I've thrown this out there before and while it's highly unlikely, I would like to outline why I think this works.

Forget TCU and Baylor. Baylor is nuclear and we don't need TCU if we have Texas so for the sake of argument I'm going to say this would be an easy maneuver. By utilizing the remaining 8 to vote and disband the league, the merger is simple.

All the Big 12 publics come on board...Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia.

Now obviously, Virginia Tech and NC State would really make this pretty balanced, but that's not going to happen. I say throw in Rice and Tulane. Yeah, that's right, it keeps getting crazier.

Why does this work?

1. No little brothers are left behind. No political squabbles. No lawsuits.

2. It gets all this crap over with in the most efficient way possible.

3. It creates a content vacuum for any network that chooses not to pay a league of this size. Point being, this league brings a lot of weight to the negotiating table. Does each and every member of this expansion pay for themselves if we're talking about a $50M baseline? No. Well, that's according to the current model which is a hybrid of accessing markets and providing quality content.

The good thing about a league like this is that it contains so much quality content in a variety of different markets that it will be hard to dictate to this new SEC what you're going to pay them. It will be as close to a national league as is possible in college athletics. The amount of content under one roof will be hard to turn down for any network. That means leverage and the more leverage we have the more money we stand to make.

4. It will defray administrative costs.

5. While travel costs will probably increase to some degree due to the odd geography, that sort of cost should be covered by any new contract increases.

6. It creates an opportunity for the league to sponsor more sports...wrestling, men's soccer, women's rowing, and possibly even hockey in the not too distant future. Ice hockey is a revenue sport at many schools so I don't think that should be lost here.

7. While the geography will be odd on some levels, it will give us the opportunity to create regional divisions which will allow more games against regional foes without the necessity of playing a far flung schedule. Yes, there will be long travel on occasion and these games will feel like non-conference games because of their lack of frequency. The benefit, of course, is that it all takes place under one roof so the money stays in house rather than being shared by multiple leagues.

8. We add 5 AAU schools.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State

Central: Texas A&M, Rice, LSU, Tulane, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Play 7 divisional games, 2 permanent rivals from either division, and 2 rotating games.

Rice and Tulane add nothing.

If we are going to add a bunch of b12 schools, add Texas, OU, KU and WVU. Those are to top remaining brands left in the conference. If Texas says no, swap in OSU.

(02-19-2017 02:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Rice and Tulane add nothing.

If we are going to add a bunch of b12 schools, add Texas, OU, KU and WVU. Those are to top remaining brands left in the conference. If Texas says no, swap in OSU.

I've always liked the idea of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia actually so I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

When I first started typing this out, I was going to put Cincinnati and UConn in there....basketball and markets and whatnot.

I stuck Rice and Tulane in there just to add AAU schools and at the same time make everything more compact, but if we were really going to 24 then those last 2 wouldn't matter that much so I'd be open to anyone decent.

When I first started throwing out the idea of a SEC/Big 12 merger, I was being serious. I know it won't happen, but it is the surest way of securing everything we want. That was my always my primary reasoning. When I started thinking about it, I realized that the networks were going to have a hard time not paying us for obtaining that much content so my thinking is that sort of move would shift the paradigm and give a single league unprecedented leverage. That's why I think it would be worth it. With that said, yeah, I know it won't happen that way.

I did find it intriguing though when someone in a position of influence in the Big 12(I can't remember who, but I did read it in an article) started talking about a merger being the best way to save the league. That did get me thinking about it again.

Well just stop thinking then becouse it ain't happening B12 will not break up, Texas and Oklahoma are staying put! At this point in time you can not give a real good reason why the b12 is just going to break up. I know your going to say when the GOR ends or when money from networks gets to this and that
It's just the opposite of what y'all are thinking, the big12 is going to add teams, not break up, you would be better served if you would just try and get Alabama in the NFL, you would have better luck

(02-22-2017 12:10 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well just stop thinking then becouse it ain't happening B12 will not break up, Texas and Oklahoma are staying put! At this point in time you can not give a real good reason why the b12 is just going to break up. I know your going to say when the GOR ends or when money from networks gets to this and that
It's just the opposite of what y'all are thinking, the big12 is going to add teams, not break up, you would be better served if you would just try and get Alabama in the NFL, you would have better luck

Colorado: Gone
Nebraska: Gone
Texas A&M: Gone
Missouri: Gone

Oklahoma: Has looked around often.
Texas: Has been looking around since '91
Kansas: Quietly looking around since '91.

T.C.U.: Happy to be in.
WVU: Happy to be in.

KState: Nowhere else to go.
I.S.U.: Nowhere else to go.

O.S.U.: Hoping OU takes them with them.
T.T.U.: Hoping UT takes them with them.

Baylor: Now a member of the leper colony.

I stated emphatically in 2011 that the Big 12 would never make additions beyond T.C.U. and W.V.U. They just wanted enough to keep their TV contract viable. There will be no further additions. If they were going to add they would have done so when candidates like Louisville were still available.

So why didn't they add this last time around?
1. No Peer Institutions to Add
2. Those available lower the academic standing of the conference.
3. Those available lower the attendance average of the conference.
4. Those available lower the payout per school once pro rata is replaced by a new contract.

In short you have nothing to base your assertion upon. You are the one who is dreaming.

As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

If you want to contribute here then do something besides make unsubstantiated declarations of your wishes.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

(02-22-2017 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 12:10 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well just stop thinking then becouse it ain't happening B12 will not break up, Texas and Oklahoma are staying put! At this point in time you can not give a real good reason why the b12 is just going to break up. I know your going to say when the GOR ends or when money from networks gets to this and that
It's just the opposite of what y'all are thinking, the big12 is going to add teams, not break up, you would be better served if you would just try and get Alabama in the NFL, you would have better luck

Colorado: Gone
Nebraska: Gone
Texas A&M: Gone
Missouri: Gone

Oklahoma: Has looked around often.
Texas: Has been looking around since '91
Kansas: Quietly looking around since '91.

T.C.U.: Happy to be in.
WVU: Happy to be in.

KState: Nowhere else to go.
I.S.U.: Nowhere else to go.

O.S.U.: Hoping OU takes them with them.
T.T.U.: Hoping UT takes them with them.

Baylor: Now a member of the leper colony.

I stated emphatically in 2011 that the Big 12 would never make additions beyond T.C.U. and W.V.U. They just wanted enough to keep their TV contract viable. There will be no further additions. If they were going to add they would have done so when candidates like Louisville were still available.

So why didn't they add this last time around?
1. No Peer Institutions to Add
2. Those available lower the academic standing of the conference.
3. Those available lower the attendance average of the conference.
4. Those available lower the payout per school once pro rata is replaced by a new contract.

In short you have nothing to base your assertion upon. You are the one who is dreaming.

As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

If you want to contribute here then do something besides make unsubstantiated declarations of your wishes.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

Though this is solid analysis, I would hesitate to make the statement "the Big 12 is toast" without modifying it: The Big 12 is toast in its current form.

K State
Iowa State
Oklahoma State
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Baylor

Even after removing Kansas, Texas and OK, this set of schools is a good core group to build up a new Big 12 from, even if one or two more get taken with their big brothers. You still have a hodgepodge of old Big 8 and SWC schools, still have a common identity (of sorts). Obviously the networks won't pay as much to this league but it is still better than the AAC, especially if you take Houston/Cincy/Memphis/BYU?/etc.

Especially so if Texas leaves first and OK/Kansas can be persuaded to stay (and keep their core Big 8 rivalries). Or vice versa, if OK/Kansas or OK/State leave Texas can decide to stay and be the big fish in the small pond.

The "most likely scenario" (OK/State to SEC, Kansas/Iowa S to Big 10, Texas, Tech, TCU and Kansas State to PAC), would still leave value (assuming the league doesn't completely disband):

WVU and Baylor would have a ton of NCAA credit money (similar to the AAC deal), and still have the Big 12 name. Both these schools could be Elite Eight/Final Four this year (and imagine the uproar with a Baylor national championship!). No league will actively pursue Baylor right now but WVU/Baylor could still manage to build a conference that pays better than the current AAC, even if was really just an AAC+ under a different name.

(East: Baylor/Houston/Boise/New Mexico/Colorado State, BYU?/Air Force?)
(West: West Virginia/Memphis/Cincy/UCF/East Carolina)

I know it is a "best of the rest" conference, but it should have value.

I also like this because then we could get an academic G5 conference:
AAC East: Temple, Buffalo, UMass, UConn, South Florida
AAC West: Tulsa, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy

I feel like that is more compact and gives the AAC a stronger identity.

UTEP backfills the MWC, or UTEP/UTSA and North Texas gets the conference back to 12, C-USA has no need to backfill.

(02-22-2017 03:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 12:10 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well just stop thinking then becouse it ain't happening B12 will not break up, Texas and Oklahoma are staying put! At this point in time you can not give a real good reason why the b12 is just going to break up. I know your going to say when the GOR ends or when money from networks gets to this and that
It's just the opposite of what y'all are thinking, the big12 is going to add teams, not break up, you would be better served if you would just try and get Alabama in the NFL, you would have better luck

Colorado: Gone
Nebraska: Gone
Texas A&M: Gone
Missouri: Gone

Oklahoma: Has looked around often.
Texas: Has been looking around since '91
Kansas: Quietly looking around since '91.

T.C.U.: Happy to be in.
WVU: Happy to be in.

KState: Nowhere else to go.
I.S.U.: Nowhere else to go.

O.S.U.: Hoping OU takes them with them.
T.T.U.: Hoping UT takes them with them.

Baylor: Now a member of the leper colony.

I stated emphatically in 2011 that the Big 12 would never make additions beyond T.C.U. and W.V.U. They just wanted enough to keep their TV contract viable. There will be no further additions. If they were going to add they would have done so when candidates like Louisville were still available.

So why didn't they add this last time around?
1. No Peer Institutions to Add
2. Those available lower the academic standing of the conference.
3. Those available lower the attendance average of the conference.
4. Those available lower the payout per school once pro rata is replaced by a new contract.

In short you have nothing to base your assertion upon. You are the one who is dreaming.

As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

If you want to contribute here then do something besides make unsubstantiated declarations of your wishes.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

Though this is solid analysis, I would hesitate to make the statement "the Big 12 is toast" without modifying it: The Big 12 is toast in its current form.

K State
Iowa State
Oklahoma State
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Baylor

Even after removing Kansas, Texas and OK, this set of schools is a good core group to build up a new Big 12 from, even if one or two more get taken with their big brothers. You still have a hodgepodge of old Big 8 and SWC schools, still have a common identity (of sorts). Obviously the networks won't pay as much to this league but it is still better than the AAC, especially if you take Houston/Cincy/Memphis/BYU?/etc.

Especially so if Texas leaves first and OK/Kansas can be persuaded to stay (and keep their core Big 8 rivalries). Or vice versa, if OK/Kansas or OK/State leave Texas can decide to stay and be the big fish in the small pond.

The "most likely scenario" (OK/State to SEC, Kansas/Iowa S to Big 10, Texas, Tech, TCU and Kansas State to PAC), would still leave value (assuming the league doesn't completely disband):

WVU and Baylor would have a ton of NCAA credit money (similar to the AAC deal), and still have the Big 12 name. Both these schools could be Elite Eight/Final Four this year (and imagine the uproar with a Baylor national championship!). No league will actively pursue Baylor right now but WVU/Baylor could still manage to build a conference that pays better than the current AAC, even if was really just an AAC+ under a different name.

(East: Baylor/Houston/Boise/New Mexico/Colorado State, BYU?/Air Force?)
(West: West Virginia/Memphis/Cincy/UCF/East Carolina)

I know it is a "best of the rest" conference, but it should have value.

I also like this because then we could get an academic G5 conference:
AAC East: Temple, Buffalo, UMass, UConn, South Florida
AAC West: Tulsa, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy

I feel like that is more compact and gives the AAC a stronger identity.

UTEP backfills the MWC, or UTEP/UTSA and North Texas gets the conference back to 12, C-USA has no need to backfill.

Your observation is correct, but it is correct as far as semantics permit it to be. They could keep the name Big 12 and rebuild the conference. That much is true. Would it still be a P class conference. No way! Baylor as the sole P school prior to T.C.U. & W.V.U.'s promotion simply won't be enough. Would it be a conference that could rival the AAC in value? Most likely.

So I do understand the point you are making, and I do agree with it, but it lacks the obvious implication of what is going to take place. The number of P5 conferences will be reduced by 1. The money brands will go elsewhere. And the Big 12 as a power conference is gone.

What has been happening since UNC / Duke / UVa / & WF nixed a deal that would have ended the Big 12 in 2011, is Texas has been engaging a strategy of stalling. They know they don't have the market to move forward. They know they don't have prospects to improve that. What they are now vainly hoping for is something that will destroy all conferences and radically alter the face of CFB. In other words if they can't have what they want they are hoping that nobody will get what they want. Where I come from that is called a delusion. Oklahoma is not delusional, but has to be wondering why they hung around for so long with a best buddy that is.

We may one day see a CFB world without conferences, but that isn't happening in the next few decades. The GOR will expire before anything radical is even on the horizon. Only the apocalypse will prevent Texas from having to confront a reality in which they are just another school in a conference roster. So we play these stupid games of interviewing everyone they knew already they would never invite so they can act like they are still in control of their own destiny. The only concessions they make are to OU because they fear the day the Sooners are in the SEC, and they don't want to imagine them in the Big 10 either.

(02-22-2017 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

The decrease is an adjustment to actual value as well as paying for fair market value at 10 shares instead of 12 as the currently are.

Texas has to hope Herman can get the bandwagon fans back on board if TU wants to negotiatiAte a half decent contract. If not, OU will be carrying the majority of the value. If OU can be plucked from the B12, the conference could easily fall apart.

I think a weakened B12 might help Texas. If they lose say four members, just keep the group as a semi-power 5 conference. In football, they schedule everyone in their conference, that's 5 yearly games or 4 if they disassociate from Baylor. That gives each team 7 or 8 non conference games to preserve old rivalries and strenythier scheduling, which as been a recent complaint. They might have to join a regional conference for their others sports. Also, if larger conferences are granted conference semifinal games, what's left of the B12 could request, for fair competitive playing field, that the B12, G5, and FBS independents including Notre Dame form a 4 team playoff similar to the other P5 conferences. The highest BCS ranked schools from that group get the slots.

(02-22-2017 03:26 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

The decrease is an adjustment to actual value as well as paying for fair market value at 10 shares instead of 12 as the currently are.

Texas has to hope Herman can get the bandwagon fans back on board if TU wants to negotiatiAte a half decent contract. If not, OU will be carrying the majority of the value. If OU can be plucked from the B12, the conference could easily fall apart.

I think a weakened B12 might help Texas. If they lose say four members, just keep the group as a semi-power 5 conference. In football, they schedule everyone in their conference, that's 5 yearly games or 4 if they disassociate from Baylor. That gives each team 7 or 8 non conference games to preserve old rivalries and strenythier scheduling, which as been a recent complaint. They might have to join a regional conference for their others sports. Also, if larger conferences are granted conference semifinal games, what's left of the B12 could request, for fair competitive playing field, that the B12, G5, and FBS independents including Notre Dame form a 4 team playoff similar to the other P5 conferences. The highest BCS ranked schools from that group get the slots.

I agree that this is a possibility. They anchor essentially a G5 conference but play enough P schools OOC to gain consideration for a playoff. Personally I think that is way too risky and don't see their inclusion in the CFP as being anywhere near a frequent event. I'm not sure how their fan base responds to that scenario. I think there would be a groundswell for them to affiliate elsewhere.

(02-22-2017 03:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 03:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 12:10 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well just stop thinking then becouse it ain't happening B12 will not break up, Texas and Oklahoma are staying put! At this point in time you can not give a real good reason why the b12 is just going to break up. I know your going to say when the GOR ends or when money from networks gets to this and that
It's just the opposite of what y'all are thinking, the big12 is going to add teams, not break up, you would be better served if you would just try and get Alabama in the NFL, you would have better luck

Colorado: Gone
Nebraska: Gone
Texas A&M: Gone
Missouri: Gone

Oklahoma: Has looked around often.
Texas: Has been looking around since '91
Kansas: Quietly looking around since '91.

T.C.U.: Happy to be in.
WVU: Happy to be in.

KState: Nowhere else to go.
I.S.U.: Nowhere else to go.

O.S.U.: Hoping OU takes them with them.
T.T.U.: Hoping UT takes them with them.

Baylor: Now a member of the leper colony.

I stated emphatically in 2011 that the Big 12 would never make additions beyond T.C.U. and W.V.U. They just wanted enough to keep their TV contract viable. There will be no further additions. If they were going to add they would have done so when candidates like Louisville were still available.

So why didn't they add this last time around?
1. No Peer Institutions to Add
2. Those available lower the academic standing of the conference.
3. Those available lower the attendance average of the conference.
4. Those available lower the payout per school once pro rata is replaced by a new contract.

In short you have nothing to base your assertion upon. You are the one who is dreaming.

As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

If you want to contribute here then do something besides make unsubstantiated declarations of your wishes.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

Though this is solid analysis, I would hesitate to make the statement "the Big 12 is toast" without modifying it: The Big 12 is toast in its current form.

K State
Iowa State
Oklahoma State
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Baylor

Even after removing Kansas, Texas and OK, this set of schools is a good core group to build up a new Big 12 from, even if one or two more get taken with their big brothers. You still have a hodgepodge of old Big 8 and SWC schools, still have a common identity (of sorts). Obviously the networks won't pay as much to this league but it is still better than the AAC, especially if you take Houston/Cincy/Memphis/BYU?/etc.

Especially so if Texas leaves first and OK/Kansas can be persuaded to stay (and keep their core Big 8 rivalries). Or vice versa, if OK/Kansas or OK/State leave Texas can decide to stay and be the big fish in the small pond.

The "most likely scenario" (OK/State to SEC, Kansas/Iowa S to Big 10, Texas, Tech, TCU and Kansas State to PAC), would still leave value (assuming the league doesn't completely disband):

WVU and Baylor would have a ton of NCAA credit money (similar to the AAC deal), and still have the Big 12 name. Both these schools could be Elite Eight/Final Four this year (and imagine the uproar with a Baylor national championship!). No league will actively pursue Baylor right now but WVU/Baylor could still manage to build a conference that pays better than the current AAC, even if was really just an AAC+ under a different name.

(East: Baylor/Houston/Boise/New Mexico/Colorado State, BYU?/Air Force?)
(West: West Virginia/Memphis/Cincy/UCF/East Carolina)

I know it is a "best of the rest" conference, but it should have value.

I also like this because then we could get an academic G5 conference:
AAC East: Temple, Buffalo, UMass, UConn, South Florida
AAC West: Tulsa, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy

I feel like that is more compact and gives the AAC a stronger identity.

UTEP backfills the MWC, or UTEP/UTSA and North Texas gets the conference back to 12, C-USA has no need to backfill.

Your observation is correct, but it is correct as far as semantics permit it to be. They could keep the name Big 12 and rebuild the conference. That much is true. Would it still be a P class conference. No way! Baylor as the sole P school prior to T.C.U. & W.V.U.'s promotion simply won't be enough. Would it be a conference that could rival the AAC in value? Most likely.

So I do understand the point you are making, and I do agree with it, but it lacks the obvious implication of what is going to take place. The number of P5 conferences will be reduced by 1. The money brands will go elsewhere. And the Big 12 as a power conference is gone.

You are correct that I failed to state obvious implications, and yes I know it is a semantic issue.

Here are some other implications:
1) The Big 12 will become what the Big East/AAC was in terms of an in-between grouping.
2) Since the Big 12 takes the best of the AAC/MWC in this scenario, there is now an even greater difference between the new P4-"in-between conference"-and the G5 than there is with a P5-AAC/MWC-rest of G5 pattern.
3) Since the new Big 12 is a "best of the rest" conference, it has the potential to lock out the remaining G5 conferences from the NY6 game (of course anything can happen), but this improves the likelihood of a G5 playoff if they feel locked out of the higher bowl bids.
3b) Since no league is actually going away, but the Big 12 is building itself from teams from the AAC/MWC, the G5 teams actually wind up making MORE money in 10 team leagues than as 12 leagues.
3c) If the Big 12 consistently gets the NY6 game, they could eventually get a contract for it, proving themselves to be more powerful than the other G5s. Payouts would not be on the same level as the P4 schools, but it would be a status symbol.
4) Since the Big 12 "still exists" even in a lessened format, it offers schools who join a better chance at a multi-NCAA tournament bid league vs the current AAC. The P4 probably increase their percentage of the at-large bids overall.
5) The AAC as an academically focused league differentiates itself from the other G5, possibly getting more recruits, etc.
6) C-USA moves from 14 schools to either 12 (UTEP/Rice gone, or 10, UTSA/North Texas as well), and each school has more money and less travel expenses. Same with MAC who lost Buffalo in this scenario. At that level, an extra 100K goes a long way toward helping the school hire coaches, etc.

So, versus a disbanding of the Big 12, the Big 12 remaining in a new form provides more money to individual G5 leagues, but possibly less access to the major bowls. Therefore, a scenario where the Big 12 remains may:
1) Allow the G5 schools to be more competitive by using the extra money (however small), to find and or keep better coaches or improve facilities.
2) OR it could lead to a faster split as the G5 lose access to the major bowls.

(02-22-2017 03:41 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 03:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 03:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 12:10 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well just stop thinking then becouse it ain't happening B12 will not break up, Texas and Oklahoma are staying put! At this point in time you can not give a real good reason why the b12 is just going to break up. I know your going to say when the GOR ends or when money from networks gets to this and that
It's just the opposite of what y'all are thinking, the big12 is going to add teams, not break up, you would be better served if you would just try and get Alabama in the NFL, you would have better luck

Colorado: Gone
Nebraska: Gone
Texas A&M: Gone
Missouri: Gone

Oklahoma: Has looked around often.
Texas: Has been looking around since '91
Kansas: Quietly looking around since '91.

T.C.U.: Happy to be in.
WVU: Happy to be in.

KState: Nowhere else to go.
I.S.U.: Nowhere else to go.

O.S.U.: Hoping OU takes them with them.
T.T.U.: Hoping UT takes them with them.

Baylor: Now a member of the leper colony.

I stated emphatically in 2011 that the Big 12 would never make additions beyond T.C.U. and W.V.U. They just wanted enough to keep their TV contract viable. There will be no further additions. If they were going to add they would have done so when candidates like Louisville were still available.

So why didn't they add this last time around?
1. No Peer Institutions to Add
2. Those available lower the academic standing of the conference.
3. Those available lower the attendance average of the conference.
4. Those available lower the payout per school once pro rata is replaced by a new contract.

In short you have nothing to base your assertion upon. You are the one who is dreaming.

As is the Big 12 is overpaid. The new contract will not be an increase and could well be a decrease. OU & UT know this. They aren't tying themselves to less revenue, a miniscule market, and no upside by letting in the dwarfs.

If you want to contribute here then do something besides make unsubstantiated declarations of your wishes.

The Big 12 is toast and everyone outside of the Big 12 knows it, including the networks.

Though this is solid analysis, I would hesitate to make the statement "the Big 12 is toast" without modifying it: The Big 12 is toast in its current form.

K State
Iowa State
Oklahoma State
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Baylor

Even after removing Kansas, Texas and OK, this set of schools is a good core group to build up a new Big 12 from, even if one or two more get taken with their big brothers. You still have a hodgepodge of old Big 8 and SWC schools, still have a common identity (of sorts). Obviously the networks won't pay as much to this league but it is still better than the AAC, especially if you take Houston/Cincy/Memphis/BYU?/etc.

Especially so if Texas leaves first and OK/Kansas can be persuaded to stay (and keep their core Big 8 rivalries). Or vice versa, if OK/Kansas or OK/State leave Texas can decide to stay and be the big fish in the small pond.

The "most likely scenario" (OK/State to SEC, Kansas/Iowa S to Big 10, Texas, Tech, TCU and Kansas State to PAC), would still leave value (assuming the league doesn't completely disband):

WVU and Baylor would have a ton of NCAA credit money (similar to the AAC deal), and still have the Big 12 name. Both these schools could be Elite Eight/Final Four this year (and imagine the uproar with a Baylor national championship!). No league will actively pursue Baylor right now but WVU/Baylor could still manage to build a conference that pays better than the current AAC, even if was really just an AAC+ under a different name.

(East: Baylor/Houston/Boise/New Mexico/Colorado State, BYU?/Air Force?)
(West: West Virginia/Memphis/Cincy/UCF/East Carolina)

I know it is a "best of the rest" conference, but it should have value.

I also like this because then we could get an academic G5 conference:
AAC East: Temple, Buffalo, UMass, UConn, South Florida
AAC West: Tulsa, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy

I feel like that is more compact and gives the AAC a stronger identity.

UTEP backfills the MWC, or UTEP/UTSA and North Texas gets the conference back to 12, C-USA has no need to backfill.

Your observation is correct, but it is correct as far as semantics permit it to be. They could keep the name Big 12 and rebuild the conference. That much is true. Would it still be a P class conference. No way! Baylor as the sole P school prior to T.C.U. & W.V.U.'s promotion simply won't be enough. Would it be a conference that could rival the AAC in value? Most likely.

So I do understand the point you are making, and I do agree with it, but it lacks the obvious implication of what is going to take place. The number of P5 conferences will be reduced by 1. The money brands will go elsewhere. And the Big 12 as a power conference is gone.

You are correct that I failed to state obvious implications, and yes I know it is a semantic issue.

Here are some other implications:
1) The Big 12 will become what the Big East/AAC was in terms of an in-between grouping.
2) Since the Big 12 takes the best of the AAC/MWC in this scenario, there is now an even greater difference between the new P4-"in-between conference"-and the G5 than there is with a P5-AAC/MWC-rest of G5 pattern.
3) Since the new Big 12 is a "best of the rest" conference, it has the potential to lock out the remaining G5 conferences from the NY6 game (of course anything can happen), but this improves the likelihood of a G5 playoff if they feel locked out of the higher bowl bids.
3b) Since no league is actually going away, but the Big 12 is building itself from teams from the AAC/MWC, the G5 teams actually wind up making MORE money in 10 team leagues than as 12 leagues.
3c) If the Big 12 consistently gets the NY6 game, they could eventually get a contract for it, proving themselves to be more powerful than the other G5s. Payouts would not be on the same level as the P4 schools, but it would be a status symbol.
4) Since the Big 12 "still exists" even in a lessened format, it offers schools who join a better chance at a multi-NCAA tournament bid league vs the current AAC. The P4 probably increase their percentage of the at-large bids overall.
5) The AAC as an academically focused league differentiates itself from the other G5, possibly getting more recruits, etc.
6) C-USA moves from 14 schools to either 12 (UTEP/Rice gone, or 10, UTSA/North Texas as well), and each school has more money and less travel expenses. Same with MAC who lost Buffalo in this scenario. At that level, an extra 100K goes a long way toward helping the school hire coaches, etc.

So, versus a disbanding of the Big 12, the Big 12 remaining in a new form provides more money to individual G5 leagues, but possibly less access to the major bowls. Therefore, a scenario where the Big 12 remains may:
1) Allow the G5 schools to be more competitive by using the extra money (however small), to find and or keep better coaches or improve facilities.
2) OR it could lead to a faster split as the G5 lose access to the major bowls.

I think that is a great analysis if your premise proves to be true. My money on the eventual outcome of that scenario would be #2. And the G5 would move to a playoff and host it at campus sites until the final. That would be their approved avenue for TV revenue outside of the regular season.

My latest maniacal plan revolves around the idea that the networks would find it more economical to simply move the powers out of the Big 12 and rebuild the Big 12 at a bargain basement price rather than shoehorning several schools into leagues where they don't really fit. What follows is post GOR alignment...

I touched on it in another thread, but how about this...

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas move to the SEC

Why and how? Well, the moves are obviously beneficial to the SEC, no issue there. You take OSU to get OU. That move is fine in itself, but Texas probably wants to come on board if all their rivals are in the SEC. You add KU as a very strong 4th and you're in business.

The moves are beneficial to the schools with the possible exception that Texas might want Texas Tech to come along...more on that later. ESPN benefits by taking the top grossing products of the Big 12 and storing them elsewhere. Yes, they'll be paying more than $50M per team, but they'll cut their losses on the LHN and own the premier conference in college athletics.

They also get nice content at a bargain basement price as long as the Big 12 rebuilds itself. If the league loses those 4 then they could easily add 6 decent schools and become a more viable league than the American. Plus, they'd have the brand equity of the Big 12 name as opposed to something newer. For example, add BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, and UConn

New Big 12

West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State

East: Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, UConn

Not a bad league. It's got better brands and content compared to the current American. It's got better brand equity. It also comes at a cheaper price than the current Big 12 contract. There's no way the Big 12 is going to get true Power money when their power schools leave so this is really the best case scenario for them. It provides stability and decent money because ESPN can market decent football and basketball from it.

Why is this cheaper than shoehorning some of the Big 12 schools into leagues where they don't fit. Well, in this scenario, the only league that gets a boost is the SEC. The B1G, PAC, and ACC stay at current payouts. The networks get all the same content for a cheaper price because you don't have to pay the other Power leagues to A) take schools they don't want or B) divvy up the Big 12 when the value isn't there beyond the top schools.

Now, it does make sense that you could divvy up the Big 12 in other ways, but I think there are flaws in each of those scenarios.

I can see the B1G wanting Kansas and Oklahoma, but if they don't get OU then KU doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe they would take KU and UConn. I don't see Iowa State as a realistic option because ISU gives the B1G nothing it doesn't already have. Kansas is a good brand, but the market is not big enough that they would expand just to get Kansas...just my opinion. I think that's especially true given the value of their new contract. UConn seems like a reasonable compromise, but I think if you gave KU the option of remaining with OU, UT, and MU that they would probably take the SEC in that scenario. Of course, if UT demands Texas Tech as the 4th then it doesn't really matter.

I think the ACC might take WVU, but only if Notre Dame is going all in and there is currently no mechanism in place to force them to do that. I think one day, they'll have to, but not until their playoff chances are threatened by not being in the ACC fully.

The PAC? It makes a ton of sense that they would take a few leftovers to get into the Central Time Zone, but the snobs on the West Coast don't think like you and me. If they did then BYU would probably already be in the PAC. I don't think they take any Big 12 school unless UT is coming with them. Just my guess.

The unfortunately reality is that the Big 12 just doesn't have many schools worth taking right now. If they did then they probably wouldn't be ripe for the picking. This frames my thinking for believe that there will be winners and losers in this.

I think the path of least resistance is for the networks to pay one league and leave the rest as is. Now, maybe in the future the B1G and PAC essentially merge or the SEC can grab a few ACC powers...all of which to create a new and more balanced dynamic.

Other than that, the networks get a slightly altered Big 12 at a bargain price while not increasing the payouts for the others and paying even more for the same schools that are already being overpaid in the Big 12.

Thoughts?

Jrsec I wish we were in a position to bet on the b12 future, gosh

(02-22-2017 07:13 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Jrsec I wish we were in a position to bet on the b12 future, gosh

If I'm right you rep me +3. If you are right I'll rep you +3. How's that for a bet?

Yeah done deal

(02-22-2017 05:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This frames my thinking for believe that there will be winners and losers in this.

At what point does the gravy train stop for the likes of Purdue, Wake Forest, Washington State, etc.?

Or, do proximity and history forever keep the under-performers attached to the faucet?

Or, is it mathematics that keep them in play? (you've got to get easier wins against someone....)

(02-24-2017 05:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 05:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This frames my thinking for believe that there will be winners and losers in this.

At what point does the gravy train stop for the likes of Purdue, Wake Forest, Washington State, etc.?

Or, do proximity and history forever keep the under-performers attached to the faucet?

Or, is it mathematics that keep them in play? (you've got to get easier wins against someone....)

They will hang in for a long long time. But, at some point the drive for more content will lead to leagues. With leagues there may finally be some casualties among the weak sisters of the P4.

People argue for Connecticut's inclusion and for Cincinnati's inclusion and they cite revenue and titles and various other things. But, honestly there is only one school which hands down has P5 credentials but is not in. And, yes it is your Cougars. You aren't in only because you are private, and have a religious connotation associated with the school. So, in other words you aren't in because of the intolerance of the PAC intellectuals.