(09-15-2016 08:53 AM)f1do Wrote: (09-15-2016 08:40 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote: (09-15-2016 08:32 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote: I think there is something to expanding by 2 rather than 4 to avoid poking ESPN and Fox to the maximum extent. So this is my (conjecture) summary of what he said:
1. To maintain the peace with the Networks, we really should expand by only 2, to get back to our original 12.
2. If we expand by only 2, Houston isn't going to be one of them. We need to expand the footprint in the way I want.
So we are where we thought all along. They realize 2 is the better number for network relations, but can't agree on just 2. Boren would rather not expand than expand by 2 with UH as one of them.
It's ridiculous to me to be running scared of Houston. I think the best possible outcome of this is to add Houston and Cincinnati as full members and give BYU a scheduling agreement for football similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.
I'm trying to figure out what is accomplished by a scheduling agreement with BYU though. Isn't that just saying we'll add you to our schedules but don't want to give you any conference money? Unless you are saying that the arrangement would give BYU access to Big 12 bowl games and revenue shares for bowl games like Notre Dame gets with the ACC.
the only reason a scheduling agreement would work for the Big 12 is if the Big 12 was NOT going to expand and they were also going to split into divisions AND most importantly play fewer conference games
if the Big 12 expands there is no need for a scheduling agreement because the Big 12 would be foolishly believing that new members somehow made them stronger at the top where they need the most help and a scheduling agreement with BYU brings nothing in that case
if the Big 12 continues to play 9 conference games then the dumbest of all possible things to do is to split into divisions because that locks you into having a CCG with division winners and prevents you from having a CCG with the two best teams as you could without divisions
and the Big 12 could still have half the conference play BYU every 2 years, but why if they are staying with 9 conference games
that just means half the conference goes from 3 OOC games they have a choice of scheduling every two years to 2 and that is just the worst
if the Big 12 goes to 8 conference games then divisions with a CCG makes a modicum of sense because there is a chance you get your top division winners to miss each other and then play in the most meaningful of CCGs which is a non-rematch
but really with 10 teams and 8 conference games a rematch is highly possible as is the possibility of having a CCG that does not feature the two best teams in the conference
it also takes half the conference from having 4 OOC games they control every two years back to only 3 with little added benefit other than having VYU already on the schedule those two years which is not terrible, but perhaps some teams have other needs like WVU scheduling on the east coast
if the Big 12 went to 7 conference games, divisions and then had a scheduling agreement with BYU that would be the best of all possible solutions
you have a much lower chance of a CCG being a repeat, you have a higher chance of teams that are highly ranked being in the CCG, you have half the conference locked into an 8th "P5" quality game with BYU every two years and you give your other programs a great deal of freedom to schedule for their needs in the OOC be it for wins, for recruiting, for rivalry games in the OOC or for playoff chances or for anything in between
