BePcr07,

Houston never gets in the Pac-12. Ignore Cougar fans. Their school is improving, but on the HERD scale they need to almost triple research to match the bottom P12 school, Oregon State. And matching the worst in any conference is never enough. Utah does $550m in research and it was pulling teeth according to Larry Scott to get the P12 schools (read Cal, UCLA, UW, USC, and Stanford) to accept them. The landscape of schools west of the Mississippi in G5 that do enough R&D or have AAU status to get out of the expansion committee to even reach consideration are four: Rice, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii. New Mexico is a "barely" minimum, Hawaii is out due to travel, and Rice is not serious about becoming a power school. That means only Colorado State has any chance at all, if CU can be persuaded to allow them. The other viable option is Iowa State, although they would be something of an outlier.

Neither TCU nor Texas Tech really meet P12 criteria (Oklahoma State --without OU-- and K State are even less acceptable). But to take Texas they might take one or both. Texas' big problem with realignment to the B1G with say KU is a lack of opponents their fans would care about. They would have a similar problem with the P12 unless they could drag a few Texas schools with them; and that of course is the price the P12 must pay to get Texas, letting them bring a friend or two (and that might not work).

Texas will not go to the SEC for the same reasons the P12 would reject Houston (or any "city name" university). Except for Florida, they really don't see any peers (hate alone impacts their view of A&M who really is a top level research institution), and even Vandy doesn't bring the anywhere near same stature as Duke or Stanford for the eyes of the ivory tower. Texas sees the UC schools (Cal, UCLA, UCSD, UCD), Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, and North Carolina as their peers, along with Duke, Northwestern, Stanford and Florida. The other reason they would not choose the SEC is that very likely they would be fighting a massive battle for relevance every year. Similar to Notre Dame's view of the B1G and their preference for the ACC, Texas would also opt for the ACC if they want a Southeastern based conference.

I am not at all sure what Texas will do. All I know is both the B1G and SEC think they are not going to get Texas in the next realignment, so they are focusing on other schools in the B12 (B1G supposedly KU & OU, SEC OU & OK State).

Texas has three choices, go east to the ACC, perhaps with a Notre Dame type deal, where they play 5 games and book TCU and OU into 10 year rivalry contracts as the base of an Independent schedule. They could do the same with the Pac-12 going west, although that is more difficult on their Olympic sports (travel, the two hour time zone difference means flights from games on Pacific coast would arrive after 2AM in Texas, but only 11pm were they playing on the east coast). The west however is growing much faster than the South and is considerably richer per capita, but the same is true of the ACC region from New York to Florida. The allure of the P12 would be the ability to drag Texas Tech and/or TCU with them. They'd still want to get a 10 year rivalry contract with OU to make the schedule attractive. The third option, which is surprisingly attractive if say only OU and KU go to the B1G (or OU and OK State to the SEC), is adding two schools to the B12 to replace them (take you pick from CSU, UConn, Cincy, Tulane. USF and UCF -- Colorado State looks extremely attractive in this group, checks off the most boxes). The bleeding stops there.

OU is going to be the trigger school. The P12 and B12 are not competitive with the B1G or SEC in terms of dollars. Honestly they could go either way. The B1G is better for Basketball and the B1G West would be easier to win than the SEC West, and academically is a better bet for the long term institutional reputation. But the SEC is extremely attractive in terms of cultural similarities (at least with Missouri, A&M, Arkansas, and bringing along OK State) and in general warm weather football; as a side, their Basketball is more likely to remain a dominant conference power in the SEC than in the deep B1G). Frankly I think it's a toss up. I think if OU opts for the B1G they would demand the Red River game be allowed to continue in it's traditional slot, since they'd want another rivalry that matters (it would be a huge game, neutral site, sold for extra TV money like Notre Dame-Navy); the SEC would of course allow it, as they allow other rivalries to continue (e.g., Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, South Carolina-Clemson).

KU is a question mark. Some stories say the B1G is interested in them stand alone. But I have to think they really need to be the pairing with OU, unless it is a similar concession to Nebraska than Maryland and Rutgers were to Penn State. If the B1G does take KU stand alone (I can't see Texas joining as their schedule would be a bunch of schools nobody cares about), the question is who else do they take? UConn and Iowa State are the only two that meet some of the parameters of what they want; but UConn is another football zero, while Iowa State adds almost zero market and zero recruiting. I guess they would stand at 15 and try again for an ACC school in 2035.

It'll be interesting. But I stand by my view that Colorado State is far and away in the best position of any G5 to make the cross over to P5 (P4?)due to factors beyond the football field (location, high research levels, growing state, need of B12 for market, and P12 for a complimentary school that the expansion committee would approve and has some chance of getting the California schools and Washington's vote).

(11-14-2017 10:39 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I have mixed thoughts about the XII dissolving. I'm now leaning towards no - but it goes back and forth.

1) If you're not a power conference, having more than 12 schools is not really beneficial. If you are a power conference, having less than 12 schools is probably not beneficial. Therefore, 12 schools is likely the right number for a tweener conference (one that is not is not technically a power conference but exceeds the lower tier.)

2) The American and the Mountain West each have 12 schools. Therefore, I can't imagine a scenario where either would want to exceed 12. That leads me to the conclusion the XII will survive in some fashion and we will have a weakened Mountain West to the West and a weakened American to the East with a weakened XII in between them.

3) Who will remain? Where will schools go? Obviously, Texas and Oklahoma are safely power schools. Kansas is likely safe. Then it gets tricky. It depends on how conferences expand. I see it going like this...

Texas A&M really doesn't want Texas but wouldn't mind Oklahoma. The SEC invites Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. The SEC gets some firepower in the West allowing for divisional realignment. The B1G would be a good academic fit for Texas but culturally and geographically doesn't make sense. The ACC is likely too much of a stretch for the Longhorns. The PAC needs a better media deal ("Hello, ESPN!"), some firepower to their roster, and central time zone schools with reasonably easy access to recruits so they cater to Texas. The PAC invites Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston. The B1G sees Kansas as part of the club and invites them along with...Missouri. Missouri accepts on condition they receive their equal pay share immediately upon joining. The SEC responds with West Virginia - not a market or academic school like Mizzou but athletically far superior with an SEC mindset. The ACC invites Notre Dame to join full in football but the Irish reject. To keep up with the other power conferences, the ACC invites Cincinnati and Connecticut.

The XII is left with Baylor, Kansas St, and Iowa St. They invite Boise St, BYU, Colorado St, Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Temple, and SMU as full-members with football. They invite Wichita St (non-fb).

I like this scenario a lot, although I have a few quibbles:

Missouri will not likely be in a position to dictate terms to the Big Ten. They'd be lucky to even be invited.

If ND doesn't join the ACC in full, there's no way they'd fill up the 16th spot with UConn or Cincy.

I suspect that if the rebuilding Big 12 is going east with schools like UCF and USF, they won't be looking for mountain schools as full members. Rather, they might invite BYU and Boise for football only. The travel for non-FB sports is already pretty bad for the AAC, and they're "only" spread across half the country. And it's questionable as to whether BYU would even accept either a full or football-only invite, given that in this scenario, the Big 12 is no longer a power conference.

It's actually in the best interest of the Big 12 to finish off the American here. Otherwise, the American survives to compete for CFP money. If any American schools are left behind, they will rebuild as the Big East did before them. They'll restock from C-USA/MAC/SBC, which in turn will pick on each other and draw from the FCS. So the Big 12 adds the remaining full members of the American plus non-FB Wichita State, while Navy goes independent again.

Also, now that 12 schools isn't a requirement for divisions or a CCG, the Sun Belt has much less incentive to invite such far-off schools as UMass or NMSU.

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, NC State, Syracuse, Wake Forest (+ Cincinnati)
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech (+ Notre Dame)
Non-FB: Notre Dame (if not full member)

Big Ten
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Pac-16
East: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Houston, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State

SEC
Eastern: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia
Western: Arkansas, Mississippi State, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Big 12
East: Central Florida, Connecticut, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple (+ Cincinnati)
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa (+ Navy*)
Non-FB: Wichita State

C-USA, MAC, MWC, and SBC remain as is.

* = FB-only

No one from the Big XII is heading West to the Pac 12.....

I think the only reason the BIG 12 is still around is perhaps the shock to the system was just to much the last round. But who knows. I really think this conference will eventually dissolve. FOX and ESPN propped it up one last time.

The Big 8 and Southwest conference realize both need each other because neither on its own has anything close to a footprint of scope needed for survival. Both conferences dissolve and create the Big 12…those left behind did not and were not able to hold the Southwest conference together. Houston, Rice, TCU, and SMU end up MWC/CUSA. SMU was less than a decade removed from the death penalty.

Again, I think the BIG 12 is more likely to dissolve just as the Big 8 and Southwest conference did 21 years ago or something like that. The former Big 8 joined by Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas A&M to form the Big 12. The new conference looks at itself as entirely separate from the BIG 8 and in fact does not claim any of the Big 8 history of its own.

By a vote of 7-5 the Big 12 elects to plant the conference headquarters in Dallas, TX. Kansas, Kansas ST, Iowa ST, Nebraska, Missouri voted for Kansas City which was the former Big 8 headquarters.

So let’s think about this for a second. A Big 12 conference formed after the dissolution of two other conferences. The Big 12 has a grand total of 21 years of history. Compare that to the number of years of the other 4 power conferences.
What’s happened during the 21 years of Big12 existence?

(1) 2011 , 15 years later Nebraska is now a member of the BIG 10 and Colorado the PAC12
(2) 2012, 16 years later Texas A&M and Missouri are both members of the SEC.
(3) That’s 4 charter members gone by the end of year 16 or there about.
(4) The Nebraska/Oklahoma rivalry is no more. One of the most watched and intense rivalries in the history of college football…stick a fork in it. These are the kind of games conferences are built on.
(5) Texas/Texas A&M, another marquee rivalry dead to be no more.
(6) TCU (MWC) and West Virginia (DEAD CONFERENCE WALKING BIG EAST) replace 2 of the 4. That’s right WVU the one on an island all by itself.
(7) The Big 12 due to NCAA rules no longer has a CCG because it has 10 members. This ends up like a 4 or 5 year period without a CCG game.
(8) NCAA rules change so now the BIG 12 is going to have a CCG.

FACT: this fairly new conference called the BIG 12 has been raided by the SEC/PAC12/BIG10 to the point they were down to 8 members then added programs from lower lever conferences to get to 10 all the while the others were at 12 (PAC12) and 14 (SEC/BIG10/ACC) and in the infancy of having their own conference networks with even school distribution. The Big 12 has a handful making lots on 3rd tier rights but not all. While true the Big12 might be making more than the PAC 12/ACC at the moment this conference doesn’t have enough at the top to sustain that for the next 50 years, in my opinion but who knows? Sometimes a lot is made of this but it has ZERO effect on PAC12/ACC. What seems to not ever be mentioned is the BIG12 is not and will never distribute the same as the SEC/BIG10, the divide will over time continue to grow. These are the two king maker conferences make no mistake about it.

Lastly the footprint of the 5 so called power conferences. 2010 census:
SEC 11 states 90,137,028
BIG10 11 states 103,247,751 (this includes both NY/NJ for Rutgers)
ACC 10 states 93,623,582 (this does not include Notre Dame)
PAC12 6 states 61,995,638
BIG12 5 states 36,650,733


Now read this just as a reference if nothing else. Maybe get a feel of where things may be headed with the BIG 12. I know different circumstance but still some context at least with some of the members.

http://interactives.dallasnews.com/2015/...niversary/

(11-14-2017 03:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:39 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I have mixed thoughts about the XII dissolving. I'm now leaning towards no - but it goes back and forth.

1) If you're not a power conference, having more than 12 schools is not really beneficial. If you are a power conference, having less than 12 schools is probably not beneficial. Therefore, 12 schools is likely the right number for a tweener conference (one that is not is not technically a power conference but exceeds the lower tier.)

2) The American and the Mountain West each have 12 schools. Therefore, I can't imagine a scenario where either would want to exceed 12. That leads me to the conclusion the XII will survive in some fashion and we will have a weakened Mountain West to the West and a weakened American to the East with a weakened XII in between them.

3) Who will remain? Where will schools go? Obviously, Texas and Oklahoma are safely power schools. Kansas is likely safe. Then it gets tricky. It depends on how conferences expand. I see it going like this...

Texas A&M really doesn't want Texas but wouldn't mind Oklahoma. The SEC invites Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. The SEC gets some firepower in the West allowing for divisional realignment. The B1G would be a good academic fit for Texas but culturally and geographically doesn't make sense. The ACC is likely too much of a stretch for the Longhorns. The PAC needs a better media deal ("Hello, ESPN!"), some firepower to their roster, and central time zone schools with reasonably easy access to recruits so they cater to Texas. The PAC invites Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston. The B1G sees Kansas as part of the club and invites them along with...Missouri. Missouri accepts on condition they receive their equal pay share immediately upon joining. The SEC responds with West Virginia - not a market or academic school like Mizzou but athletically far superior with an SEC mindset. The ACC invites Notre Dame to join full in football but the Irish reject. To keep up with the other power conferences, the ACC invites Cincinnati and Connecticut.

The XII is left with Baylor, Kansas St, and Iowa St. They invite Boise St, BYU, Colorado St, Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Temple, and SMU as full-members with football. They invite Wichita St (non-fb).

I like this scenario a lot, although I have a few quibbles:

Missouri will not likely be in a position to dictate terms to the Big Ten. They'd be lucky to even be invited.

If ND doesn't join the ACC in full, there's no way they'd fill up the 16th spot with UConn or Cincy.

I suspect that if the rebuilding Big 12 is going east with schools like UCF and USF, they won't be looking for mountain schools as full members. Rather, they might invite BYU and Boise for football only. The travel for non-FB sports is already pretty bad for the AAC, and they're "only" spread across half the country. And it's questionable as to whether BYU would even accept either a full or football-only invite, given that in this scenario, the Big 12 is no longer a power conference.

It's actually in the best interest of the Big 12 to finish off the American here. Otherwise, the American survives to compete for CFP money. If any American schools are left behind, they will rebuild as the Big East did before them. They'll restock from C-USA/MAC/SBC, which in turn will pick on each other and draw from the FCS. So the Big 12 adds the remaining full members of the American plus non-FB Wichita State, while Navy goes independent again.

Also, now that 12 schools isn't a requirement for divisions or a CCG, the Sun Belt has much less incentive to invite such far-off schools as UMass or NMSU.

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, NC State, Syracuse, Wake Forest (+ Cincinnati)
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech (+ Notre Dame)
Non-FB: Notre Dame (if not full member)

Big Ten
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Pac-16
East: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Houston, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State

SEC
Eastern: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia
Western: Arkansas, Mississippi State, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Big 12
East: Central Florida, Connecticut, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple (+ Cincinnati)
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa (+ Navy*)
Non-FB: Wichita State

C-USA, MAC, MWC, and SBC remain as is.

* = FB-only

The PAC's first play is UT, OU with perhaps KU included. Failing that, assuming OU is enticed elsewhere, their next play may well be to invite UT and as much as two other Texas programs. TCU and Tech are academic issues but they're power-level schools and also would help to ease travel challenges for UT. I don't think a Texas G5 school could be elevated considering the other challenges. Then a candidate like Colorado State becomes interesting. Keeps the tradition of doubling up in states in the PAC. So the Buffs-Rams rivalry would continue indefinitely.

(11-14-2017 02:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  BePcr07,

Houston never gets in the Pac-12. Ignore Cougar fans. Their school is improving, but on the HERD scale they need to almost triple research to match the bottom P12 school, Oregon State. And matching the worst in any conference is never enough. Utah does $550m in research and it was pulling teeth according to Larry Scott to get the P12 schools (read Cal, UCLA, UW, USC, and Stanford) to accept them. The landscape of schools west of the Mississippi in G5 that do enough R&D or have AAU status to get out of the expansion committee to even reach consideration are four: Rice, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii. New Mexico is a "barely" minimum, Hawaii is out due to travel, and Rice is not serious about becoming a power school. That means only Colorado State has any chance at all, if CU can be persuaded to allow them. The other viable option is Iowa State, although they would be something of an outlier.

Neither TCU nor Texas Tech really meet P12 criteria (Oklahoma State --without OU-- and K State are even less acceptable). But to take Texas they might take one or both. Texas' big problem with realignment to the B1G with say KU is a lack of opponents their fans would care about. They would have a similar problem with the P12 unless they could drag a few Texas schools with them; and that of course is the price the P12 must pay to get Texas, letting them bring a friend or two (and that might not work).

Texas will not go to the SEC for the same reasons the P12 would reject Houston (or any "city name" university). Except for Florida, they really don't see any peers (hate alone impacts their view of A&M who really is a top level research institution), and even Vandy doesn't bring the anywhere near same stature as Duke or Stanford for the eyes of the ivory tower. Texas sees the UC schools (Cal, UCLA, UCSD, UCD), Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, and North Carolina as their peers, along with Duke, Northwestern, Stanford and Florida. The other reason they would not choose the SEC is that very likely they would be fighting a massive battle for relevance every year. Similar to Notre Dame's view of the B1G and their preference for the ACC, Texas would also opt for the ACC if they want a Southeastern based conference.

I am not at all sure what Texas will do. All I know is both the B1G and SEC think they are not going to get Texas in the next realignment, so they are focusing on other schools in the B12 (B1G supposedly KU & OU, SEC OU & OK State).

Texas has three choices, go east to the ACC, perhaps with a Notre Dame type deal, where they play 5 games and book TCU and OU into 10 year rivalry contracts as the base of an Independent schedule. They could do the same with the Pac-12 going west, although that is more difficult on their Olympic sports (travel, the two hour time zone difference means flights from games on Pacific coast would arrive after 2AM in Texas, but only 11pm were they playing on the east coast). The west however is growing much faster than the South and is considerably richer per capita, but the same is true of the ACC region from New York to Florida. The allure of the P12 would be the ability to drag Texas Tech and/or TCU with them. They'd still want to get a 10 year rivalry contract with OU to make the schedule attractive. The third option, which is surprisingly attractive if say only OU and KU go to the B1G (or OU and OK State to the SEC), is adding two schools to the B12 to replace them (take you pick from CSU, UConn, Cincy, Tulane. USF and UCF -- Colorado State looks extremely attractive in this group, checks off the most boxes). The bleeding stops there.

OU is going to be the trigger school. The P12 and B12 are not competitive with the B1G or SEC in terms of dollars. Honestly they could go either way. The B1G is better for Basketball and the B1G West would be easier to win than the SEC West, and academically is a better bet for the long term institutional reputation. But the SEC is extremely attractive in terms of cultural similarities (at least with Missouri, A&M, Arkansas, and bringing along OK State) and in general warm weather football; as a side, their Basketball is more likely to remain a dominant conference power in the SEC than in the deep B1G). Frankly I think it's a toss up. I think if OU opts for the B1G they would demand the Red River game be allowed to continue in it's traditional slot, since they'd want another rivalry that matters (it would be a huge game, neutral site, sold for extra TV money like Notre Dame-Navy); the SEC would of course allow it, as they allow other rivalries to continue (e.g., Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, South Carolina-Clemson).

KU is a question mark. Some stories say the B1G is interested in them stand alone. But I have to think they really need to be the pairing with OU, unless it is a similar concession to Nebraska than Maryland and Rutgers were to Penn State. If the B1G does take KU stand alone (I can't see Texas joining as their schedule would be a bunch of schools nobody cares about), the question is who else do they take? UConn and Iowa State are the only two that meet some of the parameters of what they want; but UConn is another football zero, while Iowa State adds almost zero market and zero recruiting. I guess they would stand at 15 and try again for an ACC school in 2035.

It'll be interesting. But I stand by my view that Colorado State is far and away in the best position of any G5 to make the cross over to P5 (P4?)due to factors beyond the football field (location, high research levels, growing state, need of B12 for market, and P12 for a complimentary school that the expansion committee would approve and has some chance of getting the California schools and Washington's vote).

The problem for the Pac12 is thier not going to get what they want. There is nothing the Pac-12 can offer that the Big-10 doesnt do better. The Big10 offers superior academics, superior cooperative research, a vastly superior TV deal, vastly superior travel, and exposure to the most populated portions of the US. The Pac12 has been playing footsies with UT since the early 1990's. This flirtation has been going on for almost 30 years---yet UT has never bolted. Instead, they have simply used the Pac12 as a foil to extract concessions from its conference mates.

The reason is simple. The big donors at UT want nothing to do with the Pac12. The Longhorns arent coming. They arent giving up the LHN for a 20 million dollar TV deal and a slice of the least profitable conference network. They arent choosing the Pac-12 over a Big10 offer that will offer revenue nearly double what the Pac12 has. They arent coming to deal with 9:30 west coast starts that end after half the UT fans are in bed and hours after most of the nation has called it a night. They arent coming--because UT doesnt have to accept that kind of fate. UT is a huge prize. They will go to the high bidder--not the desperate underfunded one.

So, the Pac12 will have to swallow hard and deal with accepting a school or two that dont meet the typical standards of the Pac12---or they can continue to fall father and farther behind the other P5 conferences. Colorado St isnt the answer. What does addding CSU accomplish? Nothing. The Pac12 already has a massive presence in Colorado with The flagship in Colorado. Colorado checks off zero boxes that matter. This isnt just expansion for expansion's sake. The idea is to create new viewers, new fans, and new subscribers to the Pac12 Network. If Colorado St doesnt do that in any meaningful way, then its academics dont matter. The first hurddle for Pac12 expansion is adding a big block of subscribers---and honestly---there is only one place in the west where 1) there is a huge block of western fans and 2) is a western state where the Pac12 doesnt already have an adequate presence. That one place is Texas.

Here is the bottom line---for any Pac12 expansion to make any sense--they must get into Texas. If not with UT---then with Texas Tech, Houston, SMU, TCU, Baylor, etc. Colorado St, San Diego St, UNLV, (insert any MW school in this list) does nothing to help expand Pac12 viewership in any meaningful way.

In the end, the Pac12 will not get the Longhorns. At that point they will have a decision to make. They can try to enter into new major population centers in Texas with schools they view as poor "peer" matches---or they can stand pat and continue to fall farther behind the rest of the more populated P5 conferences. Honestly---I can see that decision going either way. The Pac12 has always marched to the beat of its own drummer--so they might just decide to stay true to their academic "peer" requirements and simply stay as they are. Even if they continue to fall behind financially, the Pac12 is the one P5 conference that can get away with that kind of decision---because there is really no significant FBS challenge to the Pac12 in the west. Its not like they would lose recruits or bowl opportunities because of it. They just lose money. That said, the real long term move would be to swallow hard and accept a couple of "Louivilles" like the ACC did. In 10-15 years, those schools would look just like the rest of the Pac12 and the Pac12 would be far more relavent due to having almost doubled its population footprint with one move.

(11-13-2017 03:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Given enough time, yes. Everything and everyone will eventually dissolve.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

(11-14-2017 08:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 03:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Given enough time, yes. Everything and everyone will eventually dissolve.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

Great song.

Houston Cougar fans are a bit delusional. They are as much deep south as Texas, and Pacific Coast thinking patterns are something of a mystery to them. Football is not king here. And it's in more decline than it is in Texas, although it is in slow decline everywhere.

Wedge is totally right, without Texas, the Pac-12 does not expand. It's very hard for folks East of the Rockies to fathom, but that is what it is. Except for Cal and Wazzu, nobody is in in any financial difficulty, and there seems to be zero interest in those two schools from the SEC, B1G or ACC -- they are just a bit too far away for a Maryland type move.Cal just got a big bailout from the school to the tune of $10m per year, so they don't have to cut their $100m athletic budget to cover the stadium debacle. Arizona is so joined at the hip to California that they are not going anywhere. So the P12 is safe from being raided due to geography.

Expansion only comes if they get a peer. If it's not Texas, it's not happening. And I agree Texas doens't go unless they decide (a) the B12 is not viable without OU and one or two other schools leaving (KU and OK State), and (b) losing their Texas rivals in TCU and Texas Tech by going to the ACC outweighs the travel advantage for their athletes. Only in that scenario does a Texas plus friends work for the Pac-12.

My bet at the moment is Texas does a Notre Dame type Indy deal with the ACC and books TCU and OU for a 10 year series. OU and OK State go SEC, KU goes B1G. So would the Pac-12 bend standards to increase inventory? Almost certainly not. But if they did, you might be looking at Colorado State and TCU.

Now the million dollar question, who are the 4 schools the B12 rump grab to replace those departing? And do they focus on Football or Basketball? Do they hold standards or forget them as only ISU would be a remaining AAU school?

Consider who the B12 would be: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, West Virginia. That isn't great, but it's not dissimilar to the Big East of Louisville, Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. That group had no headliner, but hung on to P6 status. I see the same for a B12 rump in 2025. Careful additions like Cincinnati and Colorado State would probably preserve that status. The 9th and 10th spots are more up for grabs.

(11-14-2017 11:49 AM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:32 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't think anything happens.

The Big 12 should expand, though. Adding UCF/USF and then Cincinnati/ECU would look dumb now but in 10 years no one will ever remember that they used to all be CUSA schools.

Agree, I think Big 12 will stay put as is.

But.......
The ONLY G5 candidates Big 12 will EVER consider:
Memphis, UCF, & USF
Houston (If Baylor gets Dumped, otherwise, no way)
2nd tier
Cinn, UTSA, UNLV, U Conn, Colo St

Forget BYU & 4 sure, forget has been, Bosie St.
Big 12 won’t mess w/either one.

Memphis didn't even make the first cut of the Big 12's review process last year. I agree about UCF and USF. Houston has political interests on their side. Cincinnati and UConn are certainly first tier candidates. UNLV and Colorado State are valid sleepers, but I don't see how UTSA is in there. The other sleeper is Tulane. (I'm telling you that the academic prestige matters here.)

Quote:Could Big 12 have some P5 bargaining chips on the table
during the next TV/Cable negotiations?

Speculating on possible P5 teams
that might, mayB consider moving to Big 12
(Very Doubtful Big 12 could entice any P5 school to move)

) Arizona & Arizona St,--had inquires both sides showed interest & promise
they’ll revisit in 5 years

) Nebraska--Alumni/Fans are restless IF next couple of coaching hires
don’t bring Nebraska to a Top 10 program, they’ll B alot of $$$ folk’s
looking South when the next 2024 contract comes up

) Arkansas-- Very Doubtful, SEC $$$$ very good, program does suffer being in SEC west
But, support, attendance, & $$$$ is up,
Big 12 can help open Texas market to more Top Tier recruits

) Mizzu--Highly unlikely, AD administration a mess, SEC $$$$ is very good
How important is it 4 them to reconnect w/ Kansas? & Texas recruits?

) Colorado--Alumni & Donors likes Pac 12 “fit”
IF Big 12 could offer a much higher $$$$ next time around
Helps w/ lower travel cost, closer rivalries, & Texas recruiting

) Kentucky/ Louisville-Very Doubtful; talk of this event as a possibility
as few years back. I’d think U’d have to have
alot of unrest in conference alignment 4 this 2 even B on the radar
Big 12 would have to have a HUGE $$$$ increase
But basketball rules @ both institutions
& #1 B-ball league for yrs has been the Big 12

Big 12 has ZERO leverage with any other P5 teams. This isn't just about football results/recruiting or even TV money. It's about power, academic prestige and stability at the university president level... and the Big 12 has waaaay less of it compared to all of the other P5 conferences. Everyone knows that the Big 12 lives and dies with Texas and, as a result, every school that left the Big 12 wants nothing to do with it again (even if nostalgic fans that don't understand the long-term big picture might complain about current football performance). Schools in the Big Ten trust that Michigan and Ohio State aren't going to walk out the door in 10 years. Schools in the SEC trust that Alabama and Florida aren't going to walk out the door in 10 years. Schools in the Pac-12 trust that USC and UCLA aren't going to walk out the door in 10 years. Schools in the ACC trust that Duke and UNC aren't going to walk out the door in 10 years. Does anyone in the Big 12 trust the same thing with Texas and Oklahoma? No other P5 school is taking that risk with the Big 12 no matter how much short-term TV money is there (and that argument wouldn't work with the Big Ten and SEC that have much larger TV contracts, anyway).

Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

(11-14-2017 11:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston Cougar fans are a bit delusional. They are as much deep south as Texas, and Pacific Coast thinking patterns are something of a mystery to them. Football is not king here. And it's in more decline than it is in Texas, although it is in slow decline everywhere.

Wedge is totally right, without Texas, the Pac-12 does not expand. It's very hard for folks East of the Rockies to fathom, but that is what it is. Except for Cal and Wazzu, nobody is in in any financial difficulty, and there seems to be zero interest in those two schools from the SEC, B1G or ACC -- they are just a bit too far away for a Maryland type move.Cal just got a big bailout from the school to the tune of $10m per year, so they don't have to cut their $100m athletic budget to cover the stadium debacle. Arizona is so joined at the hip to California that they are not going anywhere. So the P12 is safe from being raided due to geography.

Expansion only comes if they get a peer. If it's not Texas, it's not happening. And I agree Texas doens't go unless they decide (a) the B12 is not viable without OU and one or two other schools leaving (KU and OK State), and (b) losing their Texas rivals in TCU and Texas Tech by going to the ACC outweighs the travel advantage for their athletes. Only in that scenario does a Texas plus friends work for the Pac-12.

My bet at the moment is Texas does a Notre Dame type Indy deal with the ACC and books TCU and OU for a 10 year series. OU and OK State go SEC, KU goes B1G. So would the Pac-12 bend standards to increase inventory? Almost certainly not. But if they did, you might be looking at Colorado State and TCU.

Now the million dollar question, who are the 4 schools the B12 rump grab to replace those departing? And do they focus on Football or Basketball? Do they hold standards or forget them as only ISU would be a remaining AAU school?

Consider who the B12 would be: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, West Virginia. That isn't great, but it's not dissimilar to the Big East of Louisville, Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. That group had no headliner, but hung on to P6 status. I see the same for a B12 rump in 2025. Careful additions like Cincinnati and Colorado State would probably preserve that status. The 9th and 10th spots are more up for grabs.

I actually agree with most of this (other than the first sentence). Coog fans aren’t delusional. They are pragmatic. They know UT isn’t goung west. All they are saying is that if The Pac12 wants Texas, and UT says no—they are among the better options. As I said in my post—I can totally see the Pac12 just standing pat secure that while they will trail the rest of the P5 in earnings—they remain secure as a power player due to geography.

That said, I can also see the Pac12 deciding after they overplayed thier hand, that they are ready to see their investment in the Pac12 network pay off. That requires grabbing Texas.

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

ACC negotiated the ND deal from a position of weakness. That won't be the case in 2023. 2 football games in one season and 3 games in another won't move the needle that much. Presidents vote on these things, not internet posters.

Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

That Dust In The Wind may turn into dust on John Swofford as he sits and waits and waits for ND football to join the ACC.

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

Despite all the chaos Louisville has had, which will blowover. Look at UNC and the NCAA. Swapping Louisville for MD was a net gain. From many traditional ACC fans, AKA Old Folks Many were glad to be rid of MD. If ninja Swofford could pull Texas into the ACC, I think ND really may consider joining full time. If that happens, look for Swofford to retire soon after because he completed his dreams for the ACC. Again, I have no love for Swofford as a NCSU fan. I never thought he could turn the ACC into a football conference but he has. Gotta respect what he had done for the ACC.

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Actually it's Texas that has no leverage.
The ACC does not need Texas, it has become a really good football conference without them (two out of the last 4 championships, two teams a possibility for this year). The only thing Texas does for the ACC is eyeballs. With the record of the Horns for the last 6-8 years, the ACC would be adding football credibility to Texas rather than the other way around.
Texas is screwed if the Big 12 fails. The only conference where their fans can travel to away games would be the SEC. The schools itself fits best into the B1G (but the Horns don't want to become another Nebraska, and who wants to play in the cold?) The ACC offers NO natural rivals and a lot of travel just like the PAC (but in a better direction).

(11-15-2017 07:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

That Dust In The Wind may turn into dust on John Swofford as he sits and waits and waits for ND football to join the ACC.

I don't fault Notre Dame on this. They have proven time after time they are very savvy and clever negotiators. Of course they will take advantage of financial enablers, be it conferences, broadcast media, bowls, etc.

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Texas is no ND. If Texas wanted full membership into the ACC then the ACC would likely be interested. But Im sure the ACC is not interested in granting football independence to a team who has never had it. Anyone who thinks the ACC would do so doesnt know much about the ACC.