the Big 12 the same if they add two teams?

It is up to the Mountain West to have BYU without football. There is no NCAA rule. The MW has stated, no football = no conference membership which is why BYU is in the WCC and not the MW.

For the second question: per Boren's comments, the TV contract keeps the per school payout for 2 teams. This would be for the Tier 1 contract (Fox and whoever splits the contract with Fox).

I know there is no rule preventing a football independent BYU from being in the MWC. The question is, is there a rule that prevents Big 12 football member BYU from doing so?

No. There is no NCAA rule that I can find.

So, if the Big 12 wanted to invite Cincinnati and/or UConn for football only, and the AAC were willing to let them go without leaving the conference entirely, that would be OK too?

There is no way the big 12 would want UConn for football only. UConn had been advertising their BB as the reason to get in not football.

(02-26-2016 09:51 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have two questions. They aren't meant to be a statement about anything or any school. I just don't know what the facts are.

First, if the Big 12 were to invite BYU as a football only member, would they be permitted to put their other sports back into the Mountain West? This isn't a question of whether the MWC would want them back. Just is it within NCAA rules.

Second, is it true or just internet speculation that ESPN has agreed to keep the per school payout to the Big 12 the same if they add two teams?

It is up to the Mountain West to have BYU without football. There is no NCAA rule. The MW has stated, no football = no conference membership which is why BYU is in the WCC and not the MW.

For the second question: per Boren's comments, the TV contract keeps the per school payout for 2 teams. This would be for the Tier 1 contract (Fox and whoever splits the contract with Fox).

I know there is no rule preventing a football independent BYU from being in the MWC. The question is, is there a rule that prevents Big 12 football member BYU from doing so?

I don't know if the NCAA would allow it. Temple played football in the Big East and basketball in the A10 but the A10 didn't have D 1 football. The MWC does have football obviously. As already stated, the MWC won't allow BYU Olympic sports only membership so it's a moot point anyway. Cheers!

The NCAA doesn't care. The only thing the NCAA says on the matter is that at least 8 teams must play Olympic sports together in order to sponsor FBS football. Once a league has 8 all-sports members, the NCAA could care less where the 9th-16th members play their Olympic sports.

My favorite example was Boise State. In 2011, Boise signed a football only agreement to enter the Big East. The MW would not allow Boise to keep its Olympic sports in the MW. Thus, Boise agreed to become a non-football member of the WAC---who sponsored FBS football at the time. Later, Boise moved their olympic sports to the Big West because they were worried that the WAC would collapse.

The reason you don't see schools do this much is because most FBS conferences have rules preventing it. The NCAA, however, doesn't care.

(02-24-2016 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Partly right.

There is absolutely no way the Sugar Bowl continues it's deal with a gutted Big 12 (either by not renewing or more likely has a clause addressing membership changes for just this eventuality) and I doubt it gets to stay in the Contract Bowl club period unless the ACC wants them for an Orange Bowl tie in...which is unlikely too.

Also this is why its far more likely that the only way movement happens before the expiration of the B12 GOR is if the conference dissolves.

My question about all this is why did Texas and Oklahoma let A&M,Colorado,Nebraska,and Missouri leave ? These were anchor schools who would have ensured that the BIG12 would stay strong and insure long term media contracts. They had to know how this would damage the conference. They additionally should have been able to forecast the difficulty replacing them. It just seems like they had something else in mind all along.

Greed and stupidity!

(02-27-2016 01:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 09:51 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have two questions. They aren't meant to be a statement about anything or any school. I just don't know what the facts are.

First, if the Big 12 were to invite BYU as a football only member, would they be permitted to put their other sports back into the Mountain West? This isn't a question of whether the MWC would want them back. Just is it within NCAA rules.

Second, is it true or just internet speculation that ESPN has agreed to keep the per school payout to the Big 12 the same if they add two teams?

It is up to the Mountain West to have BYU without football. There is no NCAA rule. The MW has stated, no football = no conference membership which is why BYU is in the WCC and not the MW.

For the second question: per Boren's comments, the TV contract keeps the per school payout for 2 teams. This would be for the Tier 1 contract (Fox and whoever splits the contract with Fox).

I know there is no rule preventing a football independent BYU from being in the MWC. The question is, is there a rule that prevents Big 12 football member BYU from doing so?

I don't know if the NCAA would allow it. Temple played football in the Big East and basketball in the A10 but the A10 didn't have D 1 football. The MWC does have football obviously. As already stated, the MWC won't allow BYU Olympic sports only membership so it's a moot point anyway. Cheers!

The NCAA doesn't care. The only thing the NCAA says on the matter is that at least 8 teams must play Olympic sports together in order to sponsor FBS football. Once a league has 8 all-sports members, the NCAA could care less where the 9th-16th members play their Olympic sports.

My favorite example was Boise State. In 2011, Boise signed a football only agreement to enter the Big East. The MW would not allow Boise to keep its Olympic sports in the MW. Thus, Boise agreed to become a non-football member of the WAC---who sponsored FBS football at the time. Later, Boise moved their olympic sports to the Big West because they were worried that the WAC would collapse.

The reason you don't see schools do this much is because most FBS conferences have rules preventing it. The NCAA, however, doesn't care.

Do you have a source for that? I have searched and searched, and so far I can't find anything in writing to confirm that. All I know is that it has never happened - at least since the FBS/FCS split.

Your Boise example, though, is interesting. I don't recall at the time the NCAA coming out and saying that Boise would have to leave the MWC. And their deal with the Big East wasn't secret, so the NCAA certainly knew about it. IIRC, San Diego State was also going to join the BE for FB. Did the MWC tell them also that they couldn't keep their other sports, or was the MWC's beef just with Boise?

(02-27-2016 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 09:51 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It is up to the Mountain West to have BYU without football. There is no NCAA rule. The MW has stated, no football = no conference membership which is why BYU is in the WCC and not the MW.

For the second question: per Boren's comments, the TV contract keeps the per school payout for 2 teams. This would be for the Tier 1 contract (Fox and whoever splits the contract with Fox).

I know there is no rule preventing a football independent BYU from being in the MWC. The question is, is there a rule that prevents Big 12 football member BYU from doing so?

I don't know if the NCAA would allow it. Temple played football in the Big East and basketball in the A10 but the A10 didn't have D 1 football. The MWC does have football obviously. As already stated, the MWC won't allow BYU Olympic sports only membership so it's a moot point anyway. Cheers!

The NCAA doesn't care. The only thing the NCAA says on the matter is that at least 8 teams must play Olympic sports together in order to sponsor FBS football. Once a league has 8 all-sports members, the NCAA could care less where the 9th-16th members play their Olympic sports.

My favorite example was Boise State. In 2011, Boise signed a football only agreement to enter the Big East. The MW would not allow Boise to keep its Olympic sports in the MW. Thus, Boise agreed to become a non-football member of the WAC---who sponsored FBS football at the time. Later, Boise moved their olympic sports to the Big West because they were worried that the WAC would collapse.

The reason you don't see schools do this much is because most FBS conferences have rules preventing it. The NCAA, however, doesn't care.

Do you have a source for that? I have searched and searched, and so far I can't find anything in writing to confirm that. All I know is that it has never happened - at least since the FBS/FCS split.

Your Boise example, though, is interesting. I don't recall at the time the NCAA coming out and saying that Boise would have to leave the MWC. And their deal with the Big East wasn't secret, so the NCAA certainly knew about it. IIRC, San Diego State was also going to join the BE for FB. Did the MWC tell them also that they couldn't keep their other sports, or was the MWC's beef just with Boise?

The MWC has always been consistent: No football, no membership. They wouldn't allow BYU, Boise St and SDSU to leave their Olympic sports in the MWC while taking away the football teams. SDSU initially agreed to playing Olympic sports in the Big West with Boise St when both were on the verge of starting football in the Big East. SDSU (Coach Steve Fisher) was particularly vocal about hating the idea of his Aztecs playing ball in high school sized gyms (the big west) over T&M, The Pit ETC of the MWC. In the end Boise and SDSU never left to play a single game in the Big East or the Big West and stayed on with the MWC. Olympic sports placement had a lot to do with the decision as did obviously, TV $, or lack there of in the new Big East contract. Cheers!

(02-27-2016 11:14 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Partly right.

There is absolutely no way the Sugar Bowl continues it's deal with a gutted Big 12 (either by not renewing or more likely has a clause addressing membership changes for just this eventuality) and I doubt it gets to stay in the Contract Bowl club period unless the ACC wants them for an Orange Bowl tie in...which is unlikely too.

Also this is why its far more likely that the only way movement happens before the expiration of the B12 GOR is if the conference dissolves.

My question about all this is why did Texas and Oklahoma let A&M,Colorado,Nebraska,and Missouri leave ? These were anchor schools who would have ensured that the BIG12 would stay strong and insure long term media contracts. They had to know how this would damage the conference. They additionally should have been able to forecast the difficulty replacing them. It just seems like they had something else in mind all along.

You have to remember that from the start, the Big 12 was (and still is) a marriage of convenience, not love. It was (and still is) a desperate attempt by members of two conferences (Big 8/SWC) with small population/footprints to compete in the new era of TV dollars.

But even from the start, it wasn't everyone's first choice. UT originally wanted to go the PAC and A&M to the SEC (its half corrected itself and I wouldn't be surprised if the other eventually comes true as well) Colorado has wanted to be in the PAC for decades before they got in.

And Boren's current whining about the B12 is nothing new from the Big 8 teams. There had been grumbling from the Big 8 members since the merger happened that the league is now too dependent on the state of Texas (which is true) and talk of defection to the B1G whispered among colleagues until Nebraska made good on it.

So this was all a long time coming. The Big 12 can still make good money but it cant do much about the fact that its still a loveless marriage of convenience that most members would ditch in a heartbeat for a better offer if they could get one.

(02-27-2016 11:14 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Partly right.

There is absolutely no way the Sugar Bowl continues it's deal with a gutted Big 12 (either by not renewing or more likely has a clause addressing membership changes for just this eventuality) and I doubt it gets to stay in the Contract Bowl club period unless the ACC wants them for an Orange Bowl tie in...which is unlikely too.

Also this is why its far more likely that the only way movement happens before the expiration of the B12 GOR is if the conference dissolves.

My question about all this is why did Texas and Oklahoma let A&M,Colorado,Nebraska,and Missouri leave ? These were anchor schools who would have ensured that the BIG12 would stay strong and insure long term media contracts. They had to know how this would damage the conference. They additionally should have been able to forecast the difficulty replacing them. It just seems like they had something else in mind all along.

It's not a question of "letting them leave". They couldn't hold them hostage. I don't know about Colorado, but I imagine they would have strongly preferred that the other three stay.

(02-27-2016 01:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to remember that from the start, the Big 12 was (and still is) a marriage of convenience, not love. It was (and still is) a desperate attempt by members of two conferences (Big 8/SWC) with small population/footprints to compete in the new era of TV dollars.

If so, it's been like a desperation throw on 4th and 25 late in a game that gains 30 and a first down: The Big 12 is making almost $25m a year in media money (more than the ACC and PAC), makes the most per-school in CFP money, and has bowl ties bested only by the SEC and B1G.

Sometimes, desperation moves pay off.

(02-27-2016 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to remember that from the start, the Big 12 was (and still is) a marriage of convenience, not love. It was (and still is) a desperate attempt by members of two conferences (Big 8/SWC) with small population/footprints to compete in the new era of TV dollars.

If so, it's been like a desperation throw on 4th and 25 late in a game that gains 30 and a first down: The Big 12 is making almost $25m a year in media money (more than the ACC and PAC), makes the most per-school in CFP money, and has bowl ties bested only by the SEC and B1G.

Sometimes, desperation moves pay off.

If it was only an issue of money then sure. Like I pointed out, money isnt the real issue, not yet anyway.

But it's like asking "do I want to stay in this marriage even though it only takes care of me fiscally?"

Some people would say yes. Some people would say no.

(02-23-2016 10:12 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 10:05 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:19 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 08:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Interesting, looking forward, Where will Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas leave to?

Texas indy, Oklahoma and KU B1G.

I concur

Of course this leaves:

Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
West Virginia

Big 12 would add BYU, Boise State Cincinnati to get back to 10. If 12 teams is the goal B12 also adds Connecticut and Temple. If 14 is the goal, Colorado State and Mempis are also added.

(02-27-2016 02:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 01:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to remember that from the start, the Big 12 was (and still is) a marriage of convenience, not love. It was (and still is) a desperate attempt by members of two conferences (Big 8/SWC) with small population/footprints to compete in the new era of TV dollars.

If so, it's been like a desperation throw on 4th and 25 late in a game that gains 30 and a first down: The Big 12 is making almost $25m a year in media money (more than the ACC and PAC), makes the most per-school in CFP money, and has bowl ties bested only by the SEC and B1G.

Sometimes, desperation moves pay off.

If it was only an issue of money then sure. Like I pointed out, money isnt the real issue, not yet anyway.

But it's like asking "do I want to stay in this marriage even though it only takes care of me fiscally?"

Some people would say yes. Some people would say no.

Thing is, unlike a real (non-gold digger, etc.) human marriage, conferences are much more 'marriages' of convenience. Their money quotient is far higher.

Money IS a big reason to be in a conference these days. In the case of the Big 12 schools, they certainly aren't going to break up the conference unless the money alternative is at least as good. Because no matter how much a marriage of inconvenience Kansas and Texas are, those two would be even more inconvenienced, in the sense of cultural fit, anywhere else.