(07-03-2013 08:37 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 08:29 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd believe OU wanted Lville but no way Texas did last year otherwise they would have got an invite...not much long term thought into the folks running the big 12, just penny wise-ish

Oh I agree...I can live with this but with Dodds take was saying was complete "Bull". But long term I think "some" of the members of the Big XII realized they screwed up by not taking both....

It was a no brainer to take Ville, Cincy and WVU. B12 might rue the day.

(07-03-2013 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

Big XII still has a chance to get things right by plucking Cincinnati and and one of the Florida schools. There are other great options out there too including SDSU, BYU, and Boise State out west. UConn, Memphis, and Tulane as well would not bad choices. That conference is making big money, has two football powers, and great basketball; however, their problem remains they are small conference with a limited geographic reach.

Why is a limited geography a problem with the Big 12 model? If the Big 12 had a conference based network I can see it as limiting, but with the 10 team model and each team controlling its tier 3 rights, there isn't the same motivation to get big. It's national appeal is dependent primarily on UT and OU, and adding any available schools is not going to move the national attractiveness needle.

(07-03-2013 09:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:41 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:38 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think Louisville was thought of by the XII as a school they believed would be available to them forever and all the XII had to do was find a 12th (or more) to go with them. That's why I think there's some "remorse" articles coming out now. If OU and Texas truly wanted Louisville over WVU, they would have been invited to the conference ahead of WVU. I think these articles coming out now are nice for Louisville's image, but are really indicative of nothing more than Louisville being a clear #11 for them.

But Louisville wasn't a clear #11. There were times during the process where everyone thought Louisville was getting the invite then the politicians got involved and everything went crazy. The Big 12 knew that neither the SEC or ACC wanted West Virginia so really they could have waited for them.

The XII was equally convinced that neither the SEC nor ACC wanted Louisville, either. They were wrong.

Louisville wasn't even in the discussion at the time. WV tried to get into both leagues and was denied. Louisville did not do that.

(07-03-2013 10:01 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

Big XII still has a chance to get things right by plucking Cincinnati and and one of the Florida schools. There are other great options out there too including SDSU, BYU, and Boise State out west. UConn, Memphis, and Tulane as well would not bad choices. That conference is making big money, has two football powers, and great basketball; however, their problem remains they are small conference with a limited geographic reach.

Why is a limited geography a problem with the Big 12 model? If the Big 12 had a conference based network I can see it as limiting, but with the 10 team model and each team controlling its tier 3 rights, there isn't the same motivation to get big. It's national appeal is dependent primarily on UT and OU, and adding any available schools is not going to move the national attractiveness needle.

Completely agree...and right now with everyone in a GoR the Big XII can afford to be very patient...@ this point the schools in the MWC/AAC or BYU will be there...it also appears to me that UC is making the commitment to be even better prepared for the next round.

(07-03-2013 09:41 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:38 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think Louisville was thought of by the XII as a school they believed would be available to them forever and all the XII had to do was find a 12th (or more) to go with them. That's why I think there's some "remorse" articles coming out now. If OU and Texas truly wanted Louisville over WVU, they would have been invited to the conference ahead of WVU. I think these articles coming out now are nice for Louisville's image, but are really indicative of nothing more than Louisville being a clear #11 for them.

But Louisville wasn't a clear #11. There were times during the process where everyone thought Louisville was getting the invite then the politicians got involved and everything went crazy. The Big 12 knew that neither the SEC or ACC wanted West Virginia so really they could have waited for them.

You're believing the story from the two clowns who WV has as Senators. The story from conference sources at the time (Berry Trammel(?) OU writer was one) was:
The delay all had to do with Missouri and the negotiations with them. WV was in the whole time because the TV networks said they were the best choice. There was some exploration of UL as #11, but there was no worthwhile #12. No two additional schools made it worthwhile to expand. And 11 messed with the schedule as you couldn't do a 9 game schedule for every team.

Dodds supporting UL seems unlikely with his anti-expansion comments at the time (he liked things at 10 but would support expansion with the "right two"), but it is possible. He certainly wasn't pushing hard. It did appear Boren was pushing hard for UL. Its very conceivable the other 7 didn't want any dilution of TV or playoff revenue or reduction of games against Texas and OU.

(07-03-2013 09:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Louisville (or any then available school for that matter) is not going to make or break the Big 12, and focusing on them misses the big picture. Adding the "hot" or "right" team or missing out on the "hot" or "right" team isn't going to be a lasting factor in the success or failure of the Big 12. The success or failure is going to depend on the effectiveness of its model to maintain revenue, or it the Big 10 or SEC (or PAC-12) can convince current members their models are better. The presence or absence of Louisville (or any other team) makes no difference in that regard.

Just funny a TCU fan is saying that UL wasn't a necessary add and that adding the "hot" team isn't important. A TCU fan.

(07-03-2013 09:31 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Coulda changed the whole fabric. Without Louisville available, who does the ACC replace Maryland with? UConn? That might have driven a wedge between the Southern football schools and the rest of the conference. Could been the beginning of the end of the ACC.

Maybe the ACC takes West Virginia...

(07-03-2013 10:48 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Louisville (or any then available school for that matter) is not going to make or break the Big 12, and focusing on them misses the big picture. Adding the "hot" or "right" team or missing out on the "hot" or "right" team isn't going to be a lasting factor in the success or failure of the Big 12. The success or failure is going to depend on the effectiveness of its model to maintain revenue, or it the Big 10 or SEC (or PAC-12) can convince current members their models are better. The presence or absence of Louisville (or any other team) makes no difference in that regard.

Just funny a TCU fan is saying that UL wasn't a necessary add and that adding the "hot" team isn't important. A TCU fan.

I'd make the same point about any team, including TCU, FWIW. I'll be the first to admit that like teams like TCU and any of the real or potential Big 12 expansion targets are just all pawns in the game the Big 12 is playing; OU and UT and the King and Queen. In the big picture, the pawns aren't critical to the success or failure of the Big 12.

No reason to be condescending.

(07-03-2013 11:00 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 10:48 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Louisville (or any then available school for that matter) is not going to make or break the Big 12, and focusing on them misses the big picture. Adding the "hot" or "right" team or missing out on the "hot" or "right" team isn't going to be a lasting factor in the success or failure of the Big 12. The success or failure is going to depend on the effectiveness of its model to maintain revenue, or it the Big 10 or SEC (or PAC-12) can convince current members their models are better. The presence or absence of Louisville (or any other team) makes no difference in that regard.

Just funny a TCU fan is saying that UL wasn't a necessary add and that adding the "hot" team isn't important. A TCU fan.

I'd make the same point about any team, including TCU, FWIW. I'll be the first to admit that like teams like TCU and any of the real or potential Big 12 expansion targets are just all pawns in the game the Big 12 is playing; OU and UT and the King and Queen. In the big picture, the pawns aren't critical to the success or failure of the Big 12.

No reason to be condescending.

I tend to agree here, but with BYU as an exception. They're more of a bishop (or whatever Mormons have). I believe BYU/UNLV to be the best combo for the Big XII. UNLV basketball is on the rise and if they finally get an on-campus stadium that would be huge.

(07-03-2013 10:01 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

Big XII still has a chance to get things right by plucking Cincinnati and and one of the Florida schools. There are other great options out there too including SDSU, BYU, and Boise State out west. UConn, Memphis, and Tulane as well would not bad choices. That conference is making big money, has two football powers, and great basketball; however, their problem remains they are small conference with a limited geographic reach.

Why is a limited geography a problem with the Big 12 model? If the Big 12 had a conference based network I can see it as limiting, but with the 10 team model and each team controlling its tier 3 rights, there isn't the same motivation to get big. It's national appeal is dependent primarily on UT and OU, and adding any available schools is not going to move the national attractiveness needle.

There are not enough eye balls watching nationally televised games. Fox even claimed that games last year for the Big 12 were "disappointing." Lets face it, outside of Texas the other states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia are not populous. The networks overpaid the Big 12 as the result of them wanting to keep the Big 12 together. This causes them not wanting to expand because they know that they will not get any new members worth of value and this will continue as long as the current statuesque is maintained.

There were a lot of moving parts and agendas at the time that complicated the whole process.

1. Missouri was still in flux - they had one foot out the door, but there was still the potential that they'd remain.
2. The networks appeared to have favored WVU. Louisville has had some success in football (and a great season last year) but I think many viewed them more as a basketball school, and football is a prime motivator in realignment.
3. I strongly agree that UT and OU wanted to keep their options open - even as they started to realize more and more that it's good to be the big dogs of a conference.
4. I think that after all of the North/South friction and the departure of several Big 12 schools, there was a desire for more conference cohesion. Having a 10-team round-robin schedule can have an impact on that. Also, if additional schools weren't chosen carefully, there was the potential that they'd be misfits, and if you added too many (such as Pitt/WVU/Louisville/Cincy, although Pitt was off the board by the later realignment) that had some commonality, there was the potential for creating yet another bloc of schools who had more in common with each other than with the core Big 12 schools.
5. I think that there was still the perception that the ACC's recent underperformance in football could have made them vulnerable to being raided on the football side. That may have been a mistaken perception, but if the Big 12 thought they might be able to pull say FSU/Clemson, that would have been the preference for the largely football-focused conference.
6. UT had the LHN, KU had the Jayhawk network for Tier 3, and OU was probably already working on getting their own Tier 3 setup in place. With much of the most attractive in-place inventory off the table for a conference network, that wasn't the direction the Big 12 wanted to go. So they didn't need to add content for such a network, reducing the need somewhat for additional inventory - particularly inventory that wasn't attractive to the major networks.
7. The non-Texas schools of the Big 12 probably wanted to continue to maximize exposure in TX for recruiting - and to also not appear to be the "weak sister" division.

Wow, Louisville is the exact opposite of UConn.

(07-03-2013 11:29 AM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 10:01 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

Big XII still has a chance to get things right by plucking Cincinnati and and one of the Florida schools. There are other great options out there too including SDSU, BYU, and Boise State out west. UConn, Memphis, and Tulane as well would not bad choices. That conference is making big money, has two football powers, and great basketball; however, their problem remains they are small conference with a limited geographic reach.

Why is a limited geography a problem with the Big 12 model? If the Big 12 had a conference based network I can see it as limiting, but with the 10 team model and each team controlling its tier 3 rights, there isn't the same motivation to get big. It's national appeal is dependent primarily on UT and OU, and adding any available schools is not going to move the national attractiveness needle.

There are not enough eye balls watching nationally televised games. Fox even claimed that games last year for the Big 12 were "disappointing." Lets face it, outside of Texas the other states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia are not populous. The networks overpaid the Big 12 as the result of them wanting to keep the Big 12 together. This causes them not wanting to expand because they know that they will not get any new members worth of value and this will continue as long as the current statuesque is maintained.

Where did Fox say they were "disappointing"? Even if so, their actions seem to give a different message, rewarded the "disappointing" numbers with a very aggressive TV deal. And where is the evidence any of the candidates really are going to move the national ratings needle, anyway?

(07-03-2013 11:34 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  There were a lot of moving parts and agendas at the time that complicated the whole process.

1. Missouri was still in flux - they had one foot out the door, but there was still the potential that they'd remain.
2. The networks appeared to have favored WVU. Louisville has had some success in football (and a great season last year) but I think many viewed them more as a basketball school, and football is a prime motivator in realignment.
3. I strongly agree that UT and OU wanted to keep their options open - even as they started to realize more and more that it's good to be the big dogs of a conference.
4. I think that after all of the North/South friction and the departure of several Big 12 schools, there was a desire for more conference cohesion. Having a 10-team round-robin schedule can have an impact on that. Also, if additional schools weren't chosen carefully, there was the potential that they'd be misfits, and if you added too many (such as Pitt/WVU/Louisville/Cincy, although Pitt was off the board by the later realignment) that had some commonality, there was the potential for creating yet another bloc of schools who had more in common with each other than with the core Big 12 schools.
5. I think that there was still the perception that the ACC's recent underperformance in football could have made them vulnerable to being raided on the football side. That may have been a mistaken perception, but if the Big 12 thought they might be able to pull say FSU/Clemson, that would have been the preference for the largely football-focused conference.
6. UT had the LHN, KU had the Jayhawk network for Tier 3, and OU was probably already working on getting their own Tier 3 setup in place. With much of the most attractive in-place inventory off the table for a conference network, that wasn't the direction the Big 12 wanted to go. So they didn't need to add content for such a network, reducing the need somewhat for additional inventory - particularly inventory that wasn't attractive to the major networks.
7. The non-Texas schools of the Big 12 probably wanted to continue to maximize exposure in TX for recruiting - and to also not appear to be the "weak sister" division.

Good post. It is important to realize that those schools not supporting expansion didn't necessarily have an issue with Louisville, they were weighing the plusses and minuses of expansion at that moment, under those circumstances. I'm pretty sure that even at the time, every school would have had great things to say about Louisville and their program, and those positive opinions would be further cemented with Louisville's recent success.

(07-03-2013 11:50 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 11:29 AM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 10:01 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

Big XII still has a chance to get things right by plucking Cincinnati and and one of the Florida schools. There are other great options out there too including SDSU, BYU, and Boise State out west. UConn, Memphis, and Tulane as well would not bad choices. That conference is making big money, has two football powers, and great basketball; however, their problem remains they are small conference with a limited geographic reach.

Why is a limited geography a problem with the Big 12 model? If the Big 12 had a conference based network I can see it as limiting, but with the 10 team model and each team controlling its tier 3 rights, there isn't the same motivation to get big. It's national appeal is dependent primarily on UT and OU, and adding any available schools is not going to move the national attractiveness needle.

There are not enough eye balls watching nationally televised games. Fox even claimed that games last year for the Big 12 were "disappointing." Lets face it, outside of Texas the other states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia are not populous. The networks overpaid the Big 12 as the result of them wanting to keep the Big 12 together. This causes them not wanting to expand because they know that they will not get any new members worth of value and this will continue as long as the current statuesque is maintained.

Where did Fox say they were "disappointing"? Even if so, their actions seem to give a different message, rewarded the "disappointing" numbers with a very aggressive TV deal. And where is the evidence any of the candidates really are going to move the national ratings needle, anyway?

I believe that Limited Geography will hurt the Big 12 down the line say about 10 years.

So that we are on the same page I am talking about the time when Texas A&M left and Mizzou left and WVU and TCU were added. That is where it was before the past season had started. Also, where in my post did you get that I said that the candidates left would move the national ratings anyway?

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

LMAO. in basketball...

In football? Not so much.

(07-03-2013 02:03 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

LMAO. in basketball...

In football? Not so much.

I had to jump in here. Are you saying ACC football isn't more competitive than AAC football?

(07-03-2013 11:44 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wow, Louisville is the exact opposite of UConn.

How so?
Is it that multiple conferences want Louisville and no conference wants UConn?

(07-03-2013 11:50 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 11:29 AM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 10:01 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Had the Big 12 added Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, TCU, USF, Rutgers, UConn as a package They could have created an Eastern wing that would have made themselves very formidable for B1G competition on National viewing coverage. But it's Our gain to be in the ACC where many years of great competition lie ahead.

Big XII still has a chance to get things right by plucking Cincinnati and and one of the Florida schools. There are other great options out there too including SDSU, BYU, and Boise State out west. UConn, Memphis, and Tulane as well would not bad choices. That conference is making big money, has two football powers, and great basketball; however, their problem remains they are small conference with a limited geographic reach.

Why is a limited geography a problem with the Big 12 model? If the Big 12 had a conference based network I can see it as limiting, but with the 10 team model and each team controlling its tier 3 rights, there isn't the same motivation to get big. It's national appeal is dependent primarily on UT and OU, and adding any available schools is not going to move the national attractiveness needle.

There are not enough eye balls watching nationally televised games. Fox even claimed that games last year for the Big 12 were "disappointing." Lets face it, outside of Texas the other states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia are not populous. The networks overpaid the Big 12 as the result of them wanting to keep the Big 12 together. This causes them not wanting to expand because they know that they will not get any new members worth of value and this will continue as long as the current statuesque is maintained.

Where did Fox say they were "disappointing"? Even if so, their actions seem to give a different message, rewarded the "disappointing" numbers with a very aggressive TV deal. And where is the evidence any of the candidates really are going to move the national ratings needle, anyway?

College football ratings were down across the board last year. The SEC was one of the ones with the biggest drops (scheduling meant there were fewer matchups between the stronger teams last year-the good matchups did well). The Big 12 did relatively well considering the overall drop.

(07-03-2013 02:34 PM)jam2112 Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 11:44 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wow, Louisville is the exact opposite of UConn.

How so?
Is it that multiple conferences want Louisville and no conference wants UConn?