[/quote]
Agree.
Ohio State's president at the time (Gordan Gee) actually told donors on a recorded conference call that they made a mistake. He said that if they'd have known the SEC would add Missouri, that the Big 10 would have added Kansas & Missouri instead of Rutgers & Maryland.
[/quote]

Gordon Gee is a loquacious fool.

Loquacious? Bifurcating? When did this board become a board full of English majors?

(02-16-2021 02:35 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 01:27 PM)cubucks Wrote:  I have a hard time believing anything changes as we currently are, status quo.

Why would Texas and Oklahoma want anything than what they already have? They are in control of their conference, they have plenty of money and they play a wonderful round-robin schedule in football.

As for the PAC, they are the ones that need help. I just can't see the California schools meshing with Oklahoma and the Texas schools...at all! For me personally, I would drop Oregon State and Washington State to start trimming the fat and work the conference from there. The BIG, at one time, was willing to have a partnership of games and see if that's still on the table.

Money is great, but so is being in a good relationship with your peers. You have to do what's right and what fits for your program. Academics, culture, facilities, history and coaches will attract top-tier talent, no matter where you are on the map.

In their current memberships the Big 12 is worth more than the Pac 12 and given Texas's popularity and Oklahoma's football strength it is justified. If the choices are Pac 12 or Big 12, UT and UO of course should choose the Big 12.

Now if you are FOX or ESPN, is having UT and UO in the Big 12 vs. the Pac 12 in your best interest? If they are in the Big 12, you have to pay them and you still have to pay the Little 8 at least a comparable amount of money. You also probably have to give the Pac-12 something. While the California schools are less valuable than Texas and Oklahoma, they aren't worthless. Oregon also has some value. You do have some big markets out west. On the other hand, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Pac 12, you probably have to give Texas and Oklahoma more (as well as the other Pac 12 schools) more but you don't have to give Iowa State, Kansas State, and Baylor anything. If the networks wanted Texas and Oklahoma in the Pac-12, they can make it financially worth their while. Now Texas and Oklahoma could say no for the reasons you said plus the Big 10 and SEC could also be factors. But why should FOX and/or ESPN have to pay ten schools P5 rates when they only believe two schools deserve it? Texas and Oklahoma want the Little Eight to be paid reasonably. They'd be in the AAC and still get the same money if they could. Ohio State would move to the MAC if they could still get the same money they get now. It's up to the networks to make sure schools are paid what they are worth. Half the schools in the SEC are overpaid and living off Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

I think you off base on the bolded because you are mistaking population for viewership. tOSU wouldn't move to the MAC even if the money were equal because the schedule played would suppress the TV rating over time. More people live in the P12 than SEC prior to adding A&M, but the engagement in the south has proven move valuable.

(02-16-2021 06:45 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Loquacious? Bifurcating? When did this board become a board full of English majors?

I don’t words the sesquipedalia, the only thing that bothers me is when posts become too prolix and discursive. I don’t have all day to read a wall of text.

(02-16-2021 03:31 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would this movement make sense:

Big XII SOUTH (Bedlam and the Texas schools) to PAC-12
Big XII NORTH (everything else) to B1G or ACC

How about trifurcating

WV, TCU, Baylor to ACC

ISU, Kan, KSU, Mizzou to Big Ten

Tex, TT, Ok, OSU to SEC

(02-16-2021 12:59 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 12:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 12:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Agree.

Ohio State's president at the time (Gordan Gee) actually told donors on a recorded conference call that they made a mistake. He said that if they'd have known the SEC would add Missouri, that the Big 10 would have added Kansas & Missouri instead of Rutgers & Maryland.

I have a feeling the B1G would have still taken UMD.

There is a lot more money to be made in Maryland/DC and New Jersey/ NYC than in Missouri and Kansas

Perhaps. But 100% of Missouri & Kansas is better than 10% of New York & DC.

(02-16-2021 06:29 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 12:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Agree.
Ohio State's president at the time (Gordan Gee) actually told donors on a recorded conference call that they made a mistake. He said that if they'd have known the SEC would add Missouri, that the Big 10 would have added Kansas & Missouri instead of Rutgers & Maryland.

Gordon Gee is a loquacious fool.

Perhaps.

But it doesn't mean that he was wrong.

Alumni of the majority of Big Ten schools (Big Ten West + Indiana + MSU) generally have a very strong preference for Midwestern schools with similar missions and culture. Educated Midwesterners are damn proud of being from the most practical, tolerant, and industrious culture in the world (although they're mostly too humble to voice their pride). To them, East Coast culture is foreign (probably because of its lack of tolerance for differing opinions and its dominance by cultural elites), and the Beltway is downright evil.

However, Ohio State & Michigan are the Easternmost original Big 10 schools and have almost as big of ties to coastal cities as they do to Chicago & St. Louis. So East Coast exposure is important to the two most important Big Ten schools. But if Ohio State's president says OSU feels the same way in hindsight as the original Little Eight, then that leaves Penn State & maybe Michigan as the only schools that liked the Eastern expansion.

Goofus: like that idea but I DO have to say

<MonicaGellar>"That's not even a word"<MonicaGellar>

(02-17-2021 12:23 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Goofus: like that idea but I DO have to say

<MonicaGellar>"That's not even a word"<MonicaGellar>

Lol, if you not sold on the word trifurcating, wait until you hear my idea for quadfurcating the Big 12!.

I enjoyed having Gordon Gee as Vanderbilt University chancellor. The bow-tie collection was beautiful.

What makes you think the Big 12 needs to do anything at all. Revenues are good. Bowl games tie-ins are good. Attendance is good. Other sports do well too. Right now the Big 12 may be the premier basketball conference. Baseball looks promising as well. Schools seem to be on the same page.

Frog: thought experiment and they seem to be most unstable P5.

(02-17-2021 03:16 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  What makes you think the Big 12 needs to do anything at all. Revenues are good. Bowl games tie-ins are good. Attendance is good. Other sports do well too. Right now the Big 12 may be the premier basketball conference. Baseball looks promising as well. Schools seem to be on the same page.

Speculative envy of the part of OU and UTX. The theory is said schools look around at the revenue being made by the likes of MSST and MINN and wondering what could they fetch in a different conference.