(06-12-2013 08:31 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  If we want to be honest, competitively it is the SEC and the little 4 in the one sport that really matters. With its population and fiscal stagnation, and I really don't see the Big 10 closing the gap in that respect. The other leagues' best hope to close the gap is that football itself loses popularity (which some are predicting will happen).

I think the B10 really needed to get into a southern market. I don't know that Maryland and Rutgers are going to be the answer they are looking for in the long term. Expanding further across the rust belt into the NE seems questionable at this point.

(06-12-2013 01:12 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article...don't buy it for a minute:

Plus, there’s this nugget, courtesy of the Austin American-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls, who reported that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said he tried to sell his Big 12 colleagues on Louisville, but to no avail.

What? Texas wanted Louisville? We already know that OU — both president David Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione — were pro-Louisville. If the Big 12 kingpins, Texas and OU, both wanted the Cardinals, why didn’t Louisville get an invite? Has the Big 12 gone all egalitarian? Does Texas not hold the sway we all thought? Does Texas and OU combined not swing a big enough stick to get Louisville?

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-louisv..._click=rss

I know I've said this multiple times but the Big 12 sealed its own fate by not taking UofL and Cincy to go along with WVU. The ACC would have imploded had the Big 12 not been so shortsighted, now the Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference of the P5. 10 teams and no plans for a conference network, the Big 12 is a walking corpse at this point.

Shaking head Yes...save for the walking corpse. I think they have enuf $$$ to stay happy. Also, don't think UL and Cincy would've imploded the ACC.

I just agree that WVU/Cincy and UL made the most sense to me from a geographical perspective. Then they could've added USF and UCF to get into FL.

(06-12-2013 08:41 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article...don't buy it for a minute:

Plus, there’s this nugget, courtesy of the Austin American-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls, who reported that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said he tried to sell his Big 12 colleagues on Louisville, but to no avail.

What? Texas wanted Louisville? We already know that OU — both president David Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione — were pro-Louisville. If the Big 12 kingpins, Texas and OU, both wanted the Cardinals, why didn’t Louisville get an invite? Has the Big 12 gone all egalitarian? Does Texas not hold the sway we all thought? Does Texas and OU combined not swing a big enough stick to get Louisville?

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-louisv..._click=rss

At the end of the day it takes 75%, and if the networks are saying take the other school it's tough for some schools to get over that.

Who knows? It is clear OU wanted Louisville in the Big 12, whether for #10 or #11 isn't clear. But the most important votes, ESPN and Fox, wanted WVU for #10. And Fox vetoed a #11 UL without an acceptable #12, and there were none unless someone from the ACC came.

Dodds may have wanted UL as #10, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't selling them as #11. He didn't want 12 unless they were home runs.

(06-12-2013 01:12 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article...don't buy it for a minute:

Plus, there’s this nugget, courtesy of the Austin American-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls, who reported that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said he tried to sell his Big 12 colleagues on Louisville, but to no avail.

What? Texas wanted Louisville? We already know that OU — both president David Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione — were pro-Louisville. If the Big 12 kingpins, Texas and OU, both wanted the Cardinals, why didn’t Louisville get an invite? Has the Big 12 gone all egalitarian? Does Texas not hold the sway we all thought? Does Texas and OU combined not swing a big enough stick to get Louisville?

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-louisv..._click=rss

I know I've said this multiple times but the Big 12 sealed its own fate by not taking UofL and Cincy to go along with WVU. The ACC would have imploded had the Big 12 not been so shortsighted, now the Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference of the P5. 10 teams and no plans for a conference network, the Big 12 is a walking corpse at this point.

The ACC would not have imploded, they simply would have grabbed UConn and we'd be paid less at 12 members.

I am all for expansion but you assume a lot here.

(06-12-2013 03:49 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:59 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:13 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I'm calling BS on that one. Every report at the time said that UT wanted WVU and not Louisville.

I guess it's a credit to Louisville's recent success that UT is trying to spin a completely different story after the fact.

Oh I agree...Texas and the networks wanted WVU...I just find it funny now...hindsight they should have taken both but that is the past...glad we are in the ACC...

Louisville is an awesome fit for the ACC.

Agree fully. We love Basketball, Football, Baseball, volleyball and are looking into Lacrosse. Sounds like the ACC to Me. Close by too!

Louisville is a better fit in the ACC undoubtedly. That being said I think Louisville would be a fine fit and great addition to any league East of the Rockies.

(06-12-2013 09:14 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:12 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article...don't buy it for a minute:

Plus, there’s this nugget, courtesy of the Austin American-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls, who reported that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said he tried to sell his Big 12 colleagues on Louisville, but to no avail.

What? Texas wanted Louisville? We already know that OU — both president David Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione — were pro-Louisville. If the Big 12 kingpins, Texas and OU, both wanted the Cardinals, why didn’t Louisville get an invite? Has the Big 12 gone all egalitarian? Does Texas not hold the sway we all thought? Does Texas and OU combined not swing a big enough stick to get Louisville?

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-louisv..._click=rss

I know I've said this multiple times but the Big 12 sealed its own fate by not taking UofL and Cincy to go along with WVU. The ACC would have imploded had the Big 12 not been so shortsighted, now the Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference of the P5. 10 teams and no plans for a conference network, the Big 12 is a walking corpse at this point.

The ACC would not have imploded, they simply would have grabbed UConn and we'd be paid less at 12 members.

I am all for expansion but you assume a lot here.

At this point...it appears that there is no good reason for the Big XII to expand...you guys would be expanding just for the sake of expansion and more then likely taking less $$$ per school..

Throughout this whole thing, I think people have been underestimating how the old North probably does not want expansion past 10. By going to 10, they went to full round robin play. This gives everyone a home game and away game every year vs. Texas/Oklahoma, a home and home in basketball with Kansas, etc. Going back to 12 would have meant difficult divisional questions again.

For the record, I still think the Big 12 has the best all around set-up. They are a real conference playing everyone often (every year in fact and twice in basketball).

^ This.

The North teams do NOT want to give up all that access to Texas and home games with UT/OU for a set up of KU/KSU/ISU/WVU + some combo of Cincy/Memphis/UConn/USF/UCF filling in the rest.

(06-12-2013 01:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I'm calling BS on that one. Every report at the time said that UT wanted WVU and not Louisville.

I guess it's a credit to Louisville's recent success that UT is trying to spin a completely different story after the fact.

I didn't think the story presented it as an either/or mistake, but as a both/and mistake.

I don't know why the big 12 just didn't pick Louisville as team 11 and stood at 11, worked fine for the big 10 for years. The answer is short term greed i guess. Bringing in the cards might have cost them some money upfront but longterm they would have been better off. I do find it funny texas pr machine is talking up lville now but i'm not sure why they are just lying about it since everything i read was texas was hostile to the cards in the big 12.

(06-12-2013 10:00 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I don't know why the big 12 just didn't pick Louisville as team 11 and stood at 11, worked fine for the big 10 for years. The answer is short term greed i guess. Bringing in the cards might have cost them some money upfront but longterm they would have been better off. I do find it funny texas pr machine is talking up lville now but i'm not sure why they are just lying about it since everything i read was texas was hostile to the cards in the big 12.

Probably a combo of the per school payout and the idea at the time that they would not be scooped up even if the ACC lost one. Pretty much everyone was saying UConn in that "war game".

(06-12-2013 08:24 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 08:17 AM)WNCOrange Wrote:  I find this arguing over who is #4 hilarious because the reality is that it is the power 2 (SEC and the B10) and the little 3. At this point the ACC, B12 and PAC are all interchangeable. Arguing about who is #4 is ridiculous.

I definitely agree with this.

I also agree that the Big 12 should have added Louisville and Cincinnati along with West Virginia. I think as time goes along that mistake will become more and more glaring. By adding all three of those schools, the Big 12 could have triangulated the Ohio Valley and created a real synergy between those schools and could have effectively expanded their footprint in a meaningful way. Instead, they opted to go with the shortsighted band-aid approach and that will ultimately hurt everyone.

Dumb.

Similarly, I think the Big Ten's selection of Rutgers and Maryland over Florida State and Georgia Tech will also prove a significant mistake in the long run.

I disagree with your points, Doc. But what else is new?

IMO the B12 is the perfect size. Having only 10 members allows for round robin play in every sport every year, which is the perfect setup for any conference. The other conferences may end up with more inventory for their networks, but it doesn't make them better. More teams allows for unequal scheduling, where some teams miss power teams in their conference, while others get the more difficult path to their conference championship game. We've seen several instances of that in the SEC already, and every time it's had a negative effect on the team facing the tougher schedule in the conference race. Over time that will only lead to some unnecessary friction...

I also think adding Maryland and Rutgers was the better choice for the B1G. It keeps the B1G in a contiguous setup, where FSU and GT would have left a big gap in their footprint. It also puts the B1G squarely in the most heavily populated area of the nation, now that the DC to NYC corridor a part of their domain. That will pay off down the road for both the B1G and the schools, as UM and RU get increased crowds and coverage. Better recruiting will follow the increased interest in those programs, due to their B1G association. I don't think putting the B1G into a southern market would have a big impact in their recruiting. They already get plenty of southern talent...

(06-12-2013 10:16 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 10:00 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I don't know why the big 12 just didn't pick Louisville as team 11 and stood at 11, worked fine for the big 10 for years. The answer is short term greed i guess. Bringing in the cards might have cost them some money upfront but longterm they would have been better off. I do find it funny texas pr machine is talking up lville now but i'm not sure why they are just lying about it since everything i read was texas was hostile to the cards in the big 12.

Probably a combo of the per school payout and the idea at the time that they would not be scooped up even if the ACC lost one. Pretty much everyone was saying UConn in that "war game".

That "might have given us the edge over UConn for the ACC spot...many have said that the assumption of UConn for the ACC and the ACC fears that evidently we would not have been available gave UofL the slight nod over the Huskies.

The theory goes that UConn would always be their for the ACC if they absolutely have to expand...with the GoR in place that fear unfortunately for the Huskies is gone....

(06-12-2013 08:54 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I just agree that WVU/Cincy and UL made the most sense to me from a geographical perspective. Then they could've added USF and UCF to get into FL.

That may still happen a little while down the road. Current members + BYU, UCF, USF, + ???? (Cincinnati?) = 14

(06-12-2013 08:11 AM)EnterSandman Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:13 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 01:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I'm calling BS on that one. Every report at the time said that UT wanted WVU and not Louisville.

I guess it's a credit to Louisville's recent success that UT is trying to spin a completely different story after the fact.

Oh I agree...Texas and the networks wanted WVU...I just find it funny now...hindsight they should have taken both but that is the past...glad we are in the ACC...

X2

Can't wait to be in the ACC.

Coming from Mizzou I am with ya on this. Sometimes the Lord blesses us with twice what we ask for... in both Mizzou's and Louisville's cases, that happened.

I think that many of the things mentioned in this thread were likely factors in the decision.

I think that the North schools absolutely want to maximize their exposure in Texas, since they have limited recruiting bases. I also think that they were in favor of a round-robin setup rather than a divisional split. Not only was there a history of "us vs them" discord between Big 12 divisions in the past, but as noted above any likely divisional setup would have been seen as lopsided in favor of the South (which would likely have stayed basically intact). Had they been able to keep Missouri, I think they could have perhaps put together a more palatable and geographically contiguous rebuilt North, but that was not to be.

If there was only to be one addition after TCU, WVU was a good cultural fit. State flagship, with passion for both football and basketball, with a football-first emphasis. With football driving the proverbial realignment bus, their recent history and brand strength was probably seen as better by network executives, who definitely had a big say in things. Also, even if they're similar academically, there may have also been a bit of flagship snobbery at play when considering WVU vs Louisville. With the Big 12 brand already being damaged, from the point of view of perception they may have balked at adding a "city" school, even one with a history of success.

It may be a bit pollyanna-ish, but I tend to think that the Big 12 is the best fit for UT, OU, and KU at this stage, and as long as they don't leave they're good anchors. I think the rest of the league is often underestimated, round-robin play is an ideal format, and there's some cohesion developing within the conference. That's not to say that administrators aren't doing their due diligence in researching ongoing options, but I don't think anyone is itching to jump ship at the moment.

(06-12-2013 01:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article...don't buy it for a minute:

Plus, there’s this nugget, courtesy of the Austin American-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls, who reported that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said he tried to sell his Big 12 colleagues on Louisville, but to no avail.

What? Texas wanted Louisville? We already know that OU — both president David Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione — were pro-Louisville. If the Big 12 kingpins, Texas and OU, both wanted the Cardinals, why didn’t Louisville get an invite? Has the Big 12 gone all egalitarian? Does Texas not hold the sway we all thought? Does Texas and OU combined not swing a big enough stick to get Louisville?

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-louisv..._click=rss

I call B.S. on this, Dodds didn't want us back then, and now he's doing spin control.

(06-12-2013 09:14 AM)S11 Wrote:  The ACC would not have imploded, they simply would have grabbed UConn and we'd be paid less at 12 members.

I am all for expansion but you assume a lot here.

If UConn was the only option to replace Maryland, FSU (and likely Clemson) would probably have defected to another league (Big 12). Louisville was the band-aid that kept the ACC together.

(06-12-2013 10:17 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 08:24 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 08:17 AM)WNCOrange Wrote:  I find this arguing over who is #4 hilarious because the reality is that it is the power 2 (SEC and the B10) and the little 3. At this point the ACC, B12 and PAC are all interchangeable. Arguing about who is #4 is ridiculous.

I definitely agree with this.

I also agree that the Big 12 should have added Louisville and Cincinnati along with West Virginia. I think as time goes along that mistake will become more and more glaring. By adding all three of those schools, the Big 12 could have triangulated the Ohio Valley and created a real synergy between those schools and could have effectively expanded their footprint in a meaningful way. Instead, they opted to go with the shortsighted band-aid approach and that will ultimately hurt everyone.

Dumb.

Similarly, I think the Big Ten's selection of Rutgers and Maryland over Florida State and Georgia Tech will also prove a significant mistake in the long run.

I disagree with your points, Doc. But what else is new?

IMO the B12 is the perfect size. Having only 10 members allows for round robin play in every sport every year, which is the perfect setup for any conference. The other conferences may end up with more inventory for their networks, but it doesn't make them better. More teams allows for unequal scheduling, where some teams miss power teams in their conference, while others get the more difficult path to their conference championship game. We've seen several instances of that in the SEC already, and every time it's had a negative effect on the team facing the tougher schedule in the conference race. Over time that will only lead to some unnecessary friction...

I also think adding Maryland and Rutgers was the better choice for the B1G. It keeps the B1G in a contiguous setup, where FSU and GT would have left a big gap in their footprint. It also puts the B1G squarely in the most heavily populated area of the nation, now that the DC to NYC corridor a part of their domain. That will pay off down the road for both the B1G and the schools, as UM and RU get increased crowds and coverage. Better recruiting will follow the increased interest in those programs, due to their B1G association. I don't think putting the B1G into a southern market would have a big impact in their recruiting. They already get plenty of southern talent...

True Bit, but if the B1G plans to grow the Maryland/Rutgers markets, I could the reasons for the Big XII taking USF or UCF for the same reasons, if they ever did go to 12. Puts Florida into play as new recruiting grounds.

Louisville lacked the necessities.