From my knowledge, piecing together, and what has been reported.

Timeline....2025 or before.

Schools...

*Nothing has changed since July 2021.
*Memphis/Boise/USF/SMU in that order.
*If only 2....most expect Memphis and Boise
*They are all getting their ducks in order (USF OCS, Memphis R1&Stadium, Boise Stadium expansion, etc.)
*Lots of rumors that Memphis and Boise had unanimous votes last time. They got left out when they re-voted the 6 (cause only could take 4 at time)
*Plan was for 2nd round of expansion by Big 12 (July 2021 plan)...that's why it has been mentioned so much among Bowlsby and Big 12 administrators.

On Memphis front specifically...

*Memphis has added R1
*Rumor is OCS being announced soon.
*The NCAA infractions doesn't matter as much as used to. The 2 teams playing in national title tonight North Carolina/Kansas were both accused of FAR worse in the last few years. Not disregarding or downplaying...just don't think it is a large obstacle.

Now some big questions....Does B12 still want a 2nd round of expansion since dust has settled? Are the expansion schools still the same? Are they content with the 12? Has anything changed?

I can't answer those...but some key timeframes of when it could get interesting again....OU and Texas departure date settled and new PAC 12 TV deal announced.

From last fall.....https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-expansion-boise-state-memphis-among-schools-being-discussed-as-future-conference-additions/

(04-04-2022 01:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The answer is two schools that their media providers tell them give the12 members (after Texas and Oklahoma leave) more money per school.

There are no schools out there that raise the overall average valuation per school. They choose the schools that were the least damaging to the average, but still sufficient number to be stable. I believe only BYU actually raises the value, while Houston and UCF are close to break even and Cincy not far off that either.

There are some schools that are similar to Cincy. They lower the average a little bit. So they wouldn't hurt you much on that front. But they also mean more mouths to feed and more competition for recruits.

So the answer is nobody will be added for a very long time. At least not until the Big 12 gets raided -- which right now doesn't seem at all likely.

I know that you have a bur up your behind about UC because you are an Ohio State fans you have to take shots at UC (like claiming back in September that UC did not impress the Big 12 or ACC) but UC does not "lower the value", that's stupid.

The TV networks will tell the Big 12 who to add.

(04-04-2022 01:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Poaching only makes sense if the average per school payout stays at least the same or better yet goes up.

I don't think the Big 12 expands until the other Power conferences play out over the next decade or so.

Exactly, thus the "8 to 10 year" expansion play that the Big 12 leadership has mentioned.

(04-04-2022 12:22 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 11:08 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 09:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Tentatively for 25' soonest or following OU/UT's last year, so news by 23' which is almost a year away. We will see what happens with Memphis. I do think USF and Memphis are on the inside track, but SMU could easily slip in. I think it will depend on if Memphis can get some major renovations done on the Liberty Bowl. Otherwise it will default to SMU, which would be a blow to the AAC.

I don't think CSU is a serious contender unless a booster or two make an eleventh hour type of move like Mitch tried to pull with UL to the Big 12. I actually think BSU might be ahead of them.

I do wonder about Zaga as a BBall only addition for 15 schools, but that's less than 5%.

I think everyone is vastly overweighting SMU. Some Pony fans will take this as some type of dig, all I can do is assure you that it isn’t. This is just my opinion on the objective metrics of the situation. I personally would love having SMU and Rice in the Big 12 and reviving those conference games, but that is my personal wish not something that considers the good of the Big 12 as whole and who helps it.

The SWC and Big 12 were ultimately undone by having too few eyeballs in too few states and the clash of egos and culture between bluebloods and their perceived “lessor-than” partners. This, coupled with the continuing consolidation of college athletics, resulted in the demise of the conferences as they were originally structured. If the New Big 12 is to succeed, it can’t make those mistakes.

So the additions, who is a candidate and who isn’t.

CSU: People dog on CSU because they haven’t won anything notable, they are a second tier also ran in a state that doesn’t care about the flagship let alone it’s little brother. But, CSU does provide a geographical link to BYU and restoration of some rivalries for the Cougars. As the land grant school in Colorado, they are well positioned to grow as the state population continues to explode. Many other selections from the Big 12 including Cincy and UCF are investments that they hope will grow into great brands and programs. CSU academics are in line with the rest of the conference. As a land grant, they institutionally fit well with the Big 8 schools like ISU, OSU, and K-State. You want the pieces to fit together rather than giving the feeling of an island of misfit of toys. Colorado, as a market, is a pro market. But, you have the chance to give them a premiere team in CSU as the Buffs truly are on the downswing and going sideways. Colorado is also growing in population so getting market access is a boon for the Big 12. CSU offers great upside and as a candidate for western expansion you can’t really do better.

Boise is isolated and outside of their winning tradition, they don’t offer a lot to the Big 12. Their geography is bad, they are further than BYU. They don’t bridge BYU to the rest of the conference. Their academics are poor. Their recruiting areas are non-existent. If they do anything other than what they’ve been doing, you are left with a small school in Idaho that a floor that is too low carry you. To me, Boise is a program that has peaked in their current alignment and without some major demographic shifts they don’t have much hope of an invite at this stage.

Memphis: Their academics are poor, but they are R1. They have a commuter reputation, but so do Houston, Cincy, and UCF. They have a great basketball tradition, that is about to get hammered by the NCAA. Yet, I still want them with CSU. Why? They bring the conference’s eastern wing closer together. They are close enough to the core Big 12 to build decent relationships with the fanbases, and they are about equidistant from Kansas, OSU, Cincy, ISU. They are a city school and they have shared history and chemistry with Houston, Cincy, and UCF. Their addition will only improve the perception of Big 12 basketball and their football possibilities are interesting. They are located in new territory in Eastern Tennessee with great recruiting grounds. It gives the Big 12 a presence in the South outside of Texas and Orlando. That is useful.

USF: USF’s only value to me is as a pair for UCF. UCF lives on an island now and if no one is added they will stay there for a long time. I didn’t initially want UCF’s addition for the first wave of expansion for this reason. By adding West Virginia, the Big 12 created an island and geography problem. Cincy helps that a little. By adding BYU, we have a second island. By adding UCF, a third. Too many islands that need support. USF is a natural inclusion for UCF’s situation, they have a presence in Tampa and give a larger Florida presence to the Big 12.

SMU: A trendy pick. Plenty of history with the SWC schools, rich donor base that should thrive with NIL, and good academics. Unfortunately, the Big 12 has the Dallas market covered. TCU is in Ft. Worth, but the number of Tech, Baylor, TCU, and OSU Cowboy fans in the metroplex far exceed SMU’s alumni and presence. Houston was a different issue. Outside of Baylor and maybe Tech, the Big 12 has no presence in Houston once Texas and A&M were both gone. Houston Cougars do not carry the Houston market and certainly don’t replace the lost Houston eyeballs of Texas and A&M. However, having Houston in the conference gives multiple annual games in Houston for sportswriters in the area to easily visit and observe. Being an afterthought in Houston is better than being no thought, and Houston’s addition to the conference for this sole reason is justified IMO. TCU was added following A&M’s departure because they had been one of the winningest programs that decade and were in a position to make an immediate move to the Big 12 who needed two teams to sign on the line to protect their media contract IMMEDIATELY. Those situations are not SMU’s. As fun as it would be to relive the SWC, those days are gone. SMU’s addition just makes for more, harder competition for the Big 12 and adds a new mouth to feed that doesn’t have a particularly large alumni or fanbase and doesn’t bring any new markets or recruiting territory.

Great post. If you expand to 16 you can fix the island but if you expand to 14 you have to choose whether to fix the Florida island or BYU/West island assuming Memphis is added. At that point do you expand West and add Colirado State or do you double down into Florida and add USF?

I think bridging out west is the answer, personally. The Big 12’s disadvantage in its previous iterations was our central location. This is a disadvantage because it makes anyone a prime target for expansion to any other conference. You can lose schools to the PAC, B1G, and SEC and those moves make sense for those institutions. Geography protects the PAC-12. Now that the Big 12 has been shaken clean, the location is an asset. Why only expand east, where there are more eyeballs but even greater competition, when you can as easily control the West? It doesn’t mean picking up every school out there, but CSU as a bridge to BYU works on many levels.

Looking east at 14, I like Memphis over USF. USF to me hasn’t demonstrated a commitment to higher competition and has seemed content to coast and obstruct while UCF built itself up better. Adding them does give you two on the island, which helps with travel and gives you more games in Florida. But if there is any program that is well situated to be on an island, it is UCF (and UNLV). Orlando, like Vegas, has tons of cheap flights going in and out every day. Much easier to deal with that island than it is to get to Morgantown or Provo.

(04-04-2022 02:47 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 12:22 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 11:08 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 09:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Tentatively for 25' soonest or following OU/UT's last year, so news by 23' which is almost a year away. We will see what happens with Memphis. I do think USF and Memphis are on the inside track, but SMU could easily slip in. I think it will depend on if Memphis can get some major renovations done on the Liberty Bowl. Otherwise it will default to SMU, which would be a blow to the AAC.

I don't think CSU is a serious contender unless a booster or two make an eleventh hour type of move like Mitch tried to pull with UL to the Big 12. I actually think BSU might be ahead of them.

I do wonder about Zaga as a BBall only addition for 15 schools, but that's less than 5%.

I think everyone is vastly overweighting SMU. Some Pony fans will take this as some type of dig, all I can do is assure you that it isn’t. This is just my opinion on the objective metrics of the situation. I personally would love having SMU and Rice in the Big 12 and reviving those conference games, but that is my personal wish not something that considers the good of the Big 12 as whole and who helps it.

The SWC and Big 12 were ultimately undone by having too few eyeballs in too few states and the clash of egos and culture between bluebloods and their perceived “lessor-than” partners. This, coupled with the continuing consolidation of college athletics, resulted in the demise of the conferences as they were originally structured. If the New Big 12 is to succeed, it can’t make those mistakes.

So the additions, who is a candidate and who isn’t.

CSU: People dog on CSU because they haven’t won anything notable, they are a second tier also ran in a state that doesn’t care about the flagship let alone it’s little brother. But, CSU does provide a geographical link to BYU and restoration of some rivalries for the Cougars. As the land grant school in Colorado, they are well positioned to grow as the state population continues to explode. Many other selections from the Big 12 including Cincy and UCF are investments that they hope will grow into great brands and programs. CSU academics are in line with the rest of the conference. As a land grant, they institutionally fit well with the Big 8 schools like ISU, OSU, and K-State. You want the pieces to fit together rather than giving the feeling of an island of misfit of toys. Colorado, as a market, is a pro market. But, you have the chance to give them a premiere team in CSU as the Buffs truly are on the downswing and going sideways. Colorado is also growing in population so getting market access is a boon for the Big 12. CSU offers great upside and as a candidate for western expansion you can’t really do better.

Boise is isolated and outside of their winning tradition, they don’t offer a lot to the Big 12. Their geography is bad, they are further than BYU. They don’t bridge BYU to the rest of the conference. Their academics are poor. Their recruiting areas are non-existent. If they do anything other than what they’ve been doing, you are left with a small school in Idaho that a floor that is too low carry you. To me, Boise is a program that has peaked in their current alignment and without some major demographic shifts they don’t have much hope of an invite at this stage.

Memphis: Their academics are poor, but they are R1. They have a commuter reputation, but so do Houston, Cincy, and UCF. They have a great basketball tradition, that is about to get hammered by the NCAA. Yet, I still want them with CSU. Why? They bring the conference’s eastern wing closer together. They are close enough to the core Big 12 to build decent relationships with the fanbases, and they are about equidistant from Kansas, OSU, Cincy, ISU. They are a city school and they have shared history and chemistry with Houston, Cincy, and UCF. Their addition will only improve the perception of Big 12 basketball and their football possibilities are interesting. They are located in new territory in Eastern Tennessee with great recruiting grounds. It gives the Big 12 a presence in the South outside of Texas and Orlando. That is useful.

USF: USF’s only value to me is as a pair for UCF. UCF lives on an island now and if no one is added they will stay there for a long time. I didn’t initially want UCF’s addition for the first wave of expansion for this reason. By adding West Virginia, the Big 12 created an island and geography problem. Cincy helps that a little. By adding BYU, we have a second island. By adding UCF, a third. Too many islands that need support. USF is a natural inclusion for UCF’s situation, they have a presence in Tampa and give a larger Florida presence to the Big 12.

SMU: A trendy pick. Plenty of history with the SWC schools, rich donor base that should thrive with NIL, and good academics. Unfortunately, the Big 12 has the Dallas market covered. TCU is in Ft. Worth, but the number of Tech, Baylor, TCU, and OSU Cowboy fans in the metroplex far exceed SMU’s alumni and presence. Houston was a different issue. Outside of Baylor and maybe Tech, the Big 12 has no presence in Houston once Texas and A&M were both gone. Houston Cougars do not carry the Houston market and certainly don’t replace the lost Houston eyeballs of Texas and A&M. However, having Houston in the conference gives multiple annual games in Houston for sportswriters in the area to easily visit and observe. Being an afterthought in Houston is better than being no thought, and Houston’s addition to the conference for this sole reason is justified IMO. TCU was added following A&M’s departure because they had been one of the winningest programs that decade and were in a position to make an immediate move to the Big 12 who needed two teams to sign on the line to protect their media contract IMMEDIATELY. Those situations are not SMU’s. As fun as it would be to relive the SWC, those days are gone. SMU’s addition just makes for more, harder competition for the Big 12 and adds a new mouth to feed that doesn’t have a particularly large alumni or fanbase and doesn’t bring any new markets or recruiting territory.

Great post. If you expand to 16 you can fix the island but if you expand to 14 you have to choose whether to fix the Florida island or BYU/West island assuming Memphis is added. At that point do you expand West and add Colirado State or do you double down into Florida and add USF?

I think bridging out west is the answer, personally. The Big 12’s disadvantage in its previous iterations was our central location. This is a disadvantage because it makes anyone a prime target for expansion to any other conference. You can lose schools to the PAC, B1G, and SEC and those moves make sense for those institutions. Geography protects the PAC-12. Now that the Big 12 has been shaken clean, the location is an asset. Why only expand east, where there are more eyeballs but even greater competition, when you can as easily control the West? It doesn’t mean picking up every school out there, but CSU as a bridge to BYU works on many levels.

Looking east at 14, I like Memphis over USF. USF to me hasn’t demonstrated a commitment to higher competition and has seemed content to coast and obstruct while UCF built itself up better. Adding them does give you two on the island, which helps with travel and gives you more games in Florida. But if there is any program that is well situated to be on an island, it is UCF (and UNLV). Orlando, like Vegas, has tons of cheap flights going in and out every day. Much easier to deal with that island than it is to get to Morgantown or Provo.

That's a great point because didn't a source say that the Big 12 was looking to set up "wall" in the West Coast? Not only does it make the geography tighter but it gives the Big 12 some West Coast/Mountain time teams to sell to TV and Digital Rights partners.

(04-04-2022 01:23 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  For over a decade I had to hear about schools "moving the needle". Cincinnati allegedly never "moved the needle" but people bring up Colorado State all the time. Their highest rated game last year had 500K viewers and that was against Boise. There are SBC, CUSA and MAC schools who garner stronger ratings than that.

What network was the game played on? It’s important to note that.

With Memphis/USF, I'd prefer East/West, but with some Texas teams joining them instead of ISU/KU, etc (definitely too imbalanced and dispersed with a North/South setup, and zippers don't work for me).

East: Memphis, USF, UCF, WVU, UC, Houston, TCU
West: BYU, KSU, KU, ISU, OSU, Baylor, TTech

It's still tough to split that, but it is relatively balanced. At the very least, you somewhat align the geography without creating a huge fissure. I'd imagine TCU would be the loser given this setup. Not clear whether they'd get a protected rival like Baylor, although that is likely.

I don't think CSU really fixes the geography, and their athletic program doesn't balance things out either. Based on who's already been selected, the Big 12 took the best on the board without prioritizing geography. BYU stands alone and there is no reason to bridge them. The value they bring alone surpasses the need to do so. It is more pivotal giving the East coast schools the assist, and that's where Memphis and USF fills the hole. I don't think they care about consolidating further in Texas. The AAC can have their cake and eat it to with regard to Texas dominance within the G5. There is no need for the Big 12 to rain on that parade.

The Big 12 is going to renegotiate their TV deal in two years or so and I think if any other schools added value, they'd be added before that. Also have a really tough time seeing any TV partners adding a prorata clause for any remaining G5 schools. If those schools added TV value, they'd be invited.

All of the remaining schools have huge issues in fan engagement, etc. We don't need more schools that no one watches or can't fill their stadium. They don't enrich the other schools. And that's what expansion is about.

(TCU, TTU, BU and UH), 2 privates and 2 publics vs (UTSA, UNT, Rice and SMU), 2 privates and 2 publics, or (Fort Worth, Lubbock, Waco, and Houston) vs (San Antonio, Denton, Houston and Dallas). It is possible that the AAC could surpass the Big 12 in Texas in a few years. Big markets vs small markets. Or Dallas County vs Tarrant County. Or big picture Ames, Manhatton, Stillwater and Waco vs Philadelphia, Memphis, Tampa and New Orleans. Which strategy?

(04-04-2022 06:24 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  (TCU, TTU, BU and UH), 2 privates and 2 publics vs (UTSA, UNT, Rice and SMU), 2 privates and 2 publics, or (Fort Worth, Lubbock, Waco, and Houston) vs (San Antonio, Denton, Houston and Dallas). It is possible that the AAC could surpass the Big 12 in Texas in a few years. Big markets vs small markets. Or Dallas County vs Tarrant County. Strategy?

There's no way that the AAC is going to surpass the Big 12 in Texas.

(04-04-2022 07:17 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 06:24 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  (TCU, TTU, BU and UH), 2 privates and 2 publics vs (UTSA, UNT, Rice and SMU), 2 privates and 2 publics, or (Fort Worth, Lubbock, Waco, and Houston) vs (San Antonio, Denton, Houston and Dallas). It is possible that the AAC could surpass the Big 12 in Texas in a few years. Big markets vs small markets. Or Dallas County vs Tarrant County. Strategy?

There's no way that the AAC is going to surpass the Big 12 in Texas.

Agreed. That's completely asinine.

(04-04-2022 05:55 PM)cc22 Wrote:  The Big 12 is going to renegotiate their TV deal in two years or so and I think if any other schools added value, they'd be added before that. Also have a really tough time seeing any TV partners adding a prorata clause for any remaining G5 schools. If those schools added TV value, they'd be invited.

All of the remaining schools have huge issues in fan engagement, etc. We don't need more schools that no one watches or can't fill their stadium. They don't enrich the other schools. And that's what expansion is about.

Yep. That's why TT AD Kirby Hocutt said that it was an 8 to 10 year expansion plan. It gives school the time to make themselves attractive enough for the next TV deal.

You may be right, but Aresco has a pretty good track record. And with the NIL and transfer portal, who knows?

(04-04-2022 07:22 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 05:55 PM)cc22 Wrote:  The Big 12 is going to renegotiate their TV deal in two years or so and I think if any other schools added value, they'd be added before that. Also have a really tough time seeing any TV partners adding a prorata clause for any remaining G5 schools. If those schools added TV value, they'd be invited.

All of the remaining schools have huge issues in fan engagement, etc. We don't need more schools that no one watches or can't fill their stadium. They don't enrich the other schools. And that's what expansion is about.

Yep. That's why TT AD Kirby Hocutt said that it was an 8 to 10 year expansion plan. It gives school the time to make themselves attractive enough for the next TV deal.

And if the numbers from Navigate are anywhere close to accurate (and that's still kind of a believe it when I see it deal), are any remaining schools going to be worth over $50 million a year to the Big 12?

(04-04-2022 06:24 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  (TCU, TTU, BU and UH), 2 privates and 2 publics vs (UTSA, UNT, Rice and SMU), 2 privates and 2 publics, or (Fort Worth, Lubbock, Waco, and Houston) vs (San Antonio, Denton, Houston and Dallas). It is possible that the AAC could surpass the Big 12 in Texas in a few years. Big markets vs small markets. Or Dallas County vs Tarrant County. Or big picture Ames, Manhatton, Stillwater and Waco vs Philadelphia, Memphis, Tampa and New Orleans. Which strategy?

Markets only matter if the market watches those teams...and do those teams grab viewers regionally and/or nationwide. Quite a few teams in the AAC are not big TV draws.

(04-04-2022 07:37 PM)cc22 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 07:22 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 05:55 PM)cc22 Wrote:  The Big 12 is going to renegotiate their TV deal in two years or so and I think if any other schools added value, they'd be added before that. Also have a really tough time seeing any TV partners adding a prorata clause for any remaining G5 schools. If those schools added TV value, they'd be invited.

All of the remaining schools have huge issues in fan engagement, etc. We don't need more schools that no one watches or can't fill their stadium. They don't enrich the other schools. And that's what expansion is about.

Yep. That's why TT AD Kirby Hocutt said that it was an 8 to 10 year expansion plan. It gives school the time to make themselves attractive enough for the next TV deal.

And if the numbers from Navigate are anywhere close to accurate (and that's still kind of a believe it when I see it deal), are any remaining schools going to be worth over $50 million a year to the Big 12?

No way. You're right. The Big 12 made it clear as did TV industry experts that those 4 that they grabbed were the best 4 and there was a gulf between #4 and #5. It was obvious that Houston, who was considered #4, was #4 by an insanely wide margin because TV nixed any thoughts of Big 12 Texas schools blocking then. The fact that the Texas schools backed down so quickly tells you that there were some serious $$$ offered by the TV partners.

And I still expect the Big 12 to make more than 25 million a year on their TV deal mainly because of the market, and second because of the severely undervalued Digital Rights deal that the Big 12 got. It was devalued due to Oklahoma and Texas not being on it, not so much because of their brand but because ESPN couldn't promote the Big 12 as a conference. Now they cam, and with four more teams added to it, and basketball, they can get an extra 3 to 5 million dollars per team at least since ESPN would love to have Big 12 basketball to help ESPN+ and that at least offsets any Tier 1 and Tier 2 losses as well as playoff and bowl money lost by splitting between 2 more teams. My prediction, the Big 12's new deal will be virtually identical to the old one because of the increased value of the Tier 3 Digital Rights package.

(04-04-2022 07:55 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 07:37 PM)cc22 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 07:22 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 05:55 PM)cc22 Wrote:  The Big 12 is going to renegotiate their TV deal in two years or so and I think if any other schools added value, they'd be added before that. Also have a really tough time seeing any TV partners adding a prorata clause for any remaining G5 schools. If those schools added TV value, they'd be invited.

All of the remaining schools have huge issues in fan engagement, etc. We don't need more schools that no one watches or can't fill their stadium. They don't enrich the other schools. And that's what expansion is about.

Yep. That's why TT AD Kirby Hocutt said that it was an 8 to 10 year expansion plan. It gives school the time to make themselves attractive enough for the next TV deal.

And if the numbers from Navigate are anywhere close to accurate (and that's still kind of a believe it when I see it deal), are any remaining schools going to be worth over $50 million a year to the Big 12?

No way. You're right. The Big 12 made it clear as did TV industry experts that those 4 that they grabbed were the best 4 and there was a gulf between #4 and #5. It was obvious that Houston, who was considered #4, was #4 by an insanely wide margin because TV nixed any thoughts of Big 12 Texas schools blocking then. The fact that the Texas schools backed down so quickly tells you that there were some serious $$$ offered by the TV partners.

Truth be told, if $$ wasn't an issue (and it always is), I've always felt Colorado State was the most natural fit, especially with the longest tenured schools.

(04-04-2022 06:24 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  (TCU, TTU, BU and UH), 2 privates and 2 publics vs (UTSA, UNT, Rice and SMU), 2 privates and 2 publics, or (Fort Worth, Lubbock, Waco, and Houston) vs (San Antonio, Denton, Houston and Dallas). It is possible that the AAC could surpass the Big 12 in Texas in a few years. Big markets vs small markets. Or Dallas County vs Tarrant County. Or big picture Ames, Manhatton, Stillwater and Waco vs Philadelphia, Memphis, Tampa and New Orleans. Which strategy?

you're conflating market with location. Its a common issue. Theres a big reason that Houston Cincinnati and UCF took the B12 call immediately and every single AAC pimped themselves to the B12.

AAC has some great locations, but no real markets. B12 has some terrible locations, but good/great markets.

I think the B12 waits to see what the B1G and SEC do arround 2025. I think B12 ends up being able to get Louisville from a depleted ACC and NC State as the tag along or Memphis.

Both with Pitt would be even better, but i think ACC is able to keep them back filling with Temple and Tulane.