Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
Author Message
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,845
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 885
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #161
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-17-2016 11:23 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 06:49 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 06:46 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Such a $#!t move by the B-12. This wasn't a lot of speculation about lobbying that may be taking place behind closed doors that came to nothing b/c we really didn't know what was going on so there's no one specifically, evidentially that we can blame.

In this case the B-12 formally and publicly solicited resumes and then crapped on every single one of them. It's almost as if they were out to quash whatever value the G5's still possessed...after years of being run-down and disenfranchised by the bigwigs of CFB & ESPN.

There should be lawsuits, sadly...

It looks bad but what would be the nature of any lawsuits?

Yeah, I mean I don't know. If I were a lawyer I'd be spitballin' this over drinks late into the night w/ my colleagues. Who knows what we'd come up with but as lawyers we'd come up with something--04-cheers

It's just such a bizarre situation b/c heretofore this had all mostly been behind closed doors and there was just nothing really publicly formal about it...

...And then this~01-lauramac2

One can argue that they wasted people & institution's time and money. But beyond merely hurting possible 'feelings' or some such....they have in a very, very public way told Everyone that:: we do not find ANY of these candidates of any identifiable worth or value. And, consequently and by easy extension....neither should you!

There's damages there, I should think...

Lawyers don't work like that. We only "spitball" when we have a client willing to pay us hundreds of dollars per hour to "spitball".

So, unless there is a client with a ton of money willing to pay lawyers tens of thousands of dollars....no "spitballing" will occur.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2016 10:34 AM by TerryD.)
10-18-2016 10:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SubGod22 Offline
Average Joe

Posts: 1,887
Joined: Nov 2009
I Root For: Wichita
Location: Outside the Dub
Post: #162
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-17-2016 08:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 08:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 08:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Well it was fun being pretty much right on this. It's also fun to see a league more dysfunctional and poorly run than the old Big East. The only real question left now is what schools will be left holding the bag once UT, OU, KU, and whoever can ride coattails leave?

I don't know whether OU is at present politically tied to OSU, but you can bet over the next four years Sooner supporters in the state will be working to make it untrue, and Pokes supporters in the state will be working to make it true.

Whether OSU supporters can "pull a Virginia Tech" is one of the longer term open storylines for the mid-20's wave of expansion.

Yeah that will be interesting to watch. Also will Kansas be able politically to just leave Kansas State to rot? Iowa State probably has no options, Baylor is in deep trouble, Kansas State better pull every string they can to force them to be tied with KU, and same for OSU. TT will probably be able to buddy up with UT enough to ride along, and maybe TCU will get to play the Baylor role of private tag along. There's no way though they are all gonna get homes out of all of this so who and how many are left will be fascinating to watch 9 years from now.

KSU will not be attached to KU. In this state, the powers that be will not do anything to harm KU. What KU wants, KU pretty much gets.
10-18-2016 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,247
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 214
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #163
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-17-2016 09:04 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 08:56 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Conspiracy Theory:

I've said all along that Boren was laying the ground work to challenge the GoR. The B12 added a CCG but no network and no expansion. Boren is going to argue that the GoR is detrimental and should be voided.

Hard to make that argument listening to him tonight. Obviously politicians are duplicitous but I get the feeling any OU moves will be made by a successor.

Any real harm comes after the earliest damages attainable from exclusion that could have been avoided with expansion (assuming that is even a valid argument). That's...at least a year or two from now? So, 2017/18, 2018/19? At that point, when the end of the GoR is so in sight, why bother, or, what I've wondered since they signed this thing, why you wouldn't see conference-wide movement to dissolve the thing earlier anyway?
10-18-2016 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shannon Panther Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,877
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 370
I Root For: Pitt
Location: Nashville, TN

Donators
Post: #164
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-17-2016 11:23 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 06:49 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 06:46 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Such a $#!t move by the B-12. This wasn't a lot of speculation about lobbying that may be taking place behind closed doors that came to nothing b/c we really didn't know what was going on so there's no one specifically, evidentially that we can blame.

In this case the B-12 formally and publicly solicited resumes and then crapped on every single one of them. It's almost as if they were out to quash whatever value the G5's still possessed...after years of being run-down and disenfranchised by the bigwigs of CFB & ESPN.

There should be lawsuits, sadly...

It looks bad but what would be the nature of any lawsuits?

Yeah, I mean I don't know. If I were a lawyer I'd be spitballin' this over drinks late into the night w/ my colleagues. Who knows what we'd come up with but as lawyers we'd come up with something--04-cheers

It's just such a bizarre situation b/c heretofore this had all mostly been behind closed doors and there was just nothing really publicly formal about it...

...And then this~01-lauramac2

One can argue that they wasted people & institution's time and money. But beyond merely hurting possible 'feelings' or some such....they have in a very, very public way told Everyone that:: we do not find ANY of these candidates of any identifiable worth or value. And, consequently and by easy extension....neither should you!

There's damages there, I should think...

That would require that there was some guarantee made to the candidates that some of them would be chosen. What you are talking about is me applying to an open physicians job and then suing when I don't get hired because I lack the qualifications for the position.

No one was forced to participate. This was the conference equivalent of an open job posting where they decided not to fill the position. Plus, any lawsuit would diminish their possibilities of inclusion later on.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.
10-18-2016 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jgkojak Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 928
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Kansas
Location:
Post: #165
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
The B12 really screwed itself.

Especially the old Big 8 members who were behind keeping to 10.

Do they realize when Tex and OU blow this Popsicle stand they will be left without a home?

At minimum, adding Cinci (on par with all B12 schools in sports and academics) and BYU (ditto) were no-brainers. If BYU is football-only you even get to keep your old Big 10 style 11-team round robin in basketball.

I understand not wanting Houston, but Colorado State is harmless as would adding UCF or USF to get to 14.
10-18-2016 01:17 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: #166
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-18-2016 01:17 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B12 really screwed itself.

Especially the old Big 8 members who were behind keeping to 10.

Do they realize when Tex and OU blow this Popsicle stand they will be left without a home?

I bet they do realize that. But they also realize, or at least believe, that adding BYU, Cincy, Houston, and OK, USF, wouldn't solve that fundamental problem, which is captured by two points:

1) As long as TX and OU are in the conference, it is a Power conference, no matter what.

2) Should TX and OU leave, the conference will cease to be a power conference, no matter what**.

Given that reality, expansion, like anything else, makes no sense from the POV of an "Other Eight" so long as OU and TX are against it. If you are one of the Other Eight, it makes sense to do one thing at all times: Keep TX and OU happy. We can infer from yesterday's meeting that TX and OU were against expansion, or at least against expanding with any of the candidates on the table.

The Iowa State AD captured this sound logic when he said yesterday:

"The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we are in the Mountain West Conference and we are going to get $3 million."

So doing what TX and OU want is, at all times, the only rational thing for an "Other Eight" to do when it comes to conference matters. Of course, if I were an Other Eight, I would hate the vulnerability of being dependent on OU and TX, and would try to improve my brand so that other P5 might find me attractive, but that's an internal matter.


** Save for something unrealistic and outlandish happening, like Notre Dame and USC taking their place.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2016 01:37 PM by quo vadis.)
10-18-2016 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,845
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 885
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #167
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-18-2016 01:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:17 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B12 really screwed itself.

Especially the old Big 8 members who were behind keeping to 10.

Do they realize when Tex and OU blow this Popsicle stand they will be left without a home?

I bet they do realize that. But they also realize, or at least believe, that adding BYU, Cincy, Houston, and OK, USF, wouldn't solve that fundamental problem, which is captured by two points:

1) As long as TX and OU are in the conference, it is a Power conference, no matter what.

2) Should TX and OU leave, the conference will cease to be a power conference, no matter what**.

Given that reality, expansion, like anything else, makes no sense from the POV of an "Other Eight" so long as OU and TX are against it. If you are one of the Other Eight, it makes sense to do one thing at all times: Keep TX and OU happy. We can infer from yesterday's meeting that TX and OU were against expansion, or at least against expanding with any of the candidates on the table.

The Iowa State AD captured this sound logic when he said yesterday:

"The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we are in the Mountain West Conference and we are going to get $3 million."

So doing what TX and OU want is, at all times, the only rational thing for an "Other Eight" to do when it comes to conference matters. Of course, if I were an Other Eight, I would hate the vulnerability of being dependent on OU and TX, and would try to improve my brand so that other P5 might find me attractive, but that's an internal matter.


** Save for something unrealistic and outlandish happening, like Notre Dame and USC taking their place.


I think that the other 8 Big 12 schools think that they can always add those other schools later, after Texas and Oklahoma bolt.
10-18-2016 03:26 PM
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: #168
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-18-2016 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:17 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B12 really screwed itself.

Especially the old Big 8 members who were behind keeping to 10.

Do they realize when Tex and OU blow this Popsicle stand they will be left without a home?

I bet they do realize that. But they also realize, or at least believe, that adding BYU, Cincy, Houston, and OK, USF, wouldn't solve that fundamental problem, which is captured by two points:

1) As long as TX and OU are in the conference, it is a Power conference, no matter what.

2) Should TX and OU leave, the conference will cease to be a power conference, no matter what**.

Given that reality, expansion, like anything else, makes no sense from the POV of an "Other Eight" so long as OU and TX are against it. If you are one of the Other Eight, it makes sense to do one thing at all times: Keep TX and OU happy. We can infer from yesterday's meeting that TX and OU were against expansion, or at least against expanding with any of the candidates on the table.

The Iowa State AD captured this sound logic when he said yesterday:

"The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we are in the Mountain West Conference and we are going to get $3 million."

So doing what TX and OU want is, at all times, the only rational thing for an "Other Eight" to do when it comes to conference matters. Of course, if I were an Other Eight, I would hate the vulnerability of being dependent on OU and TX, and would try to improve my brand so that other P5 might find me attractive, but that's an internal matter.


** Save for something unrealistic and outlandish happening, like Notre Dame and USC taking their place.


I think that the other 8 Big 12 schools think that they can always add those other schools later, after Texas and Oklahoma bolt.

Maybe, and history says they are probably right - e.g., the AAC leftovers were able to add/keep schools that had long hankered to join the Big East, like Memphis, ECU, Houston, and UCF even after the Big East was stripped of its top schools and AQ status.

But even if they don't think they can, it's still not worth splitting 8 years of P5-level revenue with the expansion candidates right now, because if TX and OU bolt, the conference will still lose Power status even if it has those additional schools.
10-18-2016 03:37 PM
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: #169
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-17-2016 09:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-17-2016 08:56 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Conspiracy Theory:

I've said all along that Boren was laying the ground work to challenge the GoR. The B12 added a CCG but no network and no expansion. Boren is going to argue that the GoR is detrimental and should be voided.

Yea you are a legal genius the likes of Davis State. How is boren going to complain about the GOR and expansion and no conference network when there are years and years and years of Big 12 voting records where OU voted against a conference network.

Not to mention there are published articles where joe castaqguillway the AD of OU is on the record as saying that OU was the first program to even THINK OF an independent network and that they were working on the sooner sports network for WELL OVER 5 years before 2012 and in 2012 they signed a TEN YEAR deal for the sooner sports network

Unless one has a pack of morons for a legal team it is pretty much impossible to sue and actually win over something that you were a major contributor to. Your honor we realize that we were against a conference network for the last 10+ years and we worked tirelessly to get our own network for well over 5 years and just less than 4 years ago we signed a 10 year contract for our network.

But now we want a conference network and we can't have one and no one else will break their network deals to let us try and get one and our university president is on record now stating that the media partners and consultants have told us we will not get a conference network. So now we are suing to get relief from a situation we are 100% responsible for

K, thanks!

And PS, ignore the fact that if we get this relief a lot of other programs will be screwed in the process including ones that might have been for a conference network all along

FIFYDA!!!
10-18-2016 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,072
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 504
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #170
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-18-2016 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:17 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B12 really screwed itself.

Especially the old Big 8 members who were behind keeping to 10.

Do they realize when Tex and OU blow this Popsicle stand they will be left without a home?

I bet they do realize that. But they also realize, or at least believe, that adding BYU, Cincy, Houston, and OK, USF, wouldn't solve that fundamental problem, which is captured by two points:

1) As long as TX and OU are in the conference, it is a Power conference, no matter what.

2) Should TX and OU leave, the conference will cease to be a power conference, no matter what**.

Given that reality, expansion, like anything else, makes no sense from the POV of an "Other Eight" so long as OU and TX are against it. If you are one of the Other Eight, it makes sense to do one thing at all times: Keep TX and OU happy. We can infer from yesterday's meeting that TX and OU were against expansion, or at least against expanding with any of the candidates on the table.

The Iowa State AD captured this sound logic when he said yesterday:

"The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we are in the Mountain West Conference and we are going to get $3 million."

So doing what TX and OU want is, at all times, the only rational thing for an "Other Eight" to do when it comes to conference matters. Of course, if I were an Other Eight, I would hate the vulnerability of being dependent on OU and TX, and would try to improve my brand so that other P5 might find me attractive, but that's an internal matter.


** Save for something unrealistic and outlandish happening, like Notre Dame and USC taking their place.


I think that the other 8 Big 12 schools think that they can always add those other schools later, after Texas and Oklahoma bolt.

There's a problem with this rationale, however:
The trajectories of the two divisions (the Power and the "g") are divergent. Meaning, that the further down the line you go the bigger the differences there will be between the two groups.

So, when "UT and OU bolt" somewhere...say 8 years down the line...the disparities between the AAC teams and the remaining B12 teams will be quite large. It will not be a simple matter of calling up a team that's basically "already there," like it would have been right now. It will be more akin to trying to call up a team from the Sunbelt conference and getting them ready to compete.

Not to mention the fact that the ISU AD was basically correct: After OU and UT bolt, the remainder of the B12 is basically the MW meaning that there won't be resources available to try and build up the replacement programs.

It'll be more like, "When OU and UT bolt..." the remainder programs will be looking for a new home in whatever g conferences can accommodate them.
10-18-2016 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,845
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 885
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #171
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-18-2016 04:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-18-2016 01:17 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B12 really screwed itself.

Especially the old Big 8 members who were behind keeping to 10.

Do they realize when Tex and OU blow this Popsicle stand they will be left without a home?

I bet they do realize that. But they also realize, or at least believe, that adding BYU, Cincy, Houston, and OK, USF, wouldn't solve that fundamental problem, which is captured by two points:

1) As long as TX and OU are in the conference, it is a Power conference, no matter what.

2) Should TX and OU leave, the conference will cease to be a power conference, no matter what**.

Given that reality, expansion, like anything else, makes no sense from the POV of an "Other Eight" so long as OU and TX are against it. If you are one of the Other Eight, it makes sense to do one thing at all times: Keep TX and OU happy. We can infer from yesterday's meeting that TX and OU were against expansion, or at least against expanding with any of the candidates on the table.

The Iowa State AD captured this sound logic when he said yesterday:

"The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we are in the Mountain West Conference and we are going to get $3 million."

So doing what TX and OU want is, at all times, the only rational thing for an "Other Eight" to do when it comes to conference matters. Of course, if I were an Other Eight, I would hate the vulnerability of being dependent on OU and TX, and would try to improve my brand so that other P5 might find me attractive, but that's an internal matter.


** Save for something unrealistic and outlandish happening, like Notre Dame and USC taking their place.


I think that the other 8 Big 12 schools think that they can always add those other schools later, after Texas and Oklahoma bolt.

There's a problem with this rationale, however:
The trajectories of the two divisions (the Power and the "g") are divergent. Meaning, that the further down the line you go the bigger the differences there will be between the two groups.

So, when "UT and OU bolt" somewhere...say 8 years down the line...the disparities between the AAC teams and the remaining B12 teams will be quite large. It will not be a simple matter of calling up a team that's basically "already there," like it would have been right now. It will be more akin to trying to call up a team from the Sunbelt conference and getting them ready to compete.

Not to mention the fact that the ISU AD was basically correct: After OU and UT bolt, the remainder of the B12 is basically the MW meaning that there won't be resources available to try and build up the replacement programs.

It'll be more like, "When OU and UT bolt..." the remainder programs will be looking for a new home in whatever g conferences can accommodate them.

I didn't say that I agree with them, just that this is my take on their thinking.
10-18-2016 04:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gitanole Offline
Barista
*

Posts: 4,918
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 1123
I Root For: Florida State
Location: Speared Turf
Post: #172
RE: No Big 12 expansion megathread (Merged)
(10-17-2016 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  My fears came true: In the end, the Big 12 made the smart move, they didn't expand. It never made sense to begin with, not with the available candidates.

It never made sense to you? That's why you threw elbows among other fans about how much more deserving USF is?

07-coffee3
10-18-2016 06:19 PM
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.