Latest info I have on this is the Big12 schools will not vote to expand the conference. Some of the schools wanted the expansion; however, there were enough schools who voted no on expansion. Therefore it is shelved again.
It appears that some of the Big12 schools plan to move on once the GOR lapses. The odds are that several of these schools will look to move to other P5 conferences while some other schools will have to rub elbows with the AAC and MWC - possibly trying to reconfigure the Big12 or create a new conf to make a run at a P6 status. That's what it looks like based on the latest info. More as it comes in.
You're welcome.
Yes, this is the natural course of things. Oklahoma and Texas figured out that the money ceiling is much too low in the Big 12 relative to the Big and Sec. Money talks.
Thanks for passing that along
(10-18-2016 08:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for passing that along
You're welcome. It was a common misconception that the news from the other day indicated that the expansion was off. However, that's not when it actually happened. Officially, it happened this evening when the last ditch effort to reverse course failed at the secret Big12 meeting held today.
(10-18-2016 08:40 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2016 08:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for passing that along
You're welcome. It was a common misconception that the news from the other day indicated that the expansion was off. However, that's not when it actually happened. Officially, it happened this evening when the last ditch effort to reverse course failed at the secret Big12 meeting held today.
In Japan?
(10-18-2016 08:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2016 08:40 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2016 08:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for passing that along
You're welcome. It was a common misconception that the news from the other day indicated that the expansion was off. However, that's not when it actually happened. Officially, it happened this evening when the last ditch effort to reverse course failed at the secret Big12 meeting held today.
In Japan?
No. Why would you ask about Japan?
(10-18-2016 08:40 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2016 08:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for passing that along
You're welcome. It was a common misconception that the news from the other day indicated that the expansion was off. However, that's not when it actually happened. Officially, it happened this evening when the last ditch effort to reverse course failed at the secret Big12 meeting held today.
This jives with the principal that all conference realignment news happens on a Tuesday. Long time board members here, really know this to be true. Any kind of final decision happens on a Tuesday. The newbies may not buy this though. This also seems to jive with all other sources, of varying degrees of veracity, and what they are saying today too.
Thanks for confirming.
There are a number of newbies who don't know who the real insiders are vs who are the pretenders.
(10-18-2016 08:27 PM)rosewater Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, this is the natural course of things. Oklahoma and Texas figured out that the money ceiling is much too low in the Big 12 relative to the Big and Sec. Money talks.
Actually the ISU let the cat out of the bag by publically admitting that w/out OU and UT, the Big 12 is not big. So I'm sure that the 8 will endow the 2 with as much money as they can spare in order to keep them. Better to make $20 million and be P5 than to make $30 million and risk being left behind eventually. So the 8 each give up $10 million each year and UT/OU can squabble about how that new found $80 million per year should be divided between the 2.
Texas (plus loyal Tech and TCU, who think Texas is going to take them with) is forced to vote for Houston.
Big 8 schools don't want more Texas teams. They only wanted Texas and A&M in the first place. So expansion is deadlocked, due to needing 8 votes.
I can see Kansas + Oklahoma schools joining PAC. They're contiguous with Colorado. No idea about the rest. Big Ten isn't interested in any of them. Not sure about SEC or ACC.
Texas I think belongs as indy. It can show all its homes games on LHN, plus a few choice games per year bid out to ESPN/FOX/whomever.
Interesting article here:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ier-divide
A memo explaining the DO bullet points to emphasize and the DO NOT bullet points to not mention:
Quote:Do:
• Indicate the Board arrived at a "Unanimous Consensus."
• [Say] the Board was unanimous in its desire and commitment to stay at 10 members.
• Refer to the conference as equal to our peer group.
• Revenue alone does not win championships.
• We are not going to publicly discuss consideration details.
• We were exhaustive in our research.
• We have the most competitive competition model in college sports.
• Refer to 2024-25 as an opportunity to explore the media landscape and how to use new technologies to deliver content to our fans.
• The sunset of our Grant of Rights agreements allows the Conference to be in an active marketplace.
• Expansion is no longer an active agenda item.
Don't:
• Say we are at a competitive disadvantage.
• Say revenue determines strength.
• Say expansion is dilutive.
• Say candidates were not deemed Power 5 worthy.
• Refer to any specific expansion candidate/school by name.
• Indicate that TV influenced decision.
• [Say] we are psychologically disadvantaged.
• Discuss 2024-25 as a grant of rights issues.
There is no doubt that there is an esoteric component to conference expansion. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
The latest I do know is that Memphis and UCONN are definitely out of the running for Big12 Expansion. That leads me to the next bombshell that I'll throw out there.
The book on Big12 Expansion is not closed. Expect it to rev back up in 2017 after the BB tournament is over. More to come as I get it.
(10-19-2016 10:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting article here: http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ier-divide
A memo explaining the DO bullet points to emphasize and the DO NOT bullet points to not mention:
Quote:Do:
• Indicate the Board arrived at a "Unanimous Consensus."
• [Say] the Board was unanimous in its desire and commitment to stay at 10 members.
• Refer to the conference as equal to our peer group.
• Revenue alone does not win championships.
• We are not going to publicly discuss consideration details.
• We were exhaustive in our research.
• We have the most competitive competition model in college sports.
• Refer to 2024-25 as an opportunity to explore the media landscape and how to use new technologies to deliver content to our fans.
• The sunset of our Grant of Rights agreements allows the Conference to be in an active marketplace.
• Expansion is no longer an active agenda item.
Don't:
• Say we are at a competitive disadvantage.
• Say revenue determines strength.
• Say expansion is dilutive.
• Say candidates were not deemed Power 5 worthy.
• Refer to any specific expansion candidate/school by name.
• Indicate that TV influenced decision.
• [Say] we are psychologically disadvantaged.
• Discuss 2024-25 as a grant of rights issues.
I don't think this is a big deal. They didn't have the votes to expand so of course they are going to say it was unanimous even if some schools want to expand. Also all those other points are stuff that they should've been talking about from the beginning. It doesn't help when you have a president telling the media they are disadvantaged. Boren probably did more damage to the big 12 than anyone else could. Again I don't see this being news.
Wasn't meant to be earth shattering. Just thought it was interesting.
I don't see how the deadlock will change in the future. TX state government + big donors are going to feel that old SWC members ought to be back in the P5, and will push that hard. Old Big 8 schools will fight tooth and nail against adding any more Texas schools to the Big 12.
Afterall, with sudden influx of athletics $$$ and improved facilities, why can't SMU, Houston, and/or Rice do exactly what TCU and Baylor have done the last few years?? There's no reason.
No compromise to be had.
(10-19-2016 07:01 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]There are a number of newbies who don't know who the real insiders are vs who are the pretenders.
Agreed. You need to have your tag line changed to "The Real Insider"
(10-19-2016 03:27 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]The latest I do know is that Memphis and UCONN are definitely out of the running for Big12 Expansion. That leads me to the next bombshell that I'll throw out there.
The book on Big12 Expansion is not closed. Expect it to rev back up in 2017 after the BB tournament is over. More to come as I get it.
Are you hearing any more rumblings that Pitt will bolt the ACC in order to re-unite with West Virginia?
(10-19-2016 10:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Texas (plus loyal Tech and TCU, who think Texas is going to take them with) is forced to vote for Houston.
Big 8 schools don't want more Texas teams. They only wanted Texas and A&M in the first place. So expansion is deadlocked, due to needing 8 votes.
I can see Kansas + Oklahoma schools joining PAC. They're contiguous with Colorado. No idea about the rest. Big Ten isn't interested in any of them. Not sure about SEC or ACC.
Texas I think belongs as indy. It can show all its homes games on LHN, plus a few choice games per year bid out to ESPN/FOX/whomever.
PAC 12 don't want them. They want Texas. If Texas is not in the picture? They will not take any of the Oklahoma and Kansas schools. As it is, the schools are shortsightedness to expand because the 8 not named Oklahoma and Texas will find out that nobody wants them.
(10-19-2016 03:34 PM)CyclonePower Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2016 10:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting article here: http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ier-divide
A memo explaining the DO bullet points to emphasize and the DO NOT bullet points to not mention:
Quote:Do:
• Indicate the Board arrived at a "Unanimous Consensus."
• [Say] the Board was unanimous in its desire and commitment to stay at 10 members.
• Refer to the conference as equal to our peer group.
• Revenue alone does not win championships.
• We are not going to publicly discuss consideration details.
• We were exhaustive in our research.
• We have the most competitive competition model in college sports.
• Refer to 2024-25 as an opportunity to explore the media landscape and how to use new technologies to deliver content to our fans.
• The sunset of our Grant of Rights agreements allows the Conference to be in an active marketplace.
• Expansion is no longer an active agenda item.
Don't:
• Say we are at a competitive disadvantage.
• Say revenue determines strength.
• Say expansion is dilutive.
• Say candidates were not deemed Power 5 worthy.
• Refer to any specific expansion candidate/school by name.
• Indicate that TV influenced decision.
• [Say] we are psychologically disadvantaged.
• Discuss 2024-25 as a grant of rights issues.
I don't think this is a big deal. They didn't have the votes to expand so of course they are going to say it was unanimous even if some schools want to expand. Also all those other points are stuff that they should've been talking about from the beginning. It doesn't help when you have a president telling the media they are disadvantaged. Boren probably did more damage to the big 12 than anyone else could. Again I don't see this being news.
I think the Big 12 damaged their image a long time before Boren said anything. They allowed Texas to have the Longhorns Network which was the biggest mistake to the other Big12 schools.