I thought this was informative.

Questions for the Big 12

I don't think UH gets in. Right now both UT and TTU want expensive new toys from the legislature that a lot of folks are saying are wasteful and unnecessary (UT-H and TTU Vet school) so they absolutely have to play ball and in public say they support UH to curry favor with high level politicians that Tillman Ferrita bought through their campaigns and is now calling in his favor for support of UH.

UT and TTU do this knowing full well that out of public and behind closed doors there is no way UH gets the 8 votes they need.

(07-26-2016 08:30 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don't think UH gets in. Right now both UT and TTU want expensive new toys from the legislature that a lot of folks are saying are wasteful and unnecessary (UT-H and TTU Vet school) so they absolutely have to play ball and in public say they support UH to curry favor with high level politicians that Tillman Ferrita bought through their campaigns and is now calling in his favor for support of UH.

UT and TTU do this knowing full well that out of public and behind closed doors there is no way UH gets the 8 votes they need.

I agree. If you notice, none of the private or out of state schools have come out in support of Baylor. It's been all politicians and public Texas universities.

The article, while interesting, makes the flawed assumption that all of the current B12 members are interested in the conferences continued existence. We know that ISU, KSU, TCU and Baylor want the B12 to soldier on. But there are other members that are frankly quite indifferent to the matter. Not understanding that fundamental questions is why anything the B12 does is predicated solely on banking more money in the short term.

I understand the argument behind saying the Big 12 is in the midst of a cash grab and nothing more, but consider this...

While the Big 12 members that would be sticking around certainly have interest in creating the best Big 12 that they can, the powers of UT and OU don't really have that interest. In their mind, the problem will be someone else's in a few short years. So from their perspective, they should do one of two things.

1) Let the other 8 take who they want and don't worry about it because you get the same money either way.

2) Grab only the best football schools you can get because that's how the Big 12 will survive into the future...with quality football content. For the little brothers to be taken care of properly in the absence of UT and OU, they need a prosperous conference more than anything else.

Here's my point, I don't really see evidence of the first 2 options occurring.

UT is voicing support for UH. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I understand the suggestion that this is just a political game, but there's no reason for the Gov, Lt. Gov, or other politicians to get involved if it's just a smokescreen. Politicians are getting involved because they want it which means they will put pressure on UT to act on UH's behalf if nothing else.

There's another aspect to it as well. If UT and TT and just playing a public relations game then the people at UH are smart enough to figure it out. That means there's no reason for UH or UH graduates to drop their opposition to a UT-Houston campus. Ultimately, there's no reason to drop the opposition unless they get the votes otherwise they would be trading their most valued chess piece for nothing more than words. I just don't see that. UH wants UT to use their considerable influence to get them in. UT's going to have to do that to cash in on the back end of the deal. More than that, UT has little motivation to worry about UH's ambitions or the concerns of the Big 12 unless UT is considering sticking around for the long haul.

Consider this, if the Big 12 needs quality football and they do then their criteria should be very simple. Houston makes sense and BYU makes sense, but that's it. UConn is a non-starter because of travel and a crappy football product. Cincinnati is iffy. Maybe they are a decent addition under certain circumstances, but it would be much easier to build UCF or USF or even both of them into quality football products as opposed to UC. Boise State should be getting serious consideration as they have achieved a solid brand and acquired a casual following across the country.

In reality though, Boise State has no shot because of academics. UCF and USF are probably on the outside looking in as well. All indications are, however, that UConn and UC are being strongly considered. I'm going to try not to take the words of Flugaur at face value, but I've seen it from other commentators as well.

If you're going to expand for money alone then not only should the criteria be a little different, but travel distance should be relevant as well. That means schools like Memphis and Colorado State should be higher on the list, not schools like BYU or UConn that will increase the travel budget a good bit. Even UC is pushing it a bit. If you're going to grab cash then you might as well grab as much cash as you can.

One final point on all this and I don't know what else I could say. To expand at all is a trying exercise. There are growing pains to increasing your associations and integrating new members. It's an awful lot of trouble to go to if you don't have any desire to stick around.

(07-27-2016 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I understand the argument behind saying the Big 12 is in the midst of a cash grab and nothing more, but consider this...

While the Big 12 members that would be sticking around certainly have interest in creating the best Big 12 that they can, the powers of UT and OU don't really have that interest. In their mind, the problem will be someone else's in a few short years. So from their perspective, they should do one of two things.

1) Let the other 8 take who they want and don't worry about it because you get the same money either way.

2) Grab only the best football schools you can get because that's how the Big 12 will survive into the future...with quality football content. For the little brothers to be taken care of properly in the absence of UT and OU, they need a prosperous conference more than anything else.

Here's my point, I don't really see evidence of the first 2 options occurring.

UT is voicing support for UH. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I understand the suggestion that this is just a political game, but there's no reason for the Gov, Lt. Gov, or other politicians to get involved if it's just a smokescreen. Politicians are getting involved because they want it which means they will put pressure on UT to act on UH's behalf if nothing else.

There's another aspect to it as well. If UT and TT and just playing a public relations game then the people at UH are smart enough to figure it out. That means there's no reason for UH or UH graduates to drop their opposition to a UT-Houston campus. Ultimately, there's no reason to drop the opposition unless they get the votes otherwise they would be trading their most valued chess piece for nothing more than words. I just don't see that. UH wants UT to use their considerable influence to get them in. UT's going to have to do that to cash in on the back end of the deal. More than that, UT has little motivation to worry about UH's ambitions or the concerns of the Big 12 unless UT is considering sticking around for the long haul.

Consider this, if the Big 12 needs quality football and they do then their criteria should be very simple. Houston makes sense and BYU makes sense, but that's it. UConn is a non-starter because of travel and a crappy football product. Cincinnati is iffy. Maybe they are a decent addition under certain circumstances, but it would be much easier to build UCF or USF or even both of them into quality football products as opposed to UC. Boise State should be getting serious consideration as they have achieved a solid brand and acquired a casual following across the country.

In reality though, Boise State has no shot because of academics. UCF and USF are probably on the outside looking in as well. All indications are, however, that UConn and UC are being strongly considered. I'm going to try not to take the words of Flugaur at face value, but I've seen it from other commentators as well.

If you're going to expand for money alone then not only should the criteria be a little different, but travel distance should be relevant as well. That means schools like Memphis and Colorado State should be higher on the list, not schools like BYU or UConn that will increase the travel budget a good bit. Even UC is pushing it a bit. If you're going to grab cash then you might as well grab as much cash as you can.

One final point on all this and I don't know what else I could say. To expand at all is a trying exercise. There are growing pains to increasing your associations and integrating new members. It's an awful lot of trouble to go to if you don't have any desire to stick around.

1. Adding Houston makes no sense at all. The Big 12 has that market and has been too Texas centered with 4 schools in the P5 outside of A&M. It is the same weakness that North Carolina and the ACC has had to overcome. Adding a 6th makes no sense at all.

2. Memphis and Cincinnati are in the midst of downturns following the hiring away of solid coaches. Fan attendance hasn't been that great compared to crowds at Austin and Norman.

3. B.Y.U. is the only one named that pays their way and they are just as much of an outlier as West Virginia.

The only reasons to expand would be to give Texas an entourage should OU depart, to provide cover for those remaining behind if the GOR is not extended, or to try to hang together if it is.

The ramifications of all of this is just as varied as the potential reasons. If UT has chosen to remain behind it is to keep more Texas games on the schedule and that is the only reason Houston would make some sense. If it is to provide cover for those remaining behind then P4 realignment is just around the corner. If they truly want to stay together it means that realignment is either dead, or that future picks for the ACC and SEC and Big 10 will come from the G5.

There's no point in guessing as with Texas anything is possible. So we'll all wait and see what and how things develop.

And one other thing. If they take two and do not extend the GOR that means two will be leaving. If they take four and do not extend the GOR that means four will be leaving. Why? GOR's have penalties for damages when a school departs. The TV contract with FOX and ESPN is predicated upon 10 members minimum. The departing schools can defray much of the cost of leaving if there are 10 schools remaining which keep the TV contracts enforced and if the TV value of the conference remains the same for the duration of the contract. Exit fees would be in order. We'll see.

(07-27-2016 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I understand the argument behind saying the Big 12 is in the midst of a cash grab and nothing more, but consider this...

While the Big 12 members that would be sticking around certainly have interest in creating the best Big 12 that they can, the powers of UT and OU don't really have that interest. In their mind, the problem will be someone else's in a few short years. So from their perspective, they should do one of two things.

1) Let the other 8 take who they want and don't worry about it because you get the same money either way.

2) Grab only the best football schools you can get because that's how the Big 12 will survive into the future...with quality football content. For the little brothers to be taken care of properly in the absence of UT and OU, they need a prosperous conference more than anything else.

Here's my point, I don't really see evidence of the first 2 options occurring.

UT is voicing support for UH. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I understand the suggestion that this is just a political game, but there's no reason for the Gov, Lt. Gov, or other politicians to get involved if it's just a smokescreen. Politicians are getting involved because they want it which means they will put pressure on UT to act on UH's behalf if nothing else.

There's another aspect to it as well. If UT and TT and just playing a public relations game then the people at UH are smart enough to figure it out. That means there's no reason for UH or UH graduates to drop their opposition to a UT-Houston campus. Ultimately, there's no reason to drop the opposition unless they get the votes otherwise they would be trading their most valued chess piece for nothing more than words. I just don't see that. UH wants UT to use their considerable influence to get them in. UT's going to have to do that to cash in on the back end of the deal. More than that, UT has little motivation to worry about UH's ambitions or the concerns of the Big 12 unless UT is considering sticking around for the long haul.

Consider this, if the Big 12 needs quality football and they do then their criteria should be very simple. Houston makes sense and BYU makes sense, but that's it. UConn is a non-starter because of travel and a crappy football product. Cincinnati is iffy. Maybe they are a decent addition under certain circumstances, but it would be much easier to build UCF or USF or even both of them into quality football products as opposed to UC. Boise State should be getting serious consideration as they have achieved a solid brand and acquired a casual following across the country.

In reality though, Boise State has no shot because of academics. UCF and USF are probably on the outside looking in as well. All indications are, however, that UConn and UC are being strongly considered. I'm going to try not to take the words of Flugaur at face value, but I've seen it from other commentators as well.

If you're going to expand for money alone then not only should the criteria be a little different, but travel distance should be relevant as well. That means schools like Memphis and Colorado State should be higher on the list, not schools like BYU or UConn that will increase the travel budget a good bit. Even UC is pushing it a bit. If you're going to grab cash then you might as well grab as much cash as you can.

One final point on all this and I don't know what else I could say. To expand at all is a trying exercise. There are growing pains to increasing your associations and integrating new members. It's an awful lot of trouble to go to if you don't have any desire to stick around.

1. Adding Houston makes no sense at all. The Big 12 has that market and has been too Texas centered with 4 schools in the P5 outside of A&M. It is the same weakness that North Carolina and the ACC has had to overcome. Adding a 6th makes no sense at all.

2. Memphis and Cincinnati are in the midst of downturns following the hiring away of solid coaches. Fan attendance hasn't been that great compared to crowds at Austin and Norman.

3. B.Y.U. is the only one named that pays their way and they are just as much of an outlier as West Virginia.

The only reasons to expand would be to give Texas an entourage should OU depart, to provide cover for those remaining behind if the GOR is not extended, or to try to hang together if it is.

The ramifications of all of this is just as varied as the potential reasons. If UT has chosen to remain behind it is to keep more Texas games on the schedule and that is the only reason Houston would make some sense. If it is to provide cover for those remaining behind then P4 realignment is just around the corner. If they truly want to stay together it means that realignment is either dead, or that future picks for the ACC and SEC and Big 10 will come from the G5.

There's no point in guessing as with Texas anything is possible. So we'll all wait and see what and how things develop.

And one other thing. If they take two and do not extend the GOR that means two will be leaving. If they take four and do not extend the GOR that means four will be leaving. Why? GOR's have penalties for damages when a school departs. The TV contract with FOX and ESPN is predicated upon 10 members minimum. The departing schools can defray much of the cost of leaving if there are 10 schools remaining which keep the TV contracts enforced and if the TV value of the conference remains the same for the duration of the contract. Exit fees would be in order. We'll see.

That all makes sense. I just don't see it being a cash grab. There is some degree of long term planning in these moves which would indicate to me that the people making decisions have some long term moves in mind...whatever those moves happen to be.

Texas and OU create conference - leave little brothers behind. Incredibly obvious

They are trying to find away to lure a couple of P5 programs to the Big12. If they could do that it would stabilize the conference, and change the national perspective. That's why they stated they would expand by 2 or 4. They will try to use the extra money from the G-5 programs as a lure.

Conference expansion 1a. They lure Arkansas, and Nebraska. They also add Colorado state and Houston. The Big 12 gives WVU a way out. Then adds Tulane.

Conference expansion 1b. They lure Arizona and Arizona state. They also add Colorado state and Houston. The Big 12 gives WVU away out. Then adds New Mexico.

(07-28-2016 05:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  They are trying to find away to lure a couple of P5 programs to the Big12. If they could do that it would stabilize the conference, and change the national perspective. That's why they stated they would expand by 2 or 4. They will try to use the extra money from the G-5 programs as a lure.

Conference expansion 1a. They lure Arkansas, and Nebraska. They also add Colorado state and Houston. The Big 12 gives WVU a way out. Then adds Tulane.

Conference expansion 1b. They lure Arizona and Arizona state. They also add Colorado state and Houston. The Big 12 gives WVU away out. Then adds New Mexico.

But the B12 has no hook. They can't offer better stability than the other power conferences, which also means there is no financial benefit either. Finally there isn't any worthwhile brand component associated with the B12 that is better than the ACC, P12, B1G or SEC. If the Hawgs wanted to play in Texas more often they be better off petitioning the SEC to expand as opposed to leaving for the B12. The only expansion vector out there is with G5 schools.

(07-28-2016 07:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 05:46 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  They are trying to find away to lure a couple of P5 programs to the Big12. If they could do that it would stabilize the conference, and change the national perspective. That's why they stated they would expand by 2 or 4. They will try to use the extra money from the G-5 programs as a lure.

Conference expansion 1a. They lure Arkansas, and Nebraska. They also add Colorado state and Houston. The Big 12 gives WVU a way out. Then adds Tulane.

Conference expansion 1b. They lure Arizona and Arizona state. They also add Colorado state and Houston. The Big 12 gives WVU away out. Then adds New Mexico.

But the B12 has no hook. They can't offer better stability than the other power conferences, which also means there is no financial benefit either. Finally there isn't any worthwhile brand component associated with the B12 that is better than the ACC, P12, B1G or SEC. If the Hawgs wanted to play in Texas more often they be better off petitioning the SEC to expand as opposed to leaving for the B12. The only expansion vector out there is with G5 schools.

Yep pretty much. If the SEC took 4 Texas and Oklahoma would have what they want all in their own division.

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Most of the realignment that has preceded today has been slowly crafting a new Western Division.

That division gives Texas all of its old rivals except for A&M which could be their permanent rival. Texas then could play Texas Tech OOC annually and could rotate T.C.U. & Baylor as their second OOC game.

If we didn't go to 4 but rather to 2 I think it changes.

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

(07-27-2016 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  UT is voicing support for UH. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I understand the suggestion that this is just a political game, but there's no reason for the Gov, Lt. Gov, or other politicians to get involved if it's just a smokescreen. Politicians are getting involved because they want it which means they will put pressure on UT to act on UH's behalf if nothing else.

There's another aspect to it as well. If UT and TT and just playing a public relations game then the people at UH are smart enough to figure it out. That means there's no reason for UH or UH graduates to drop their opposition to a UT-Houston campus. Ultimately, there's no reason to drop the opposition unless they get the votes otherwise they would be trading their most valued chess piece for nothing more than words. I just don't see that. UH wants UT to use their considerable influence to get them in. UT's going to have to do that to cash in on the back end of the deal. More than that, UT has little motivation to worry about UH's ambitions or the concerns of the Big 12 unless UT is considering sticking around for the long haul.

Here is the inside scoop there:

The Governor and LT Gov are voicing this support because billionaire donor to their election campaigns Tillman Fertitta is calling in a favor to get support for his alma mater, UH.

Since he has the ear of those two politicians and at the same time both schools want big expensive projects (UT-H and TTU Veterinary School) that are also highly controversial in the legislature with many questioning the need to spend millions on these projects when other less expensive alternatives are more viable....it only makes sense for them to play ball with what the Gov and Lt Gov are being pressured into supporting.

After all, it costs them nothing to say they will support UH (and note that in fact ALL they have actually promised to do is "consider UH") and it defends them from a ton of bad press later. All they have to do is say "well we tried, but the non-Texas schools don't want SWC 2.0!"

They take no blame and their pet projects don't get torpedoed automatically in retaliation.

What everyone needs to ask is. What did the Big 12 learn that made expanding such a priority?

(07-28-2016 07:33 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  What everyone needs to ask is. What did the Big 12 learn that made expanding such a priority?

Well clue us in.

(07-28-2016 05:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  UT is voicing support for UH. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I understand the suggestion that this is just a political game, but there's no reason for the Gov, Lt. Gov, or other politicians to get involved if it's just a smokescreen. Politicians are getting involved because they want it which means they will put pressure on UT to act on UH's behalf if nothing else.

There's another aspect to it as well. If UT and TT and just playing a public relations game then the people at UH are smart enough to figure it out. That means there's no reason for UH or UH graduates to drop their opposition to a UT-Houston campus. Ultimately, there's no reason to drop the opposition unless they get the votes otherwise they would be trading their most valued chess piece for nothing more than words. I just don't see that. UH wants UT to use their considerable influence to get them in. UT's going to have to do that to cash in on the back end of the deal. More than that, UT has little motivation to worry about UH's ambitions or the concerns of the Big 12 unless UT is considering sticking around for the long haul.

Here is the inside scoop there:

The Governor and LT Gov are voicing this support because billionaire donor to their election campaigns Tillman Fertitta is calling in a favor to get support for his alma mater, UH.

Since he has the ear of those two politicians and at the same time both schools want big expensive projects (UT-H and TTU Veterinary School) that are also highly controversial in the legislature with many questioning the need to spend millions on these projects when other less expensive alternatives are more viable....it only makes sense for them to play ball with what the Gov and Lt Gov are being pressured into supporting.

After all, it costs them nothing to say they will support UH (and note that in fact ALL they have actually promised to do is "consider UH") and it defends them from a ton of bad press later. All they have to do is say "well we tried, but the non-Texas schools don't want SWC 2.0!"

They take no blame and their pet projects don't get torpedoed automatically in retaliation.

I see your reasoning, but it seems like a dance with no purpose.

If Fertitta only expects a gesture in return for his donations then he's really not getting much. On the flip side, if UH doesn't get the votes then they don't really have any motivation to get out of the way of UT's plans.

I guess what I'm saying is that no one's really accomplishing anything if this is just a PR stunt.

I'm sure Tillman expects UT and TTU to vote for UH. He'd probably also like UT to pressure BU and TCU to vote for UH but at the end of the day, they are private and can do what they want (i.e. Say hell the eff no to UH). That's all he can do but it does put UH in a better position than with TT and UT as the no votes they'd be without the pressure. And hey if you own some politicians, why not use them?

Same is true for TT and UT. Both their projects are tenuous at best but by playing ball they at least have a chance instead of automatically getting shot down as retaliation.

Politics isn't a game of black and white, it's all about the gray

(07-28-2016 09:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I'm sure Tillman expects UT and TTU to vote for UH. He'd probably also like UT to pressure BU and TCU to vote for UH but at the end of the day, they are private and can do what they want (i.e. Say hell the eff no to UH). That's all he can do but it does put UH in a better position than with TT and UT as the no votes they'd be without the pressure. And hey if you own some politicians, why not use them?

Same is true for TT and UT. Both their projects are tenuous at best but by playing ball they at least have a chance instead of automatically getting shot down as retaliation.

Politics isn't a game of black and white, it's all about the gray

I get what you're saying.

At the same time, if UT wants someone like UH in the league then the other members have little power to buck them. I could see TCU and BU saying no, but they might also want to curry favor with UT leaders and the state politicians. It could't hurt them especially if we're heading to a place where UT and OU bolt. The leaders of TCU or BU could simply say..."hey, remember all those times we supported what you wanted and that time we helped you build a campus in Houston because we supported your efforts there? You're going to take us with you, right?"

Some have suggested that there are deals going on behind the scenes. That Houston is UT's play, but they have to agree to other additions they might not specifically want in order to get UH. The other members have to agree to Houston in order to get the new additions they want.

What I'm getting at is that there are numerous political angles that could be played here. If Tillman Fertitta is half as smart as being a billionaire would suggest he is then he's going to be able to figure this game out the same way you and I are. The only difference being that he has direct access to the decision makers.

(07-28-2016 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 07:33 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  What everyone needs to ask is. What did the Big 12 learn that made expanding such a priority?

Well clue us in.

Well, we all get on here and make assumptions about the demise of the Big 12 all the time. But yet, They are still kicking and making plenty of money. I don't think that OU and Texas are leaving the Big 12, nor do I think it's going to die off. I think they have an inside track on a program or two. It might not be Arkansas. But it somebody, and Memphis ain't cutting it.

(07-28-2016 07:33 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  What everyone needs to ask is. What did the Big 12 learn that made expanding such a priority?

Big 12 learn. Now that's funny.

(07-28-2016 10:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 07:33 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  What everyone needs to ask is. What did the Big 12 learn that made expanding such a priority?

Well clue us in.

Well, we all get on here and make assumptions about the demise of the Big 12 all the time. But yet, They are still kicking and making plenty of money. I don't think that OU and Texas are leaving the Big 12, nor do I think it's going to die off. I think they have an inside track on a program or two. It might not be Arkansas. But it somebody, and Memphis ain't cutting it.

I agree that most assume they won't make it, self included. But, most make that assumption based on pretty good fundamental assumptions which are backed by data. Small footprint, too Texas centric, too much animus, and a spirit of selfishness among some member institutions are irrefutable facts which tend to lead to the demise of cooperation. The inequity between the top, then the next two institutions, and the rest do form a kind of stalemate that provides them some chance at longevity. But if they think that chiseling the two networks that feed them by using a loophole in the their contract is going to make them friends among those two networks or for that matter among the other P5 schools who were trying to cap the number of members in the "club" then they are sadly mistaken.

If they pursue this angle they are going to lose oodles of good will. They may survive for 8 more years, but when UT or OU leaves they are done as a P conference. Too many G schools and privates mean that they will lose their credibility as a P class conference. Remember it isn't based on wins and losses, but rather the ability to draw an audience. One top 10 program doesn't make a conference anymore and they are the last one to receive the benefit of the doubt with two programs of that caliber.

The sport, the fans of the sport, and the networks want a well conceived playoff model. The Big 12 is the impediment to that destination. It doesn't matter if we have conferences of 16, 18, or 20 so long as the structure yields what the public sees as a fair and acceptable playoff field. Having Texas or OU job the system isn't going to set well with anyone. It's bigger than whether your choices are Houston, B.Y.U., Memphis and Cincinnati. And unless the PAC dissolves nobody is leaving it or any other P conference to land their butts back into the least stable system economically going forward.

This is especially true when the people of some of the remnants of the Big 12 want out.