This time with real information to share.....

MSMoose

MSMoose
(608)
45 months
PM UserFollow User
2 hours ago
Reply
Quote
To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak

IF this is true, here's how it looks from the candidate school perspective:

- BYU is a top-2 pick for six Big 12 members, including both Texas and Oklahoma
- Cincinnati is a top-2 pick for five members, including Oklahoma but excluding Texas
- Houston is a top-2 pick for three members, including Texas but excluding Oklahoma
- Memphis, CSU, and UCF/USF are top-2 picks for only two schools, none of which are named Texas or Oklahoma

And even if it was correct info at some point earlier this week, I still have to think that B12 will be unable to just ignore the news about BYU.

Meaning Houston and Cincy, by default.

So if I read what this says correctly, then here is how the schools break down in the number of votes they have:
Cincinnati (10): Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor\Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma\Kansas State\Oklahoma State\West Virginia\TCU
UCF/USF (8): Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor\Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma\West Virginia\TCU
Memphis (7): Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma\Kansas State\Oklahoma State\West Virginia\TCU
UCONN (7): Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma\Kansas State\Oklahoma State\West Virginia\TCU
BYU (6): Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor\Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Colorado State (5): Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma\Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Houston (3): Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor

So Cincinnati and UCF/USF are in at 12. If they go to 14 add Memphis and UCONN.

If true, it's interesting how KSU/OSU's votes differ so significantly from OU/KU/ISU.

You think Texas is going to allow the conf to expand with Cincy and one of the Florida schools, with Houston not getting an invite??

Please.


(note: I'm assuming at this point it's going to be two, not four ... which seems like a reasonable assumption)

I still think it's going to be 4 added. I also think the decision is a lot farther along than the OP presumes.

IMO, they were about done when Houston jumped in. Then they were done again, when the BYU issues jumped up. Now they are regrouping yet again. But they aren't starting over from scratch, or even from 8 schools, and they aren't still visiting or just finished visiting schools. Hell, they have been vetting schools forever, it seems.

Cincy,UCF, Memphis and UConn?

Sounds like UCF has the support when they eventually get to the point of voting.

(08-10-2016 11:28 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  This time with real information to share.....

MSMoose

MSMoose
(608)
45 months
PM UserFollow User
2 hours ago
Reply
Quote
To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak

I've seen less convoluted Dungeons & Dragons games. Jeez, what the heck am I reading here?

(08-10-2016 12:15 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Sounds like UCF has the support when they eventually get to the point of voting.

I read that one of their pitches is expanding their stadium to 67K.

(08-10-2016 12:13 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Cincy,UCF, Memphis and UConn?

I'm confident about Cincy and Memphis. A week ago, I thought the other 2 were Houston and BYU.

I think BYU is slipping, and I just haven't heard much either way about Houston. At 14, I'm guessing UH is in, and BYU is now out, or on the fence.

If they don't make it, I would guess maybe UCF for 14. Even Tulane is getting a little love, lol. JMO.

(08-10-2016 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:13 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Cincy,UCF, Memphis and UConn?

I'm confident about Cincy and Memphis. A week ago, I thought the other 2 were Houston and BYU.

I think BYU is slipping, and I just haven't heard much either way about Houston. At 14, I'm guessing UH is in, and BYU is now out, or on the fence.

If they don't make it, I would guess maybe UCF for 14. Even Tulane is getting a little love, lol. JMO.

I don't think UConn makes the cut even with BYU out. UH, UC, Memphis, UCF

(08-10-2016 12:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 11:28 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  This time with real information to share.....

MSMoose

MSMoose
(608)
45 months
PM UserFollow User
2 hours ago
Reply
Quote
To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak

I've seen less convoluted Dungeons & Dragons games. Jeez, what the heck am I reading here?

I had the same reaction. Gobbledegook. TV network guy kind of thinking, not university president thinking. That just makes things more complicated, not less.

(08-10-2016 12:20 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 12:13 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Cincy,UCF, Memphis and UConn?

I'm confident about Cincy and Memphis. A week ago, I thought the other 2 were Houston and BYU.

I think BYU is slipping, and I just haven't heard much either way about Houston. At 14, I'm guessing UH is in, and BYU is now out, or on the fence.

If they don't make it, I would guess maybe UCF for 14. Even Tulane is getting a little love, lol. JMO.

I don't think UConn makes the cut even with BYU out. UH, UC, Memphis, UCF

My guess right now, too.

(08-10-2016 12:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 11:28 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  This time with real information to share.....

MSMoose

MSMoose
(608)
45 months
PM UserFollow User
2 hours ago
Reply
Quote
To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak

I've seen less convoluted Dungeons & Dragons games. Jeez, what the heck am I reading here?

Houston, UCF, USF and one other.

I don't buy this. First, why the interchangeability of USF/UCF? They are two different schools. No way are school presidents like "uh, yeah, either one of those is fine ahead of that other school."

And in NO way is WVU and TCU a bloc with equal share as Oklahoma (with ISU and KU? Are you kidding me?! Those three could probably all go to the PAC or B1G) and Texas.

Geez, this is getting horrific. The need is 8/10, right? How do you get that with four groups? Shouldn't it be five?

There's a slim-to-none chance they add 6 for 16 but I can't imagine UCF without USF. If added alone, UCF would definitely say yes. However, adding both gives UCF a travel partner and increases market and viewership in Florida.

I'd add UCF, USF, Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, and Connecticut (or Temple if Connecticut goes elsewhere.) Regardless of BYU's current situation, they'll be fine as an independent. I doubt they ever go back to the Mountain West.

Divisions

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St
East: TCU, Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, USF, Connecticut/Temple

(08-10-2016 12:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't buy this. First, why the interchangeability of USF/UCF? They are two different schools. No way are school presidents like "uh, yeah, either one of those is fine ahead of that other school."

And in NO way is WVU and TCU a bloc with equal share as Oklahoma (with ISU and KU? Are you kidding me?! Those three could probably all go to the PAC or B1G) and Texas.

Geez, this is getting horrific. The need is 8/10, right? How do you get that with four groups? Shouldn't it be five?

Exactly! This whole thing is like a David St fever dream.