(03-17-2016 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:58 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 04:09 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

I believe what you've written here is accurate.

It's been pointed out that the expansion of the Big 12 to 12 teams is already written into their contract and thus does not devalue the current teams contract but, increases the Big 12's over-all value to the networks by adding additional product. That's why the expansion by 2 teams was written in at status quo value.

I further believe that, the Big 12 will expand to 14 teams to support their network. one of the reasons for the expansion will be population within their footprint. They have the smallest footprint both in size and population. The population numbers need to be raised to raise interest in a Big 12 network with prospective partners.

The Big 12 can do anything or nothing, I'm just guessing.

that is what ive thought all along. Makes no sense to stop at 12. If they are gonna move a needle 14 is the number and ive read where they purchased the rights to the Big 14 in the past.
It would not suprise me to see uconn as the only aac team they take. Some combination of 3 acc teams will make a move. If the big 10 moves like some think we may very well be at the point the p5 becomes the p4.

14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

Makes sense for the B-10, the ACC, and the SEC. The only way the B-12 goes to 14 is if they steal schools from other P5 conferences which isn't happening. Going to 12 would be the only option with what is out there to choose from. Boren seems to be the only one pushing expansion but if the conference moves on a TV Network and a conference title game with 10 that will be enough to appease him as it seems his real issue is the concern of falling behind the other conferences financially down the road.

(03-18-2016 08:24 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:58 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 04:09 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

I believe what you've written here is accurate.

It's been pointed out that the expansion of the Big 12 to 12 teams is already written into their contract and thus does not devalue the current teams contract but, increases the Big 12's over-all value to the networks by adding additional product. That's why the expansion by 2 teams was written in at status quo value.

I further believe that, the Big 12 will expand to 14 teams to support their network. one of the reasons for the expansion will be population within their footprint. They have the smallest footprint both in size and population. The population numbers need to be raised to raise interest in a Big 12 network with prospective partners.

The Big 12 can do anything or nothing, I'm just guessing.

that is what ive thought all along. Makes no sense to stop at 12. If they are gonna move a needle 14 is the number and ive read where they purchased the rights to the Big 14 in the past.
It would not suprise me to see uconn as the only aac team they take. Some combination of 3 acc teams will make a move. If the big 10 moves like some think we may very well be at the point the p5 becomes the p4.

14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

Makes sense for the B-10, the ACC, and the SEC. The only way the B-12 goes to 14 is if they steal schools from other P5 conferences which isn't happening. Going to 12 would be the only option with what is out there to choose from. Boren seems to be the only one pushing expansion but if the conference moves on a TV Network and a conference title game with 10 that will be enough to appease him as it seems his real issue is the concern of falling behind the other conferences financially down the road.

The Big 10 and SEC did it to feed their conference networks. The ACC did it because it was the only way they could get competitive with the other conferences on their TV contract. That doesn't mean it really makes long term sense (although the Big 10 and SEC did really want to get into those markets).

(03-17-2016 09:42 AM)YNot Wrote:  I hope the Big 12 doesn't expand; I'm anxious to see what the AAC can do - half the schools in the conference are borderline P5-level and legitimate Big 12 candidates and many schools are improving facilities and performance.

The AAC is the call up league - almost every member thinks they could be the next P5 invite, and so most are planning accordingly with budgets and facilities. If not for this round of realignment, then for the next hypothetical round, whenever that might be.

However, it would be nice to see what the conference could do with more TV money and a stable group of core teams. I think AAC is a 'tweener' conference and likely will remain so for the near future.

My $.02

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 03:45 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks have a CCG with round robin is stupid??

no it is not just stupid it is death

the Big 12 is much better off staying at 10 and playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games and a CCG

it would be the best situation for all members and afford them the ability to craft their schedule for their needs

This is such a terrible idea. How exactly is the Big 12 going to schedule 5 OOC games in a world where teams are moving toward no FCS games and P5 conferences have 9 conference games?

Plan to watch a lot of BYU/G5 games. And if you want home buy games, forget about playing most solid G5 opponents.

The Big 12 doesn't have to do anything and it is arguable whether they should. But in my admittedly biased opinion, the play would be to add 2 teams, add a CCG, and extend the GOR past the ACC's. The unbalanced schedule actually helps teams get in the CFP by occasionally having 2 elite teams avoid playing each other. It's silly, but that's the world of the 14 team conferences you are competing against.

If you can shore your conference up (especially with a network) by the time the ACC GOR expires, there is a decent chance you can make a run at the schools you wanted all along (FSU/Clemson). But you have to be coming from a position of stability/strength to get that to happen. Maybe OU/Texas doesn't care about the Big 12, but if they did, that's the best go-forward plan. That allows you to run your own conference your way. The Big 12/ACC GOR expiration is a cage match event that will likely be the last consolidation of power among the P5. It is up to OU/Texas what kind of shape the B12 will be in going into that death struggle.

big 12 needs to be smart about these additions because if they goof the conference is finished, i dont think any additions will save them anyways.

(03-18-2016 09:11 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 03:45 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks have a CCG with round robin is stupid??

no it is not just stupid it is death

the Big 12 is much better off staying at 10 and playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games and a CCG

it would be the best situation for all members and afford them the ability to craft their schedule for their needs

This is such a terrible idea. How exactly is the Big 12 going to schedule 5 OOC games in a world where teams are moving toward no FCS games and P5 conferences have 9 conference games?

Plan to watch a lot of BYU/G5 games. And if you want home buy games, forget about playing most solid G5 opponents.

The Big 12 doesn't have to do anything and it is arguable whether they should. But in my admittedly biased opinion, the play would be to add 2 teams, add a CCG, and extend the GOR past the ACC's. The unbalanced schedule actually helps teams get in the CFP by occasionally having 2 elite teams avoid playing each other. It's silly, but that's the world of the 14 team conferences you are competing against.

If you can shore your conference up (especially with a network) by the time the ACC GOR expires, there is a decent chance you can make a run at the schools you wanted all along (FSU/Clemson). But you have to be coming from a position of stability/strength to get that to happen. Maybe OU/Texas doesn't care about the Big 12, but if they did, that's the best go-forward plan. That allows you to run your own conference your way. The Big 12/ACC GOR expiration is a cage match event that will likely be the last consolidation of power among the P5. It is up to OU/Texas what kind of shape the B12 will be in going into that death struggle.

Would all five of those OOC games be part of the individual schools' Tier 3 rights? Maybe that's enough to satisfy Oklahoma, which is one of the few teams in the B12 whose Tier 3 rights are really valuable.

Not that I expect the Big 12 to do so, but expanding to 14 vs 12 would give them more voting power, more TV markets, a larger population base for recruiting, more chances at the playoff, a larger buffer against future raids and make it harder for Texas to escape the GOR's penalty by dissolving the conference. Fans of such schools as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State and WVU are idiots if they don't understand that expanding to 14 would be in their best long-term interests. Hold your nose if necessary, but take the medicine that is good for you.

Boren is not alone on wanted to expand now. You have plenty of schools in both AAC and MWC that are greater than some of their schools in the Big 12 right now. The issue was that West Virginia needs a travel partner now. As most articles pointed out, Cincinnati is the facto number 11. It is number 12 that is the hangs ups about. Memphis, UCONN, UCF, USF, East Carolina, Colorado State, BYU, Air Force, Boise State are all in the running by many articles.

(03-18-2016 09:39 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Not that I expect the Big 12 to do so, but expanding to 14 vs 12 would give them more voting power, more TV markets, a larger population base for recruiting, more chances at the playoff, a larger buffer against future raids and make it harder for Texas to escape the GOR's penalty by dissolving the conference. Fans of such schools as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State and WVU are idiots if they don't understand that expanding to 14 would be in their best long-term interests. Hold your nose if necessary, but take the medicine that is good for you.

I don't necessarily disagree big picture. but think about the negatives from their point of view too. 14 likely means a dip in money for everyone. Even if its a little bit it still diminishes the schools and the league when compared to the other power 5 conferences. We know that the PAC, ACC and Big12 are all extremely bothered by the disparity they face in the B1G and SEC. Further TCU (for example) doesn't want to trade annual games with OU, Baylor, TT, UT, OSU, and KSU for UCONN, Memphis, UCF and Cincy. They know their fan interested would likely dip, hurting their bottom line further.

So you're asking them to make less, millions less in the hopes that 15 years from now they've can not only recoup, but close the gap with the B1G and SEC... Thats a tough sell. Especially given the current unknowns in the TV market and possibility of UT, OU, or KU leaving?

Now granted four new schools could take a different pay structure, but then you're ultimately undermining their success and the overall success of the conference with a huge disparity in finances among members.

(03-18-2016 09:58 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:39 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Not that I expect the Big 12 to do so, but expanding to 14 vs 12 would give them more voting power, more TV markets, a larger population base for recruiting, more chances at the playoff, a larger buffer against future raids and make it harder for Texas to escape the GOR's penalty by dissolving the conference. Fans of such schools as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State and WVU are idiots if they don't understand that expanding to 14 would be in their best long-term interests. Hold your nose if necessary, but take the medicine that is good for you.

I don't necessarily disagree big picture. but think about the negatives from their point of view too. 14 likely means a dip in money for everyone. Even if its a little bit it still diminishes the schools and the league when compared to the other power 5 conferences. We know that the PAC, ACC and Big12 are all extremely bothered by the disparity they face in the B1G and SEC. Further TCU (for example) doesn't want to trade annual games with OU, Baylor, TT, UT, OSU, and KSU for UCONN, Memphis, UCF and Cincy. They know their fan interested would likely dip, hurting their bottom line further.

So you're asking them to make less, millions less in the hopes that 15 years from now they've can not only recoup, but close the gap with the B1G and SEC... Thats a tough sell. Especially given the current unknowns in the TV market and possibility of UT, OU, or KU leaving?

Now granted four new schools could take a different pay structure, but then you're ultimately undermining their success and the overall success of the conference with a huge disparity in finances among members.

Cincinnati would be the travel partner that West Virginia needs right now. Memphis could be okay since they are not that far from Texas. BYU and Boise State could be 13 and 14. They are good rival teams for TCU, and the fans would get excited to have them back in the fold. Except, the ball coach may not want to lose to Boise State again. Those 2 played good close games in their bowl games. The only 2 G5 schools that went to the Fiesta Bowls. I have a feeling the P5 schools want to take schools from the G5 that are a threat to them.

(03-18-2016 10:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:58 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:39 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Not that I expect the Big 12 to do so, but expanding to 14 vs 12 would give them more voting power, more TV markets, a larger population base for recruiting, more chances at the playoff, a larger buffer against future raids and make it harder for Texas to escape the GOR's penalty by dissolving the conference. Fans of such schools as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State and WVU are idiots if they don't understand that expanding to 14 would be in their best long-term interests. Hold your nose if necessary, but take the medicine that is good for you.

I don't necessarily disagree big picture. but think about the negatives from their point of view too. 14 likely means a dip in money for everyone. Even if its a little bit it still diminishes the schools and the league when compared to the other power 5 conferences. We know that the PAC, ACC and Big12 are all extremely bothered by the disparity they face in the B1G and SEC. Further TCU (for example) doesn't want to trade annual games with OU, Baylor, TT, UT, OSU, and KSU for UCONN, Memphis, UCF and Cincy. They know their fan interested would likely dip, hurting their bottom line further.

So you're asking them to make less, millions less in the hopes that 15 years from now they've can not only recoup, but close the gap with the B1G and SEC... Thats a tough sell. Especially given the current unknowns in the TV market and possibility of UT, OU, or KU leaving?

Now granted four new schools could take a different pay structure, but then you're ultimately undermining their success and the overall success of the conference with a huge disparity in finances among members.

Cincinnati would be the travel partner that West Virginia needs right now. Memphis could be okay since they are not that far from Texas. BYU and Boise State could be 13 and 14. They are good rival teams for TCU, and the fans would get excited to have them back in the fold. Except, the ball coach may not want to lose to Boise State again. Those 2 played good close games in their bowl games. The only 2 G5 schools that went to the Fiesta Bowls. I have a feeling the P5 schools want to take schools from the G5 that are a threat to them.

There are no schools in the G5 that are a threat to the P5.

(03-18-2016 09:58 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  .... four new schools could take a different pay structure, but then you're ultimately undermining their success and the overall success of the conference with a huge disparity in finances among members.

I do not see how short-term revenue disparities would significantly hurt the conference overall. As for the new schools, if they are willing to take the challenge (and I think most would), that is their business. The increases in donations, tickets sales and recruiting due to achieving "P5" status would help them a great deal and I strongly believe they would begin reasonably competitive.

(03-18-2016 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:11 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 03:45 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks have a CCG with round robin is stupid??

no it is not just stupid it is death

the Big 12 is much better off staying at 10 and playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games and a CCG

it would be the best situation for all members and afford them the ability to craft their schedule for their needs

This is such a terrible idea. How exactly is the Big 12 going to schedule 5 OOC games in a world where teams are moving toward no FCS games and P5 conferences have 9 conference games?

Plan to watch a lot of BYU/G5 games. And if you want home buy games, forget about playing most solid G5 opponents.

The Big 12 doesn't have to do anything and it is arguable whether they should. But in my admittedly biased opinion, the play would be to add 2 teams, add a CCG, and extend the GOR past the ACC's. The unbalanced schedule actually helps teams get in the CFP by occasionally having 2 elite teams avoid playing each other. It's silly, but that's the world of the 14 team conferences you are competing against.

If you can shore your conference up (especially with a network) by the time the ACC GOR expires, there is a decent chance you can make a run at the schools you wanted all along (FSU/Clemson). But you have to be coming from a position of stability/strength to get that to happen. Maybe OU/Texas doesn't care about the Big 12, but if they did, that's the best go-forward plan. That allows you to run your own conference your way. The Big 12/ACC GOR expiration is a cage match event that will likely be the last consolidation of power among the P5. It is up to OU/Texas what kind of shape the B12 will be in going into that death struggle.

Would all five of those OOC games be part of the individual schools' Tier 3 rights? Maybe that's enough to satisfy Oklahoma, which is one of the few teams in the B12 whose Tier 3 rights are really valuable.

They would all have to be home games, at which point, you run into the issues I just mentioned about scheduling quality games.

(03-18-2016 10:20 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:58 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  .... four new schools could take a different pay structure, but then you're ultimately undermining their success and the overall success of the conference with a huge disparity in finances among members.

I do not see how short-term revenue disparities would significantly hurt the conference overall. As for the new schools, if they are willing to take the challenge (and I think most would), that is their business. The increases in donations, tickets sales and recruiting due to achieving "P5" status would help them a great deal and I strongly believe they would begin reasonably competitive.

You're correct, that is up to the new schools to take that, but as league, the Big12 doesn't want four new dead weights at the bottom of the league. Significantly hamstringing the new schools makes it more likely they'll struggle to compete with the reset of the conference and hurt the conference perception. Not to mention, how short term are these disparities? If they add 4, we know the contract stipulates TV would pay two new schools 20 million ea so lets divide that by 4 and and take a little more to offset CFP and bowl revenue losses for the existing schools. So say each new member gets 8/9 million annually. Whats the new network worth? Half the SEC? A third? Lets say its worth 3 million annually. What about the CCG? Ultimately each of the four are likely at least 10 million behind the rest of the conference. How long does it take for the conference to realize gains that allow them to catch up? Further, how long to realize gains that would close the gap on the SEC?

Granted my numbers are guesses and I'm not making any sort of definitive argument, but this is the type of projections you would want in making these decisions. They are factors in the overall health of the league.

It might not be a huge thing, but it is another thing the current Big12 schools should consider and again, my opinion is that its a tough sell.

(03-18-2016 10:22 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:11 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 03:45 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks have a CCG with round robin is stupid??

no it is not just stupid it is death

the Big 12 is much better off staying at 10 and playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games and a CCG

it would be the best situation for all members and afford them the ability to craft their schedule for their needs

This is such a terrible idea. How exactly is the Big 12 going to schedule 5 OOC games in a world where teams are moving toward no FCS games and P5 conferences have 9 conference games?

Plan to watch a lot of BYU/G5 games. And if you want home buy games, forget about playing most solid G5 opponents.

The Big 12 doesn't have to do anything and it is arguable whether they should. But in my admittedly biased opinion, the play would be to add 2 teams, add a CCG, and extend the GOR past the ACC's. The unbalanced schedule actually helps teams get in the CFP by occasionally having 2 elite teams avoid playing each other. It's silly, but that's the world of the 14 team conferences you are competing against.

If you can shore your conference up (especially with a network) by the time the ACC GOR expires, there is a decent chance you can make a run at the schools you wanted all along (FSU/Clemson). But you have to be coming from a position of stability/strength to get that to happen. Maybe OU/Texas doesn't care about the Big 12, but if they did, that's the best go-forward plan. That allows you to run your own conference your way. The Big 12/ACC GOR expiration is a cage match event that will likely be the last consolidation of power among the P5. It is up to OU/Texas what kind of shape the B12 will be in going into that death struggle.

Would all five of those OOC games be part of the individual schools' Tier 3 rights? Maybe that's enough to satisfy Oklahoma, which is one of the few teams in the B12 whose Tier 3 rights are really valuable.

They would all have to be home games, at which point, you run into the issues I just mentioned about scheduling quality games.

Somehow, I think Oklahoma could find some quality opponents if they had five games to play with. Iowa State, not so much. But the Cyclones aren't a threat to pull out of the big 12.

(03-18-2016 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  Somehow, I think Oklahoma could find some quality opponents if they had five games to play with. Iowa State, not so much. But the Cyclones aren't a threat to pull out of the big 12.

Neither is OU, at least as long as Boone Pickens is still alive...

(03-18-2016 09:39 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Not that I expect the Big 12 to do so, but expanding to 14 vs 12 would give them more voting power, more TV markets, a larger population base for recruiting, more chances at the playoff, a larger buffer against future raids and make it harder for Texas to escape the GOR's penalty by dissolving the conference. Fans of such schools as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State and WVU are idiots if they don't understand that expanding to 14 would be in their best long-term interests. Hold your nose if necessary, but take the medicine that is good for you.

more voting power in what?

individual programs generally do not vote on NCAA issues and a couple of more schools in the Big 12 would not change much of anything anyway

(03-18-2016 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 10:22 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 09:11 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  no it is not just stupid it is death

the Big 12 is much better off staying at 10 and playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games and a CCG

it would be the best situation for all members and afford them the ability to craft their schedule for their needs

This is such a terrible idea. How exactly is the Big 12 going to schedule 5 OOC games in a world where teams are moving toward no FCS games and P5 conferences have 9 conference games?

Plan to watch a lot of BYU/G5 games. And if you want home buy games, forget about playing most solid G5 opponents.

The Big 12 doesn't have to do anything and it is arguable whether they should. But in my admittedly biased opinion, the play would be to add 2 teams, add a CCG, and extend the GOR past the ACC's. The unbalanced schedule actually helps teams get in the CFP by occasionally having 2 elite teams avoid playing each other. It's silly, but that's the world of the 14 team conferences you are competing against.

If you can shore your conference up (especially with a network) by the time the ACC GOR expires, there is a decent chance you can make a run at the schools you wanted all along (FSU/Clemson). But you have to be coming from a position of stability/strength to get that to happen. Maybe OU/Texas doesn't care about the Big 12, but if they did, that's the best go-forward plan. That allows you to run your own conference your way. The Big 12/ACC GOR expiration is a cage match event that will likely be the last consolidation of power among the P5. It is up to OU/Texas what kind of shape the B12 will be in going into that death struggle.

Would all five of those OOC games be part of the individual schools' Tier 3 rights? Maybe that's enough to satisfy Oklahoma, which is one of the few teams in the B12 whose Tier 3 rights are really valuable.

They would all have to be home games, at which point, you run into the issues I just mentioned about scheduling quality games.

Somehow, I think Oklahoma could find some quality opponents if they had five games to play with. Iowa State, not so much. But the Cyclones aren't a threat to pull out of the big 12.

exactly ISU and KU and others need to schedule right now for "wins" they have no concern with having a schedule that get s them a shot at the playoffs

and from a conference strength point of view an ISU or KU with 4 or 5 OOC wins over ANY D1-A school is better for the conference than a program with between 3 and 0 wins

the PAC 12 is 12 teams with 3 OOC games that is 36 games

Big 10 even going to 9 is 42 OOC games and the Big 10 is also ditching D1-AA games that opens up schedules epseically for teams that would not make a profit paying a D1-A G5 team $1 million + to buy in a home game they would be better off with a home and home

the SEC is staying at 4 OOC games that is 56 games

the ACC is 56 games

then independents that is 36 games at least

then you have G5 teams and again ISU, KU and Texas Tech love G5 games and are not concerned with the playoffs and those teams getting wins against anyone is better for the conference

in 2008 when Texas Tech had "da season!" they played EWU, UMass, 1-11 SMU and Nevada in the OOC and still ended the season #12.....so they played TWO D1-AA teams and one of the worst D1-A teams out there in the OOC

that is a HORRID OOC schedule, but Texas Tech fans eat that crap up and if they will buy tickets for that garbage that is their problem

Texas, OU, WVU and others that care will get the OOC games needed they are out there and available

and as much or more you get more Big 12 teams in bowl games and start the next seasons with more ranked teams and teams higher ranked and it builds

there is no "strength" for a conference or an individual teams schedule saying "well they were 3-9 IN THE BIG 12! or 0-12 IN THE BIG 12 WHERE EVERYONE PLAYS EVERYONE

there is strength in teams with better records especially at the end of the year

and even for the better Big 12 programs a 7-5 Cincy or UH is a better win than an 0-12 KU or 3-9 ISU

you combine the factors of divisional splits, teams not playing each other, a CCG that should have two good teams in it most years, more teams in bowl games and more teams higher ranked, and better overall strength of schedule removing some of the 0-12 conference teams AND having those conference teams start to go 5-7 or 6-6 and make bowls

and the schedule and strength takes care of itself

it is like pretty much all of the SEC with the exception of 2 teams or so playing a D1-AA game late in the season

they take a break, rest players, get back ups reps, put in new plays and let other conferences beat each other up and drop each other in rankings and it pays off

I am not saying the Big 12 should play D1-AA games in fact they should do away with them, but last season Texas played 11 P5 games no team in the SEC played that many and OU played 10 while only a couple of SEC teams played 9 P5 games and every Big 12 team played 9 P5 games while a large portion of the SEC played 8 P5 games AND played an D1-AA game

the difference is the bad SEC teams still can have 5 or 6 wins while in the Big 12 because of the mathematics of 9 conference games they have weaker teams overall at the lower end

the Big 12 does not have a strength of schedule issue as much as they have an issue with the math that 9 conference games brings and they have an issue with 3 OOC games not showcasing the conference enough outside of the conference

if you swap the OU win over Tennessee that ended the season last year 9-4 and instead have OU lose to Tennessee and beat Texas

OU still would have been 11-1, but they would not have made the playoffs and the SEC would have had Tennessee 10-3 and even higher ranked and the Big 12 would have had 6-6 Texas going to a horrible bowl

the OOC win mattered for OU much more than the loss to a bad Texas team in conference

(03-17-2016 11:27 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 03:54 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

14 may not make sense, but it seems to work well for several other "Autonomy 5" conferences.

i think 14 is the minimum. 12 wont do alot for the tv deal. 14 maybe 16.
I dont see the aac losing more than uconn unless the number goes past 14.

If BYU is the other option for #12 where are the other teams coming from if the B-12 goes to 14. IF BYU is not an option where are the other 3schools coming besides UCONN.