Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
Author Message
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,598
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 599
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #1
McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
John MartinVerified account
‏@JohnMartin929
ESPN's Brett McMurphy said on our show earlier the Big 12 is not going to add any schools. PODCAST:

http://media.espn929.com/a/117037140/esp...-11-16.htm
10-11-2016 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fresno St. Alum Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,408
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Fresno St.
Location: CA
Post: #2
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
That sucks, if true. I think all fbs conferences should have at least 12 football playing schools and all D-I conferences should have at least 10.
10-11-2016 10:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,962
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 656
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #3
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
McMurphy is already incorrect when Gee said they are.
10-11-2016 11:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BigEastHomer Offline
Banned

Posts: 11,730
Joined: Oct 2011
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
McMurphy doesn't have any clue what those Presidents are thinking or what they'll hash out once they're together.

The biggest elephant in the room is the lack of commitment from OU and UT. No expansion puts the rest of the conference at extreme risk if they get left behind. At least if they add someone now, they have the opportunity to build the next Louisville type program to stabilize the conference at 10 teams if they lose 2. If they're at 8 or less and they get poached, they'd be dog paddling trying to make a case for inclusion with teams that have been disadvantaged.
10-11-2016 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #5
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
To be clear with this thread, McMurphy said this on a radio show and not on his twitter. Further to me at least, it sounds much more like his opinion in the way it was said rather than reporting facts. This continues a narrative we have seen, but should not be taken the same way we take report from McMurphy (who in those situations is about as good a voice as you'll get).

I think he believes nothing will happen in that meeting and that means a lot still, but more shouldn't be read into that that.
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2016 11:21 PM by ohio1317.)
10-11-2016 11:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #6
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-11-2016 11:03 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  McMurphy doesn't have any clue what those Presidents are thinking or what they'll hash out once they're together.

The biggest elephant in the room is the lack of commitment from OU and UT. No expansion puts the rest of the conference at extreme risk if they get left behind. At least if they add someone now, they have the opportunity to build the next Louisville type program to stabilize the conference at 10 teams if they lose 2. If they're at 8 or less and they get poached, they'd be dog paddling trying to make a case for inclusion with teams that have been disadvantaged.

There's no evidence that conferences that wait to expand end up worse off than those that expand preemptively. Usually that's because even the rump conference is clearly better than the alternative.

E.g., when the Big East was raided, the rump that remained was still able to attract and keep Tulane, Houston, ECU, and Memphis. That's because even though those schools were disappointed that the Big East they ended up in wasn't the AQ Big East they thought they were joining, it was still better than being in CUSA or the Sun Belt. The only schools that left were Boise and SDSU, and they had made it clear that they joined only for AQ status.

So even though it sucks for USF, the Big 12 is probably smart not to expand. If OU and Texas leave 8 years from now, the remaining Big 12 teams could still attract Houston, SMU, Memphis, whoever they want from the MWC or AAC to join them.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 07:29 AM by quo vadis.)
10-12-2016 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


NBPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 188
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: The Hilltop
Post: #7
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-11-2016 11:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  McMurphy is already incorrect when Gee said they are.

Gee never said they were. Reading comprehension.
10-12-2016 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #8
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
I tend to think they are not either

I think Oklahoma wants out, and I think Texas is tired of dealing with old Big 8 tag alongs...
10-12-2016 08:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,278
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #9
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 07:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-11-2016 11:03 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  McMurphy doesn't have any clue what those Presidents are thinking or what they'll hash out once they're together.

The biggest elephant in the room is the lack of commitment from OU and UT. No expansion puts the rest of the conference at extreme risk if they get left behind. At least if they add someone now, they have the opportunity to build the next Louisville type program to stabilize the conference at 10 teams if they lose 2. If they're at 8 or less and they get poached, they'd be dog paddling trying to make a case for inclusion with teams that have been disadvantaged.

There's no evidence that conferences that wait to expand end up worse off than those that expand preemptively. Usually that's because even the rump conference is clearly better than the alternative.

E.g., when the Big East was raided, the rump that remained was still able to attract and keep Tulane, Houston, ECU, and Memphis. That's because even though those schools were disappointed that the Big East they ended up in wasn't the AQ Big East they thought they were joining, it was still better than being in CUSA or the Sun Belt. The only schools that left were Boise and SDSU, and they had made it clear that they joined only for AQ status.

So even though it sucks for USF, the Big 12 is probably smart not to expand. If OU and Texas leave 8 years from now, the remaining Big 12 teams could still attract Houston, SMU, Memphis, whoever they want from the MWC or AAC to join them.
While the American is clearly the sixth best conference it still isn't P5.
TCU ,Utah and Louisville have proven their equals.
Getting two more schools on even ground helps the other eight schools remain P5.
Hard to take the P5 status away if Oklahoma and Texas are not dominating the conference and ten members remain.
Now the T.V. deal will drop but the LHN is already holding them back now.
10-12-2016 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #10
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 08:26 AM)MJG Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 07:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-11-2016 11:03 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  McMurphy doesn't have any clue what those Presidents are thinking or what they'll hash out once they're together.

The biggest elephant in the room is the lack of commitment from OU and UT. No expansion puts the rest of the conference at extreme risk if they get left behind. At least if they add someone now, they have the opportunity to build the next Louisville type program to stabilize the conference at 10 teams if they lose 2. If they're at 8 or less and they get poached, they'd be dog paddling trying to make a case for inclusion with teams that have been disadvantaged.

There's no evidence that conferences that wait to expand end up worse off than those that expand preemptively. Usually that's because even the rump conference is clearly better than the alternative.

E.g., when the Big East was raided, the rump that remained was still able to attract and keep Tulane, Houston, ECU, and Memphis. That's because even though those schools were disappointed that the Big East they ended up in wasn't the AQ Big East they thought they were joining, it was still better than being in CUSA or the Sun Belt. The only schools that left were Boise and SDSU, and they had made it clear that they joined only for AQ status.

So even though it sucks for USF, the Big 12 is probably smart not to expand. If OU and Texas leave 8 years from now, the remaining Big 12 teams could still attract Houston, SMU, Memphis, whoever they want from the MWC or AAC to join them.
While the American is clearly the sixth best conference it still isn't P5.
TCU ,Utah and Louisville have proven their equals.
Getting two more schools on even ground helps the other eight schools remain P5.
Hard to take the P5 status away if Oklahoma and Texas are not dominating the conference and ten members remain.

What does "on even ground" mean? The American added schools after Cuse, Pitt, etc. left, and that didn't help them remain AQ.
10-12-2016 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,484
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #11
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 08:09 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I think Oklahoma wants out, and I think Texas is tired of dealing with old Big 8 tag alongs...
I don't disagree, but to me it boils down to the fact that UT and OU both want something that is, quite simply, impossible: to be at the geographic and political "center" of a league that is the financial/media peer of B1G and SEC. That is just not going to happen in this lifetime, and I think a lot of the drama we've witnessed over the past year or so is really just some of UT's and OU's frustration spilling out into the open.
10-12-2016 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #12
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 08:38 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 08:09 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I think Oklahoma wants out, and I think Texas is tired of dealing with old Big 8 tag alongs...
I don't disagree, but to me it boils down to the fact that UT and OU both want something that is, quite simply, impossible: to be at the geographic and political "center" of a league that is the financial/media peer of B1G and SEC. That is just not going to happen in this lifetime, and I think a lot of the drama we've witnessed over the past year or so is really just some of UT's and OU's frustration spilling out into the open.

I agree. Both have determined that the days where the Big 12 remains the financial equal of the B1G and SEC are numbered. The SECN and the new B1G deals mean that going forward, the Big 12 will be at a big financial disadvantage, schools in those conferences will soon be making $10 million, maybe even more, per year in conference revenue. That is why they refuse to sign the GOR, and it is why they do not want to expand. Expansion would just mean (a) splitting dollars with new teams, and (b) nobody added would solve the fundamental revenue problem anyway.

Both Texas an OU are now focused on moving on to a situation that, in terms of revenues derived from conference membership or independence, would make them the financial equals of the schools in the B1G and SEC.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 09:00 AM by quo vadis.)
10-12-2016 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,962
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 656
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #13
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
Texas and Oklahoma should stop being too greedy and start thinking for the conference as a whole. Texas should start being equals with the rest of their conference mates and dropped the LHN for a Big 12 Network. BYU and Boise State already have their own which could be added to the Big 12 tv pot for more money without losing any money. ESPN could save money that way if those two schools join the Big 12.
10-12-2016 10:13 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #14
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 10:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma should stop being too greedy and start thinking for the conference as a whole. Texas should start being equals with the rest of their conference mates and dropped the LHN for a Big 12 Network. BYU and Boise State already have their own which could be added to the Big 12 tv pot for more money without losing any money. ESPN could save money that way if those two schools join the Big 12.

Nobody at Texas seriously believes that if they give up the $15m they make from the LHN that a Big 12 network would pay them anything close to that. It wouldn't.

Which is why Texas is unwilling to sign a GOR extension. They realize that long run, the Big 12 simply cannot make the money that the B1G and SEC will be making, so they are planning to get out.

And who can blame them? It's not "greedy" to look out for yourself.
10-12-2016 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConnHusky Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,803
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 184
I Root For: UConn/Celts/Red Sox/Pats
Location: Boston, MA
Post: #15
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 08:26 AM)MJG Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 07:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-11-2016 11:03 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  McMurphy doesn't have any clue what those Presidents are thinking or what they'll hash out once they're together.

The biggest elephant in the room is the lack of commitment from OU and UT. No expansion puts the rest of the conference at extreme risk if they get left behind. At least if they add someone now, they have the opportunity to build the next Louisville type program to stabilize the conference at 10 teams if they lose 2. If they're at 8 or less and they get poached, they'd be dog paddling trying to make a case for inclusion with teams that have been disadvantaged.

There's no evidence that conferences that wait to expand end up worse off than those that expand preemptively. Usually that's because even the rump conference is clearly better than the alternative.

E.g., when the Big East was raided, the rump that remained was still able to attract and keep Tulane, Houston, ECU, and Memphis. That's because even though those schools were disappointed that the Big East they ended up in wasn't the AQ Big East they thought they were joining, it was still better than being in CUSA or the Sun Belt. The only schools that left were Boise and SDSU, and they had made it clear that they joined only for AQ status.

So even though it sucks for USF, the Big 12 is probably smart not to expand. If OU and Texas leave 8 years from now, the remaining Big 12 teams could still attract Houston, SMU, Memphis, whoever they want from the MWC or AAC to join them.
While the American is clearly the sixth best conference it still isn't P5.
TCU ,Utah and Louisville have proven their equals.
Getting two more schools on even ground helps the other eight schools remain P5.
Hard to take the P5 status away if Oklahoma and Texas are not dominating the conference and ten members remain.
Now the T.V. deal will drop but the LHN is already holding them back now.

Sorta hard to be "P5" when the "P5" schools have stacked the deck against the "G5" by ensuring that the G5 schools will never have the financial resources to compete with the "P5".

Ain't college sports grand?
01-rivals
10-12-2016 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,701
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1765
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #16
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-11-2016 11:19 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  To be clear with this thread, McMurphy said this on a radio show and not on his twitter. Further to me at least, it sounds much more like his opinion in the way it was said rather than reporting facts. This continues a narrative we have seen, but should not be taken the same way we take report from McMurphy (who in those situations is about as good a voice as you'll get).

I think he believes nothing will happen in that meeting and that means a lot still, but more shouldn't be read into that that.

Yes, people need to be careful. McMurphy's written stories and Tweets are effectively canon. In contrast, his radio interviews are generally based on his personal opinion (which carry much more weight than the average person, but still should be delineated from his actual reporting).
10-12-2016 11:02 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #17
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".


I really do think that none of the presidents has a clue what all other nine presidents are thinking, and that Oct 17th is the first time they're all going to "air it out" and get on the same page about this, in quite some time. They just don't have the time to be constantly thinking about this stuff and calling each other. And email/texting are no good, because of FOIA. They have universities to run!
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 11:11 AM by MplsBison.)
10-12-2016 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BamaScorpio69 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,602
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Non-AQs
Location:
Post: #18
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 08:38 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 08:09 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I think Oklahoma wants out, and I think Texas is tired of dealing with old Big 8 tag alongs...
I don't disagree, but to me it boils down to the fact that UT and OU both want something that is, quite simply, impossible: to be at the geographic and political "center" of a league that is the financial/media peer of B1G and SEC. That is just not going to happen in this lifetime, and I think a lot of the drama we've witnessed over the past year or so is really just some of UT's and OU's frustration spilling out into the open.

I agree. Both have determined that the days where the Big 12 remains the financial equal of the B1G and SEC are numbered. The SECN and the new B1G deals mean that going forward, the Big 12 will be at a big financial disadvantage, schools in those conferences will soon be making $10 million, maybe even more, per year in conference revenue. That is why they refuse to sign the GOR, and it is why they do not want to expand. Expansion would just mean (a) splitting dollars with new teams, and (b) nobody added would solve the fundamental revenue problem anyway.

Both Texas an OU are now focused on moving on to a situation that, in terms of revenues derived from conference membership or independence, would make them the financial equals of the schools in the B1G and SEC.

The Big 12 could be on the same financial footing with the SEC and B1G. The reason it will not happen is because of Texas and OU and the instability those two programs cause for the conference.
10-12-2016 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #19
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
We wont know anything more until the Oct 17th meeting passes and is reported.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app
10-12-2016 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,077
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3251
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #20
RE: McMurphy: Big 12 Not Adding Anyone
(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".


I really do think that none of the presidents has a clue what all other nine presidents are thinking, and that Oct 17th is the first time they're all going to "air it out" and get on the same page about this, in quite some time. They just don't have the time to be constantly thinking about this stuff and calling each other. And email/texting are no good, because of FOIA. They have universities to run!

Well McMurphy has said himself that the presidents aren't talking. So he is getting all his information from others.
10-12-2016 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.