I'm not at all convinced that the demise of the Big XII is inevitable, any more than I was when the popular wisdom was that the ACC was about to implode. The first rule to remember with all this realignment speculation is the law of inertia. There have to be far more compelling reasons to leave a conference than there are for staying in it.

I keep hearing lots of reasons why this school or that wants to make a change. But I also hear lots of reasons why school X wants this conference, but that conference doesn't really want school X. At the end of the day, I don't see that we are at that tipping point where the reasons for breaking up the Big XII outweigh the need to keep it, and largely intact.

The fundamental fact, IMO, is that Texas is right where they need to be, and that their reasons for staying put are much more cogent than any vague desire to be associated with eastern schools with higher academic prestige than their current conference mates.

I keep hearing on the one hand that every other P5 conference would take Texas in a heartbeat. I'm not convinced of that. On the other hand, I keep hearing that most of the Big XII schools besides OU hate having to put up with Texas and their colossal ego. I have to believe members of the other P5 conferences have heard the same thing. They are neither deaf nor stupid. But despite not liking Texas behavior, none of their conference mates want to lose their biannual home game with them.

None of this adds up, IMO, to crossing the inertia threshold. If the media wanted to let the Big XII die, they had their golden opportunity a few years ago and declined. I don't see that anything of significance changes that calculus now. And, more than ever, none of the other power conferences really need to do anything. So why should, or would, they go out of their way to seek a final solution to the "Big XII problem"?

I don't think giving closure to internet realignment geeks is reason enough.

(05-05-2017 07:34 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:04 PM)Rob of NV Wrote:  This Coloradoan columnist builds on Paul Finebaum's (ESPN SEC Network) comments made a few days ago on a radio show regarding the demise of the Big 12 Conference. http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/c...309138001/

I think there's a few points to remember when discussing realignment and the demise of the Big 12.

One, everything revolves around Texas. They're the last big fish in the pond and EVERYONE will be jockeying for position to get them into their conference.

Two, some thing that the GOR and the LHN are big obstacles but remember ANY contract can be broken or renegotiated for the right price.

Three, those conferences where academics matter (PAC & B1G) would gladly swallow their pride and take a Oklahoma if it meant landing Texas.

Four, Kansas needs to hitch it's wagon to Texas because I don't see anyone rushing to add them without the Longhorns. Maybe if they partner with Oklahoma, but that's questionable.

Five, outside of those three, the rest of the Big 12 had better be prepared to accept life in the AAC or form a similar conference on their own.

I'll say this: there's no swallowing of pride required for either the Big Ten or Pac-12 to add Oklahoma. Either league (and I know the Big Ten specifically) would add OU with or without Texas. No question about it.

The swallowing of pride would only occur if they need to include a "little brother" school like Oklahoma State. The Big Ten won't do that under any circumstances. The Pac-12 won't add just OU and Oklahoma State, but considering the 2010 Pac-16 proposal, I could certainly see a Texas/Texas Tech/OU/Oklahoma State proposal down the road. The Pac-12 has at least shown an openness to a package deal with "little brothers" that neither the Big Ten nor SEC would consider. (It's unclear where the ACC stands on that front.) Also, the Pac-12 has the flexibility to add 4 schools and still be at 16 members. For practical purposes, it's tough to see any league going beyond 16 schools. As a result, the Pac-12 seems to be in the best position to land Texas and Oklahoma because they provide the most options to create a package deal. The Big Ten and SEC, on the other hand, can't have ANY "fat" in an expansion: the only schools that they're interested in at all are Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas specifically (and *maybe* West Virginia in the case of the SEC).

Separately, this board generally understands the importance of football in conference realignment very well, but also tends to have a hard time evaluating special cases with respect to basketball (such as the value of the Big East overall). Kansas is a VERY special case with respect to basketball. Note that KU actually had the highest third tier rights revenue in the Big 12 before the Longhorn Network was created. (Translation: they would be a MONSTER revenue generator for a conference network.) It's also one of the few truly national marquee brands for basketball that are on the level of the football kings. (The others are Kentucky, Duke, UNC, UCLA and Indiana.) KU is also an AAU member for academics on top of all of that. I cringe whenever I see an argument that Kansas won't find a home. Believe me - ALL 4 other power conferences would take Kansas *alone* in a heartbeat. Texas isn't required at all. (Now, if Kansas State needs to be taken along to get Kansas, then that's an entirely different matter. The B1G and SEC aren't considering "little brothers" at all.)

(05-05-2017 09:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:37 AM)3BNole Wrote:  Similarly, who would the BTN aim for to come along w/ Kansas? This one is more difficult to answer because of their pension for AAU programs. KSU, ISU, and OSU (if available) would all make sense for different reasons.

Missouri. Not kidding. The SEC doesn't have a GOR and the B10 is where Missouri wanted to be originally. They're also a better cultural fit there.
SEC would be down to 13 members. They'd add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and WVU/TCU and call it a day. All of those are better fits for the SEC than Missouri is.

If you look at a map, Missouri and Kansas to the B1G seems to make a lot of sense. But what do those schools add to the B1G that it doesn't already have? Not much, that I can see, and they would just add two more mouths to feed.

And if Missouri were to leave the SEC, why would the SEC then need to add anyone except Oklahoma? Everybody else is a revenue drag on the conference.

I would be shocked if the prime beef schools of the big 12, Texas, ou and ku will screw over the ground chunk schools, Texas tech, ok state, kan state + I think you add io state to the group. I don't believe tcu, Baylor and wvu are a concern to Texas, ou and ku power base. Thus, how do you fit the 7 schools into a final solution? A PAC 18 or 20 is the best answer. A PAC 18 would mean Iowa state joins the big 10 with say Missouri but that seems unlikely. I guess Iowa state could also work for sec but that seems doubtful. Thus, I think a PAC 20 happens with espn getting a chunk of the PAC network, team 8 is either tcu or Houston. Heck, this could happen today if

1 PAC 12 cuts a deal with espn for network
2 eight big 12 schools move to PAC 12
3 Baylor and wvu move to either sec or acc
4 rule change so PAC 20 can act as 2 leagues with football title game as only cross over

3 and 4 might not be needed

(05-05-2017 10:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 09:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:37 AM)3BNole Wrote:  Similarly, who would the BTN aim for to come along w/ Kansas? This one is more difficult to answer because of their pension for AAU programs. KSU, ISU, and OSU (if available) would all make sense for different reasons.

Missouri. Not kidding. The SEC doesn't have a GOR and the B10 is where Missouri wanted to be originally. They're also a better cultural fit there.
SEC would be down to 13 members. They'd add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and WVU/TCU and call it a day. All of those are better fits for the SEC than Missouri is.

If you look at a map, Missouri and Kansas to the B1G seems to make a lot of sense. But what do those schools add to the B1G that it doesn't already have? Not much, that I can see, and they would just add two more mouths to feed.

And if Missouri were to leave the SEC, why would the SEC then need to add anyone except Oklahoma? Everybody else is a revenue drag on the conference.

Kansas basketball and a bigger slice of Kansas City and St Louis. Also...

KU-MU rivalry
MU-MU rivalry
MU-NU rivalry
MU-UIUC rivalry
Better travel for the Eastern non revenue sports when they go West.

Oklahoma might demand that little brother come along. I think the SEC would be open to that. They'd make a good travel partner for both OU and Arky.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-05-2017 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 07:34 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:04 PM)Rob of NV Wrote:  This Coloradoan columnist builds on Paul Finebaum's (ESPN SEC Network) comments made a few days ago on a radio show regarding the demise of the Big 12 Conference. http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/c...309138001/

I think there's a few points to remember when discussing realignment and the demise of the Big 12.

One, everything revolves around Texas. They're the last big fish in the pond and EVERYONE will be jockeying for position to get them into their conference.

Two, some thing that the GOR and the LHN are big obstacles but remember ANY contract can be broken or renegotiated for the right price.

Three, those conferences where academics matter (PAC & B1G) would gladly swallow their pride and take a Oklahoma if it meant landing Texas.

Four, Kansas needs to hitch it's wagon to Texas because I don't see anyone rushing to add them without the Longhorns. Maybe if they partner with Oklahoma, but that's questionable.

Five, outside of those three, the rest of the Big 12 had better be prepared to accept life in the AAC or form a similar conference on their own.

I'll say this: there's no swallowing of pride required for either the Big Ten or Pac-12 to add Oklahoma. Either league (and I know the Big Ten specifically) would add OU with or without Texas. No question about it.

The swallowing of pride would only occur if they need to include a "little brother" school like Oklahoma State. The Big Ten won't do that under any circumstances. The Pac-12 won't add just OU and Oklahoma State, but considering the 2010 Pac-16 proposal, I could certainly see a Texas/Texas Tech/OU/Oklahoma State proposal down the road. The Pac-12 has at least shown an openness to a package deal with "little brothers" that neither the Big Ten nor SEC would consider. (It's unclear where the ACC stands on that front.) Also, the Pac-12 has the flexibility to add 4 schools and still be at 16 members. For practical purposes, it's tough to see any league going beyond 16 schools. As a result, the Pac-12 seems to be in the best position to land Texas and Oklahoma because they provide the most options to create a package deal. The Big Ten and SEC, on the other hand, can't have ANY "fat" in an expansion: the only schools that they're interested in at all are Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas specifically (and *maybe* West Virginia in the case of the SEC).

Separately, this board generally understands the importance of football in conference realignment very well, but also tends to have a hard time evaluating special cases with respect to basketball (such as the value of the Big East overall). Kansas is a VERY special case with respect to basketball. Note that KU actually had the highest third tier rights revenue in the Big 12 before the Longhorn Network was created. (Translation: they would be a MONSTER revenue generator for a conference network.) It's also one of the few truly national marquee brands for basketball that are on the level of the football kings. (The others are Kentucky, Duke, UNC, UCLA and Indiana.) KU is also an AAU member for academics on top of all of that. I cringe whenever I see an argument that Kansas won't find a home. Believe me - ALL 4 other power conferences would take Kansas *alone* in a heartbeat. Texas isn't required at all. (Now, if Kansas State needs to be taken along to get Kansas, then that's an entirely different matter. The B1G and SEC aren't considering "little brothers" at all.)

I guess I should have been a bit more specific about swallowing their pride. What I meant is that the academia types at many universities tend to thumb their nose at the sports programs and other institutions that they feel don't measure up. What they do like is money and adding an Oklahoma along with a Texas would be a financial boon to any conference.

As for Kansas, I tend to be a bit more bearish than you it appears. While I agree that they are a blue blood basketball program, their football is pretty much a disgrace. Whatever benefit their basketball would add to a conference, their football would diminish that in a major way.

I've been a realignment junky for a while now (including following you on twitter) and it seems that any expansion candidate has to be a net addition to the conference. Take Rutgers, while their sports programs have fallen on hard times, they bring a huge market for both TV and recruiting. Does Kansas basketball outweigh the fact that they have a bad football team and their viewership footprint is negligible? I don't know but that's one of the great things about realignment talk, we can all speculate and guess.

Kansas basketball has fans everywhere. They're like Duke in that regard.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

I do think the Missouri Kansas combo could work great for the big 10 but for it to happen in a 16 team big 10 is a long shot. I would guess the PAC 12 would need to pick off Texas, Texas tech, ou and ok state to jump to 16. Than the big 10 brings in ku and goes after Missouri. I think Missouri would jump to the big 10 if Texas, ou and ku were in the fold but not sure they go just with Kansas. Than again, if the PAC 12 got the Texas group and the big 10 added Missouri and ku, the sec could add tcu with 2 eastern schools to get to 16. That would leave the acc needing some additions to join the 16 team club, maybe they lose a school or two the sec but they would have options. The aac takes the best of the rest from the leftovers, Baylor, k state, etc

(05-05-2017 10:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I do think the Missouri Kansas combo could work great for the big 10 but for it to happen in a 16 team big 10 is a long shot. I would guess the PAC 12 would need to pick off Texas, Texas tech, ou and ok state to jump to 16. Than the big 10 brings in ku and goes after Missouri. I think Missouri would jump to the big 10 if Texas, ou and ku were in the fold but not sure they go just with Kansas.

Not necessarily. Pac 12 could pick off Texas + one other. SEC could pick off 1 or 3 in my KU+MU to B10 scenario. There's a lot of ways it could work out if KU goes to the Big 10.

(05-05-2017 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't think giving closure to internet realignment geeks is reason enough.

Ha. There never will be closure. People here will just move on to other oddball theories and/or scenarios that could never happen unless all of the NCAA by-laws are repealed and replaced with new rules written by flying unicorns.

The ACC has had eyes on Texas as far back as 2011:


(from Virginia Tech student newspaper)

Honestly, I've never heard of outright interest in any other Big XII teams except two: West Virginia and Iowa State. Both were fan board "insider" rumors.

In my mind, if the ACC is seriously considering Texas - especially with a "Notre Dame" type deal - it would need to get 3 teams from that state: Texas plus TCU and Baylor (or Houston). Why? Guarantee a Texas trip for every ACC team at least once every other year, and provide traveling partners for all other sports.

see also ACC 15 and 16 posted on my blog back on 1/29/15.

I think we should go with Texas, TCU, and Houston, if the ACC were to enter Texas.

(05-05-2017 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not at all convinced that the demise of the Big XII is inevitable, any more than I was when the popular wisdom was that the ACC was about to implode. The first rule to remember with all this realignment speculation is the law of inertia. There have to be far more compelling reasons to leave a conference than there are for staying in it.

I keep hearing lots of reasons why this school or that wants to make a change. But I also hear lots of reasons why school X wants this conference, but that conference doesn't really want school X. At the end of the day, I don't see that we are at that tipping point where the reasons for breaking up the Big XII outweigh the need to keep it, and largely intact.

The fundamental fact, IMO, is that Texas is right where they need to be, and that their reasons for staying put are much more cogent than any vague desire to be associated with eastern schools with higher academic prestige than their current conference mates.

I keep hearing on the one hand that every other P5 conference would take Texas in a heartbeat. I'm not convinced of that. On the other hand, I keep hearing that most of the Big XII schools besides OU hate having to put up with Texas and their colossal ego. I have to believe members of the other P5 conferences have heard the same thing. They are neither deaf nor stupid. But despite not liking Texas behavior, none of their conference mates want to lose their biannual home game with them.

None of this adds up, IMO, to crossing the inertia threshold. If the media wanted to let the Big XII die, they had their golden opportunity a few years ago and declined. I don't see that anything of significance changes that calculus now. And, more than ever, none of the other power conferences really need to do anything. So why should, or would, they go out of their way to seek a final solution to the "Big XII problem"?

I don't think giving closure to internet realignment geeks is reason enough.

While I understand your reasoning KenD, I'd say that the reasons they would move have been amply expressed by the concerns each of those schools have raised over scheduling (particularly OU and UT whose fans and donors constantly complain about the quality of their home schedules). Texas suffers attendance issues but so far OU has not. Then there are the lags they are suffering in recruiting, particularly as it has significantly been connected to a protracted decline in NFL draftees. And even though we are talking about the 2 of the top 4 revenue earners last year, both could make more by a move. The TV revenue might not make up the difference but which ever conference they chose (either the Big 10 or SEC if TV money is a factor in their decision) would receive a nice bump for one of those two brands, but a significant boost for both. But in either they would have the names that draw fans, inspire donations, and attract the eyes of the nation which helps with merchandising and ad revenue, and which provide the competition that get their programs on national television much more often than October in Dallas.

As to the GOR, it expires in 2024-5. Big 12 bylaws require a 2 year prior notification to leaving which the GOR forbids for reasons Todge laid out. So their operating rules conflict with their GOR's provisions. There's wiggle room there I'd say. But, big hairy deal! When the GOR has 2 years until expiration the settlement will be no big deal for any of the top brands. So 2022-3 is when almost every school in the conference will be shopping. That's why 5 years got thrown around by the talking heads, including Finebaum. I really don't see one member challenging another on this topic. Baylor may not even be a voting member by then. The Feds are investigating them now for violation of the Clery Act and Title 9. Should Baylor get hammered, the Big 12 could easily suspend their voting privileges. Then 7 can dissolve the conference. The biggest reason I could see that OU wants to take OSU with them would be in order to make the case that the GOR actually constitutes an undue burden on a Sovereign state and its citizens by constraining the ability of those schools from relieving part of the burden of support of those institutions from its taxpayers. After all these schools are an extension of the state, subject to its appropriations, and therefore their actions impact the people. While a school would never make that argument, the state might.

Anyway, I think there are ample reasons for them to leave and when they do it will be to a conference where there are either brand peers, or academic peers, or both and if so those conferences will be offering a lot more revenue than the PAC presently does.

(05-05-2017 11:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think we should go with Texas, TCU, and Houston, if the ACC were to enter Texas.

I really don't want another ND type deal. I think the goal would be Texas and ND as full members at 16. ND refuses, Texas and OK is who I would target to be 16 For Basketball, 17th place basketball team, misses ACC Tourney.

I would say Texas and tcu and nobody else from the big 12. Team 18 should be 1 from uconn, wvu or cincy. Than break into 3 pods of 6.

(05-05-2017 11:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think we should go with Texas, TCU, and Houston, if the ACC were to enter Texas.

To me the ACC is the least likely to land Texas even with a Notre Dame type deal. Their fans would have no interest in play Pitt, VT, BC, GT, FSU and the others in all theit other sports.

The ACC wouldn't add TCU and Baylor/Houston for all sports just to possibly get Texas down the line. That would close off the possibility of ND ever joining up for FB because they wont want to be sitting at 17 or 18 FB members.

I do not think Texas will ever play in the ACC. My comment was based on if they did.

Kansas adds a NCAA bid a year to any conference it joins.

The SEC and PAC could use that more than B1G or ACC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-05-2017 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think we should go with Texas, TCU, and Houston, if the ACC were to enter Texas.

I really don't want another ND type deal. I think the goal would be Texas and ND as full members at 16. ND refuses, Texas and OK is who I would target to be 16 For Basketball, 17th place basketball team, misses ACC Tourney.

I wish good luck and good fortune regarding ACC's efforts to obtain the full membership of Texas and Oklahoma.

B1G gives KU the best academic upgrade.

SEC needs KU basketball the most.

PAC needs KU basketball and would be an academic upgrade. Averaging 24,000 in football is less of a concern for the PAC as what it is for B1G or SEC football brands.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app