(09-30-2016 02:30 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 09:04 PM)PK_UToledo Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 08:55 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 03:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me if they said "no" regardless whether Texas did the same. I have to believe it's more likely Froggy's going to get severed from Texas and OU games than the northern schools who were cut off before. They didn't just go through what they went through in CUSA, MWC, and the Big East to get severed from Texas again.

Yes.

An expansion by 2 with all Texas teams in the same division is politically hard.

That pushes toward splitting up the Texas teams.

Texas keeping the same (or more) away games in Texas works if Houston is invited and they have TTech and Houston in their division, TCU and Baylor in the other. Obviously Oklahoma and OSU would be in the UTexas division.

But then TCU gets half as many visits from Texas and Oklahoma, which would cut into their ticket sales.

So it could be exactly the set-up that panders to Texas's needs that pushes TCU to vote "No".

I agree with you that this may be a reason that expansion gets rejected. There won't be an easy way to split the five Texas and two Oklahoma schools into a division of six. They could consider the PAC 12 where the California schools in different divisions are guaranteed annual games, but this still might keep expansion from happening. I'll be absolutely shocked if two Texas schools get invited regardless of the number of teams that could get invited.

West: UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, OU, OSU
East: KU, KSU, ISU, UH, WVU, UC
UH can't complain b/c they got a golden ticket

or

West:UT, TT, TCU, OU, OSU, ISU
East:Baylor, UH, UC, WVU, KU, KSU
gets both sides into Texas

or
West:UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, KU, KSU
East:UH, OSU, OU, ISU, UC, WVU
make OU/UT permanent cross over

It's not about "getting into Texas." It's getting Texas-Austin. When TCU lines up against KU, KSU, ISU, OU, and oSu, and the prize is having Texas annually on the schedule, TCU might as well not even compete. The northern schools had to deal with losing OU AND Texas and A&M when the conference formed to appease oSu/OU's BoRs and Texas state politics. What remains got them back after too many others left, but to expect them to "be a good sport" about it AGAIN? No way.

TCU wants Texas on the schedule. Now, maybe you can have a divisional lineup that doesn't sever northern schools and Texas, and includes OU in there, too, with a protected Texas-TCU game, but is virtually impossible to realize. That division instantly becomes a death march for some, and it's sheer torture for Texas and OU. Oh, and what happens to West Virginia, especially if they aren't getting in with the northern members or Texas? Now you have another "no" vote where maybe TCU might be prone to say "yes." Of course, where that leaves oSu, Tech, and Baylor? They'll be willing to go along with it?

When this conference fell to eight, you saw schools who were happy enough to be together and wanted to play each other annually. When you dilute and/or risk that, the resistance is understandable. It becomes even more complicated now with a newer member with some residual bitterness over having to go on so long without being part of the group being asked to compromise, while another school sits out on an island hoping the travel costs come down a little bit while still creating some networking and recruiting roads for them.

What a "Dumpster Fire" of a Conference.........

Dang,

I hope they call USF........

I think expansion for the Big 12, for now, is shelved. Despite what the research/TV partners say, the conference cannot internally and majority agree on the candidates.

It's setting up to be a wild decade in the 2020's for sure.

(09-30-2016 09:36 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  TCU and schools like them are signing their own death warranty by not pushing expansions no matter what UT or OU want. If the Big XII doesn't expand, it will disband, or at least UT and OU and probably KU will leave it. Then they will need to find 3-5 teams, and hope to hell that they keep P5 status. The $$ will certainly go down.

That is their only choice. UT doesn't care about TCU. These schools aren't facing the reality that this is an us or them scenario, and UT and OU are "them", with the other 8 as "us". Idiots.

(09-30-2016 10:14 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think if we are honest, neither expanding or not expanding is going to increase the long term viability of the Big 12. That is going to depend on what other conferences want to do and when. So we are really talking about the best short term model here. And I think if you look at it with those glasses, there's a good argument for staying at 10, especially if there aren't obvious candidates, or if deciding on 2 candidates becomes too contentious. There are structural virtues to staying at 10- you play everyone and split the pie less (especially important without a network).

I'm skeptical that any decisions have been made. But I do think staying at 10 can be a logical outcome.

Agree Frog. Expansion does not matter, it depends on what the other P5 conferences do.....especially the Big10

(09-30-2016 10:58 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 09:36 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  TCU and schools like them are signing their own death warranty by not pushing expansions no matter what UT or OU want. If the Big XII doesn't expand, it will disband, or at least UT and OU and probably KU will leave it. Then they will need to find 3-5 teams, and hope to hell that they keep P5 status. The $$ will certainly go down.

That is their only choice. UT doesn't care about TCU. These schools aren't facing the reality that this is an us or them scenario, and UT and OU are "them", with the other 8 as "us". Idiots.

(09-30-2016 10:14 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think if we are honest, neither expanding or not expanding is going to increase the long term viability of the Big 12. That is going to depend on what other conferences want to do and when. So we are really talking about the best short term model here. And I think if you look at it with those glasses, there's a good argument for staying at 10, especially if there aren't obvious candidates, or if deciding on 2 candidates becomes too contentious. There are structural virtues to staying at 10- you play everyone and split the pie less (especially important without a network).

I'm skeptical that any decisions have been made. But I do think staying at 10 can be a logical outcome.

Agree Frog. Expansion does not matter, it depends on what the other P5 conferences do.....especially the Big10

yea people act like in 2022-23 if the Big 10 calls and tells Texas and OU they can make $5 more dollars a year in the Big 10 that Texas and OU will say FIVE BUCKS WE GONE!!

or they will say "well the Big 12 never made sense it is called the Big TWELVE, but it has only TEN teams and that just makes us look dumb we are going to be the number 15 and 16 teams in the Big 10!"

or maybe they will still be upset they are not getting to play UConn and Memphis in football every year

I am not sure if it was $1 or $2 million more a year they would go

now if it is $10 million more who knows they might seriously consider it

but that gets back to the fact that none of the teams available to the Big 12 are going to help the Big 12 close a $10 million dollar per team revenue gap with the Big 10 or the SEC SEC SEC and there is every chance they would help contribute to it

or some will be silly enough to say that more teams in the Big 12 helps Texas and OU make the playoffs more often.....as if more teams in the conference helps Texas or OU go 11-1 or 12-0 somehow.....especially if the idea is that you are adding these amazing up and coming super power teams that make the conference look "hella good better"

so when you consider all of that what is expansion suppose to do for the Big 12 to stop Texas and OU leaving

then you get back to the laughably weak argument that the Big 12 will somehow stay a power conference if UT and OU leave if the Big 12 just adds teams now and pretends that everyone will look at them as power conference teams for the next few years and then based on the idea that "well this is a group of teams that has been in a "power conference" for X number of years" ESPN or Fox or both will just start writing big checks to them.....because of course they are writing big checks to the conference that has multiple of these Big 12 hopefuls in it right now

Only Oklahoma and Texas could land in a better conference. But, Texas may not get an invite to another P5 conference. Texas wants more of a voting issues that is not equal to others in a conference. Their ego is too strong for them. I think Texas would be better off as a Independent in all sports. Let OU and the rest of the Big 12 expand with teams, and add a Big 12 Network. Big 12 is the only P5 conference without a tv network.

I remember the theoretical squabbles with some about just going to eleven. I could see this resulting in eleven, and that member being someone like AFA who somehow finds a way to store their olympic sports elsewhere. Who knows...maybe Big West like Hawaii?

(09-30-2016 12:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I remember the theoretical squabbles with some about just going to eleven. I could see this resulting in eleven, and that member being someone like AFA who somehow finds a way to store their olympic sports elsewhere. Who knows...maybe Big West like Hawaii?

New Mexico State is looking for a conference home, and they fit the footprint. You could bring them aboard with UMass as a "travel partner" for West Virginia. Easy peazy!

I will simply say that 100% of the media said expansion was dead on July 19, until the Big 12 presidents voted unanimously to go ahead with exploring expansion, and doing all this stuff since then. Not to mention all the work they have done since February, and for more than 2 years before that., at least by the 3-man expansion committee.

The Big 12 presidents haven't said a word yet to give anybody a clue. Just like last time.

All I would say is, don't write it off yet. I think the meeting on Oct. 17 will resolve things, one way or the other.

(09-30-2016 02:25 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I will simply say that 100% of the media said expansion was dead on July 19, until the Big 12 presidents voted unanimously to go ahead with exploring expansion, and doing all this stuff since then. Not to mention all the work they have done since February, and for more than 2 years before that., at least by the 3-man expansion committee.

The Big 12 presidents haven't said a word yet to give anybody a clue. Just like last time.

All I would say is, don't write it off yet. I think the meeting on Oct. 17 will resolve things, one way or the other.

It does not matter for either one of us though. If they add 2 or 4 or 6.........Neither Memphis nor SMU will likely be one of them.

(09-30-2016 10:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's not about "getting into Texas." It's getting Texas-Austin.

Yes, this is a difference between the Kansas's and TCU. Kansas State is recruiting players in Central Texas, they want to have an away game in Central Texas that they can bring those players to.

That's not an issue for TCU. Obviously, TCU can bring those players to Fort Worth. TCU wants to have the two visits from UTexas every four years. Getting that dropped down to one visit every three or four years is not something they'd want to see.

If Texas wants to get UH into the conference in order to shore up their profile in East Texas after Texas A&M went to the SEC (although they'd be loathe to admit that is the reason), they want UH in their division, and they wouldn't be under the same pressure in DFW, so conceding on Baylor and TCU in the other division to give the other division more trips into Texas is one way they could go.

TCU obviously wouldn't be eager to have their own interests sacrificed in the interests of getting votes for expansion from the Central Plains, so if things were headed that way, it wouldn't be surprising if that made TCU a no vote.

The question would be whether there are two other "no" votes to kill that particular plan.

One reason it seems fairly likely to come down to how people vote at the meeting ... and even in what order the meeting votes on what points ... is that everyone has an incentive before the meeting to make ambit claims, asking for more than what they would be willing to settle for, and so what Big12 Presidents say to each other before the meeting is less likely to result in eight schools in favor of one plan than the results of the votes at the meeting.

If some things get settled, like size of the expansion and final short list, but there is a deadlock on which to go with, then if a majority are still in favor of expansion, the meeting could tighten the frame and then push off the final decision for a bit longer. But if they want an early realignment, it doesn't seem like they could push it past Christmas, so if the October meeting is not conclusive, I'd expect it to be resolved or put back on the back burner by Christmas ...

... which lines up with the public remarks of the President of ISU.

In 2025, we'll look at this two ways.

The Big 12 did NOT expand:
The Big 12 is now dead as a power conference. The remaining 3-7 schools who do not get picked up by a P5 conference (only KU/OU/UT are shoe-ins...but I could see OkSt/Baylor/TCU/WVU/TTech getting picked up potentially) will merge with the AAC or MWC to be a 16-team conference that is the "best of the rest" but not P5 conference. There are then 4 Power Conference (all with at least 12...to as many as 18 teams each).

The Big 12 does expand:
The Big 12 still exists because the 5-9 schools who don't get poached by the major conferences provide a nucleus of teams to then poach the best of the MWC/AAC and go on living. I don't know what their status is as "Power" conference at that point. I imagine it may be given a lifeline for a few more years after that (as in "We remember when Houston/Iowa State/Cincy/KState were Power 5 teams...so we'll let them eat at the big boy table a bit longer")...but eventually the Power 4 will find a way to push them out (ala the Big East circa 2011?).

That's why I think expansion is in the best interest of any Big 12 team who may potentially be left out in the cold. But for UT/OU AND for the other P5 commissioners who want more power themselves AND for the TV execs who would like a consolidation of great teams for better TV matchups consistently...there is no reason to expand. Not expanding is the fastest way to let bottom feeder float to the bottom.

(09-30-2016 09:36 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  TCU and schools like them are signing their own death warranty by not pushing expansions no matter what UT or OU want. If the Big XII doesn't expand, it will disband, or at least UT and OU and probably KU will leave it. Then they will need to find 3-5 teams, and hope to hell that they keep P5 status. The $$ will certainly go down.

That is their only choice. UT doesn't care about TCU. These schools aren't facing the reality that this is an us or them scenario, and UT and OU are "them", with the other 8 as "us". Idiots.

If UT and OU leave, the Big 12 is no longer a P conference. They have no more real TV draws; It’s just like if UNC, Clemson and FSU leave the AAC, that league is done.
So, the prime incentive for TCU et al is for a)UT, OU and Kansas to stay and secondarily b)for TCU to be as attractive as possible to other Ps…Because at that time there will be a free-for-all to get into one of the P4, which will go to 16.
If they expand now, then, yes, it gives Cincy, Houston et al a chance to get even better to possibly maintain Big 12 as P5. But they still won’t be beasts…they won’t be draws. Further, it also creates the chance that Cincy, Houston surpass TCU and become more attractive than TCU to the other Ps. (frankly, that will probably happen anyway). The only Big 12s with a cinch to land spots in other leagues are Texas, OU, and Kansas.

So is it in TCU’s interest to help prop up Houston, UCF and Cincy or whomever and risk them looking better to other Ps?

(10-01-2016 07:32 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 09:36 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  TCU and schools like them are signing their own death warranty by not pushing expansions no matter what UT or OU want. If the Big XII doesn't expand, it will disband, or at least UT and OU and probably KU will leave it. Then they will need to find 3-5 teams, and hope to hell that they keep P5 status. The $$ will certainly go down.

That is their only choice. UT doesn't care about TCU. These schools aren't facing the reality that this is an us or them scenario, and UT and OU are "them", with the other 8 as "us". Idiots.

If UT and OU leave, the Big 12 is no longer a P conference. They have no more real TV draws; It’s just like if UNC, Clemson and FSU leave the AAC, that league is done.
So, the prime incentive for TCU et al is for a)UT, OU and Kansas to stay and secondarily b)for TCU to be as attractive as possible to other Ps…Because at that time there will be a free-for-all to get into one of the P4, which will go to 16.
If they expand now, then, yes, it gives Cincy, Houston et al a chance to get even better to possibly maintain Big 12 as P5. But they still won’t be beasts…they won’t be draws. Further, it also creates the chance that Cincy, Houston surpass TCU and become more attractive than TCU to the other Ps. (frankly, that will probably happen anyway). The only Big 12s with a cinch to land spots in other leagues are Texas, OU, and Kansas.

So is it in TCU’s interest to help prop up Houston, UCF and Cincy or whomever and risk them looking better to other Ps?

Almost any G5 or P5 school can be a beast if it has an capable, innovative, hungry coach and a good quarterback. Consider G5 Houston under Herman. It's better than any Big XII team and will remain so if it gets P5 money, because there will be less outside incentive for Herman to leave. Ditto Cincy. Cincy was a beast under Kelly, and it will be again, when it gets a capable, innovative, hungry coach.

(10-01-2016 09:01 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(10-01-2016 07:32 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 09:36 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  TCU and schools like them are signing their own death warranty by not pushing expansions no matter what UT or OU want. If the Big XII doesn't expand, it will disband, or at least UT and OU and probably KU will leave it. Then they will need to find 3-5 teams, and hope to hell that they keep P5 status. The $$ will certainly go down.

That is their only choice. UT doesn't care about TCU. These schools aren't facing the reality that this is an us or them scenario, and UT and OU are "them", with the other 8 as "us". Idiots.

If UT and OU leave, the Big 12 is no longer a P conference. They have no more real TV draws; It’s just like if UNC, Clemson and FSU leave the AAC, that league is done.
So, the prime incentive for TCU et al is for a)UT, OU and Kansas to stay and secondarily b)for TCU to be as attractive as possible to other Ps…Because at that time there will be a free-for-all to get into one of the P4, which will go to 16.
If they expand now, then, yes, it gives Cincy, Houston et al a chance to get even better to possibly maintain Big 12 as P5. But they still won’t be beasts…they won’t be draws. Further, it also creates the chance that Cincy, Houston surpass TCU and become more attractive than TCU to the other Ps. (frankly, that will probably happen anyway). The only Big 12s with a cinch to land spots in other leagues are Texas, OU, and Kansas.

So is it in TCU’s interest to help prop up Houston, UCF and Cincy or whomever and risk them looking better to other Ps?

Almost any G5 or P5 school can be a beast if it has an capable, innovative, hungry coach and a good quarterback. Consider G5 Houston under Herman. It's better than any Big XII team and will remain so if it gets P5 money, because there will be less outside incentive for Herman to leave. Ditto Cincy. Cincy was a beast under Kelly, and it will be again, when it gets a capable, innovative, hungry coach.

I'm curious what would happen if Houston gets into the Big XII, thus qualifying Herman for a $5 million bonus from the Cougars, but then he goes to LSU anyway. Would Houston stiff him?

(10-01-2016 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-01-2016 09:01 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(10-01-2016 07:32 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 09:36 AM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  TCU and schools like them are signing their own death warranty by not pushing expansions no matter what UT or OU want. If the Big XII doesn't expand, it will disband, or at least UT and OU and probably KU will leave it. Then they will need to find 3-5 teams, and hope to hell that they keep P5 status. The $$ will certainly go down.

That is their only choice. UT doesn't care about TCU. These schools aren't facing the reality that this is an us or them scenario, and UT and OU are "them", with the other 8 as "us". Idiots.

If UT and OU leave, the Big 12 is no longer a P conference. They have no more real TV draws; It’s just like if UNC, Clemson and FSU leave the AAC, that league is done.
So, the prime incentive for TCU et al is for a)UT, OU and Kansas to stay and secondarily b)for TCU to be as attractive as possible to other Ps…Because at that time there will be a free-for-all to get into one of the P4, which will go to 16.
If they expand now, then, yes, it gives Cincy, Houston et al a chance to get even better to possibly maintain Big 12 as P5. But they still won’t be beasts…they won’t be draws. Further, it also creates the chance that Cincy, Houston surpass TCU and become more attractive than TCU to the other Ps. (frankly, that will probably happen anyway). The only Big 12s with a cinch to land spots in other leagues are Texas, OU, and Kansas.

So is it in TCU’s interest to help prop up Houston, UCF and Cincy or whomever and risk them looking better to other Ps?

Almost any G5 or P5 school can be a beast if it has an capable, innovative, hungry coach and a good quarterback. Consider G5 Houston under Herman. It's better than any Big XII team and will remain so if it gets P5 money, because there will be less outside incentive for Herman to leave. Ditto Cincy. Cincy was a beast under Kelly, and it will be again, when it gets a capable, innovative, hungry coach.

I'm curious what would happen if Houston gets into the Big XII, thus qualifying Herman for a $5 million bonus from the Cougars, but then he goes to LSU anyway. Would Houston stiff him?

Yeah. The $5 million is payed out over 2 or 3 years per his contract.

People keep saying that Kansas is a shoe in to land in a Power conference if Texas and/or Oklahoma leave the Big 12 but I'm not entirely convinced that that is the case. I'm not convinced that an excellent basketball brand and AAU status is enough to combat pitiful football, the small population of the state/limited number of new network subscribers, and the fact that it would be on the geographic edge of any conference they might join.

I think there's another metric we may want to consider when it comes to expansion, especially when it comes to the B1G and PAC 12. That is the Carnegie tier 1 research universities list. I know it's a type of academic snobbery but it's not a coincidence that every school in these two conferences is on that list. So if the BIGXII did indeed fall apart I think the schools on the list would be considered 1st. That's not to say they wouldn't consider others but it would definitely be on a case by case basis, for example OU is tier 1 and OSU is tier 2.

BIGXII tier 1 schools-
Iowa St.
Kansas.
Kansas St.
Oklahoma.
Texas.
Texas Tech.
West Virginia.

Notable g5 tier 1 schools-
Cincinnati
Colorado St
Hawaii
Houston
New Mexico
Rice
Temple
Tulane
UCONN
UCF
USF

I'm not trying to make an argument that this is the only thing that the PAC 12 and B1G consider but it can definitely hinder a schools consideration

(09-30-2016 05:46 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 02:25 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I will simply say that 100% of the media said expansion was dead on July 19, until the Big 12 presidents voted unanimously to go ahead with exploring expansion, and doing all this stuff since then. Not to mention all the work they have done since February, and for more than 2 years before that., at least by the 3-man expansion committee.

The Big 12 presidents haven't said a word yet to give anybody a clue. Just like last time.

All I would say is, don't write it off yet. I think the meeting on Oct. 17 will resolve things, one way or the other.

It does not matter for either one of us though. If they add 2 or 4 or 6.........Neither Memphis nor SMU will likely be one of them.

I don't agree. Surprised, huh?

(10-01-2016 11:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  People keep saying that Kansas is a shoe in to land in a Power conference if Texas and/or Oklahoma leave the Big 12 but I'm not entirely convinced that that is the case. I'm not convinced that an excellent basketball brand and AAU status is enough to combat pitiful football, the small population of the state/limited number of new network subscribers, and the fact that it would be on the geographic edge of any conference they might join.

2 thoughts...,

Think of KU like Indiana. Could you imagine any scenario that doesn't include IU in the P5. Secondly, if you want the KC market you have to have KU. If your the B1G and you want a total lockdown on St Louis and KC, you grab Mizzou and KU.