I thought some of this was really fascinating.

SI breaks down the events before and after the formation of the Big 12

Looking back on some of this and taking into consideration some of the events going on today, it strikes me that you could compare the schools of the Big 12 region to the Balkans...a disparate region divided along numerous cultural and economic lines. When you think of the Balkans, you think of a region always too weak to chart its own course. They're carved up, reunited, and carved up again by the powers that surround them. There's a great deal of infighting and no shortage of instability and uncertainty about the future.

A couple of the things I thought were really fascinating as it pertained to the SEC:

1. A&M wanted to be here for a long time. I guess I already knew that, but it's interesting how politics were really the only thing that kept them away.

2. According to Bill Cunningham(UT President), they seriously considered the SEC's offer although it was not their number 1 priority. It's interesting to note that later in the sequence of events, they essentially said the same thing about the plans for the Big 12 and we all know they ended up there anyway.

3. The Big Ten was interested in Missouri going back to the Big 8 days. The idea that Mizzou was simply rejected is false. I've said for a while that if the Big Ten could have anyone they want then Mizzou would be a part of that. Whether the B1G wanted Nebraska that badly over Mizzou or not is irrelevant. The SEC was not picking up the B1G's leftovers when they invited Mizzou. The SEC made a great decision to cut off the B1G and MU does bring a lot to the table. I for one am happy to have Mizzou in the fold.

4. It's interesting the acrimony that defined UT and NU's relationship from day one. UT was too big of a fish to be denied on most things, apparently, and everyone pretty much gave them what they wanted. NU always resented being treated as a stepchild.

5. A lot of Big 8 people thought Houston was going to be included over Baylor.

(08-16-2016 10:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I thought some of this was really fascinating.

SI breaks down the events before and after the formation of the Big 12

Looking back on some of this and taking into consideration some of the events going on today, it strikes me that you could compare the schools of the Big 12 region to the Balkans...a disparate region divided along numerous cultural and economic lines. When you think of the Balkans, you think of a region always too weak to chart its own course. They're carved up, reunited, and carved up again by the powers that surround them. There's a great deal of infighting and no shortage of instability and uncertainty about the future.

Well then the Big 12 is still together because A. Gorbachev is not the Commissioner and B. Because the CowGB is still in control!

This line from the article sums it all up:

"Wefald: I voted for everything Texas wanted. Whatever they wanted was fine with me."

(08-17-2016 01:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I thought some of this was really fascinating.

SI breaks down the events before and after the formation of the Big 12

Looking back on some of this and taking into consideration some of the events going on today, it strikes me that you could compare the schools of the Big 12 region to the Balkans...a disparate region divided along numerous cultural and economic lines. When you think of the Balkans, you think of a region always too weak to chart its own course. They're carved up, reunited, and carved up again by the powers that surround them. There's a great deal of infighting and no shortage of instability and uncertainty about the future.

Well then the Big 12 is still together because A. Gorbachev is not the Commissioner and B. Because the CowGB is still in control!

I've gotten pretty interested in the tone of these conversations and articles.

I've noticed that all of them are essentially one dimensional, focusing on what A or B wants.

It's interesting, and probably why no prognosticator has gotten it correct, that the fact that there are shifting sands of wants and desires on multiple levels--from the institutions themselves to the conferences and even the NCAA/ESPNs.

I am very cautious when I see any talk that is fairly one dimensional, or even when I see an article that tries to link two variables together.

The Big 12 was a bandaid that couldn't solve the fundamental issue that Texas is an island of population in an otherwise empty sea. Allying with a bunch of tiny population states with (excluding NU) no real passion for football was never going to be a better solution than allying with the coasts.

The only way a middle America power conference would have ever worked and stood on its own would be to unite the TXTriangle in the south with Chicagoland in the north via the Denver-KC-STL belt in the middle.

IOW this:

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Iowa State
Missouri
Nebraska

Colorado
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M

I'll just copypasta my feeling from the main thread on this subject...

(08-16-2016 07:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This article seems to contradict everything that I've ever read regarding the creation of the B12. ESPN being the architect of the entire endeavor seems somewhat specious. I was always under the impression that it was only supposed to be UT and A&M going to the B8 and Texas politics were able to get BAY and TT included in the deal by threatening the PUF money.

I really wish I had saved the article from the San Antonio local paper. But it points out the bolded. A&M had a solution with the SEC, but the B8 wasn't interested in taking 4 SWC teams if they weren't apart of the package. So the LTGOV mentions something regarding constrained funds for a new arena in College Station and states he'll get the money if the Aggies moved with the other 3 to create the B12.

I kinda agree with HoD on this; the article seems highly revisionist and basing it on human recollection inputs a peculiar bias of putting the person in the best light.

(08-17-2016 01:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Big 12 was a bandaid that couldn't solve the fundamental issue that Texas is an island of population in an otherwise empty sea. Allying with a bunch of tiny population states with (excluding NU) no real passion for football was never going to be a better solution than allying with the coasts.

The only way a middle America power conference would have ever worked and stood on its own would be to unite the TXTriangle in the south with Chicagoland in the north via the Denver-KC-STL belt in the middle.

IOW this:

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Iowa State
Missouri
Nebraska

Colorado
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M

I've never bought the population argument as the SEC save for FL and GA is just as empty. The passion simply wasn't there

(08-17-2016 06:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Big 12 was a bandaid that couldn't solve the fundamental issue that Texas is an island of population in an otherwise empty sea. Allying with a bunch of tiny population states with (excluding NU) no real passion for football was never going to be a better solution than allying with the coasts.

The only way a middle America power conference would have ever worked and stood on its own would be to unite the TXTriangle in the south with Chicagoland in the north via the Denver-KC-STL belt in the middle.

IOW this:

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Iowa State
Missouri
Nebraska

Colorado
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M

I've never bought the population argument as the SEC save for FL and GA is just as empty. The passion simply wasn't there

Population (i.e. Penetration) is only one factor. Things like lack of passion for football and lack of history and common ground was a big factor too. I can attest personally that NU was the only non-Texas school A&M ever got excited for. We had nothing in common with any of the north schools and the whole "TX vs OK" thing was never our deal. LSU was always our big out of state rivalry game along with Arkansas.

Speaking of politics and how these moves are swayed...

Houston's push to get into Big 12

(08-18-2016 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of politics and how these moves are swayed...

Houston's push to get into Big 12

I wish politics could stay out of college sports.

(08-18-2016 10:26 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of politics and how these moves are swayed...

Houston's push to get into Big 12

I wish politics could stay out of college sports.

This is a wild question but I'll ask it anyway. Should the SEC find itself in a position to add Kansas, how would Iowa State feel about the SEC? I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm not saying that it is necessarily out of the realm of possibility either. It just depends on how things break and when they break.

(08-18-2016 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 10:26 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of politics and how these moves are swayed...

Houston's push to get into Big 12

I wish politics could stay out of college sports.

This is a wild question but I'll ask it anyway. Should the SEC find itself in a position to add Kansas, how would Iowa State feel about the SEC? I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm not saying that it is necessarily out of the realm of possibility either. It just depends on how things break and when they break.

Personally I think it would be an interesting. We get reunited with Mizzou which technically is a rival for us. We could try and take KSU'a spot for KU's second most hated rival and we both would add good basketball brands to the SEC.

I trust that the SEC would try and break down into 4 team pods possibly and play your pod, another pod, and maybe an across division rival.

The only issue that I see as a big bump in the road is that we don't have baseball which I heard that we would pick up hockey before adding back baseball and the SEC doesn't have wrestling.

In the end I think it would be fun to join but I think our Administration is gunning for the Big Ten if the big 12 falls apart.

(08-19-2016 12:34 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 10:26 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Speaking of politics and how these moves are swayed...

Houston's push to get into Big 12

I wish politics could stay out of college sports.

This is a wild question but I'll ask it anyway. Should the SEC find itself in a position to add Kansas, how would Iowa State feel about the SEC? I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm not saying that it is necessarily out of the realm of possibility either. It just depends on how things break and when they break.

Personally I think it would be an interesting. We get reunited with Mizzou which technically is a rival for us. We could try and take KSU'a spot for KU's second most hated rival and we both would add good basketball brands to the SEC.

I trust that the SEC would try and break down into 4 team pods possibly and play your pod, another pod, and maybe an across division rival.

The only issue that I see as a big bump in the road is that we don't have baseball which I heard that we would pick up hockey before adding back baseball and the SEC doesn't have wrestling.

In the end I think it would be fun to join but I think our Administration is gunning for the Big Ten if the big 12 falls apart.

Missouri just moved their wrestling to another conference. Baseball might be a problem though. SEC is crazy about baseball. I like ISU. Great academics, great fans, and great sports program.

(08-19-2016 12:34 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is a wild question but I'll ask it anyway. Should the SEC find itself in a position to add Kansas, how would Iowa State feel about the SEC? I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm not saying that it is necessarily out of the realm of possibility either. It just depends on how things break and when they break.

Personally I think it would be an interesting. We get reunited with Mizzou which technically is a rival for us. We could try and take KSU'a spot for KU's second most hated rival and we both would add good basketball brands to the SEC.

I trust that the SEC would try and break down into 4 team pods possibly and play your pod, another pod, and maybe an across division rival.

The only issue that I see as a big bump in the road is that we don't have baseball which I heard that we would pick up hockey before adding back baseball and the SEC doesn't have wrestling.

In the end I think it would be fun to join but I think our Administration is gunning for the Big Ten if the big 12 falls apart.

No baseball at Iowa State?

This may sound odd, but I do hope the SEC ends up with a hockey league one day. I enjoy the sport. Actually, I enjoy a lot of different sports although obviously football is my passion.

I do think the SEC starts a hockey league one day although it will likely be some time before that materializes. Every school in the conference has a club team right now and a couple of them, including my beloved Frozen Tide, have moved into the upper division of the club association. The next step is Division I play. A few schools have made that very same move recently, most notably Arizona State.

Even though very few people play hockey in the Southeast growing up, it's basically a sport for suburbanites that live in major metro areas, the club teams here have started recruiting kids from all over the country and even Canada to come to school here and get to play a relatively high level of hockey. Of course, those kids are not on scholarship, but the fact that there are so many good hockey players that can't find a home in Division I would seem to indicate the potential in such an endeavor.

There really aren't that many DI hockey schools. The B1G is the only Power conference with their own league and they only started it recently. Most DI schools are small privates from the Northeast and Midwest that don't have a robust athletic department. There is a gap to fill you could say.

Overall, I don't think ISU not having baseball would be much of a consideration. Even though we love the sport down here, we have plenty of power programs and competition already. It's not really a revenue sport so your exclusion wouldn't really hurt anything. What we do need is good basketball so if ISU can do that, provide the aforementioned underrated football fan base, good academics, and a new market then I think ISU would be attractive to the SEC. Just depends on how the chips fall.

(08-19-2016 07:31 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:34 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is a wild question but I'll ask it anyway. Should the SEC find itself in a position to add Kansas, how would Iowa State feel about the SEC? I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm not saying that it is necessarily out of the realm of possibility either. It just depends on how things break and when they break.

Personally I think it would be an interesting. We get reunited with Mizzou which technically is a rival for us. We could try and take KSU'a spot for KU's second most hated rival and we both would add good basketball brands to the SEC.

I trust that the SEC would try and break down into 4 team pods possibly and play your pod, another pod, and maybe an across division rival.

The only issue that I see as a big bump in the road is that we don't have baseball which I heard that we would pick up hockey before adding back baseball and the SEC doesn't have wrestling.

In the end I think it would be fun to join but I think our Administration is gunning for the Big Ten if the big 12 falls apart.

No baseball at Iowa State?

Title IX got rid of it and men gymnastics. Our AD would never admitted it but we couldn't compete with the texahoma schools in baseball. Iowa state has more CWS appearances than KU, KSU, and WVU all combined at a whopping 2.

(08-19-2016 07:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This may sound odd, but I do hope the SEC ends up with a hockey league one day. I enjoy the sport. Actually, I enjoy a lot of different sports although obviously football is my passion.

I do think the SEC starts a hockey league one day although it will likely be some time before that materializes. Every school in the conference has a club team right now and a couple of them, including my beloved Frozen Tide, have moved into the upper division of the club association. The next step is Division I play. A few schools have made that very same move recently, most notably Arizona State.

Even though very few people play hockey in the Southeast growing up, it's basically a sport for suburbanites that live in major metro areas, the club teams here have started recruiting kids from all over the country and even Canada to come to school here and get to play a relatively high level of hockey. Of course, those kids are not on scholarship, but the fact that there are so many good hockey players that can't find a home in Division I would seem to indicate the potential in such an endeavor.

There really aren't that many DI hockey schools. The B1G is the only Power conference with their own league and they only started it recently. Most DI schools are small privates from the Northeast and Midwest that don't have a robust athletic department. There is a gap to fill you could say.

Overall, I don't think ISU not having baseball would be much of a consideration. Even though we love the sport down here, we have plenty of power programs and competition already. It's not really a revenue sport so your exclusion wouldn't really hurt anything. What we do need is good basketball so if ISU can do that, provide the aforementioned underrated football fan base, good academics, and a new market then I think ISU would be attractive to the SEC. Just depends on how the chips fall.

Nice thing about hockey is that there is the opportunity for it to be a revenue producing sport, the game is growing exponentially in sun belt markets with more and more kids playing the sport.

The only true southern school with hockey right now is Alabama Huntsville, and you are right there are very few D1 hockey schools that are from the P5 football conferences.

(08-19-2016 01:38 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 07:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This may sound odd, but I do hope the SEC ends up with a hockey league one day. I enjoy the sport. Actually, I enjoy a lot of different sports although obviously football is my passion.

I do think the SEC starts a hockey league one day although it will likely be some time before that materializes. Every school in the conference has a club team right now and a couple of them, including my beloved Frozen Tide, have moved into the upper division of the club association. The next step is Division I play. A few schools have made that very same move recently, most notably Arizona State.

Even though very few people play hockey in the Southeast growing up, it's basically a sport for suburbanites that live in major metro areas, the club teams here have started recruiting kids from all over the country and even Canada to come to school here and get to play a relatively high level of hockey. Of course, those kids are not on scholarship, but the fact that there are so many good hockey players that can't find a home in Division I would seem to indicate the potential in such an endeavor.

There really aren't that many DI hockey schools. The B1G is the only Power conference with their own league and they only started it recently. Most DI schools are small privates from the Northeast and Midwest that don't have a robust athletic department. There is a gap to fill you could say.

Overall, I don't think ISU not having baseball would be much of a consideration. Even though we love the sport down here, we have plenty of power programs and competition already. It's not really a revenue sport so your exclusion wouldn't really hurt anything. What we do need is good basketball so if ISU can do that, provide the aforementioned underrated football fan base, good academics, and a new market then I think ISU would be attractive to the SEC. Just depends on how the chips fall.

Nice thing about hockey is that there is the opportunity for it to be a revenue producing sport, the game is growing exponentially in sun belt markets with more and more kids playing the sport.

The only true southern school with hockey right now is Alabama Huntsville, and you are right there are very few D1 hockey schools that are from the P5 football conferences.

I agree wholeheartedly, it might be because I'm from the state of hockey but I would love if my Clones would pick up hockey. Outside of Football and Basketball our hockey team has a ton of support. I don't know how many club sports have season tickets but our hockey team seeks them for 75$ a pop and the arena is always filled up.

There is no reason Iowa state couldn't do well in the sport. We have numerous final fours and championships in both the D1 and D3 club levels and last year we were runners up in the national championship.

Our old coach was the first team USA head coach for the world collegiate hockey games which he took Iowa State as his player, so Iowa State takes pride in being the first college hockey team to don the red white and blue.

Our school has the staff and support to make the sport varsity we just need a true D1 arena and scholarships. I don't blame our AD not putting it into the works yet though, they want to improve all our other sports before adding more sports.