(05-02-2017 05:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:47 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  What would it take to make the Big 12 stable? They are making decent money, so I'm sure that helps. Is it just a matter of Texas playing nice? Do they need to expand/expand with decent schools? I've wondered this on here before, but since the money is nice and expansion might help, perhaps Arizona/Arizona St wouldn't be too farfetched, particularly if there was a GOR extension into like the 40s. Arizona/St would get more money out of the deal and swap playing California for playing Texas.

Nothing is going to make the Big 12 stable. They've lost 4 AAU schools (Nebraska was AAU when they left). They have replaced 4 large state Flagship schools with a private and a smaller state Flagship, but one that is not remotely attached to the conference. The are getting killed in recruiting and they aren't in a position to attract other strong P5's to join. And adding from the G5 will only increase the ire and despondency of donors and alums at UT and OU.

So they are toast. It's just a matter of when the heart stops beating (Texas), or the kidneys fail (OU). Name me 1 school there besides those two which the conference could be rebuilt around? West Virginia is the outlier and not a strong enough brand to build around and receive any kind of TV revenue. It's sure not Baylor, or T.C.U., or Texas Tech. It's not Iowa State or Kansas State, and it's not even Oklahoma State, and dare I mention Kansas? Furthermore Texas and Oklahoma would earn not only more for themselves, but much more for a network if they were in any of the other P4 conferences but particularly if they were in the Big 10 or SEC.

So the networks are through with paying 10 schools just to have access to two, maybe three that they want. The fans have reached a limit in which their home schedule only has 2 big names on it a year, and Oklahoma has had enough of it because they aren't getting 15 million a year for the LHN. Oklahoma's T3 pays 7 million a year, but they have to front the overhead so it only NETS them about 3.

And the two Arizona schools would be nuts to leave a stable PAC, but if they did they are not the brands that make the UT or OU schedules more palatable.

Starting to think a Texahoma package with OU, OSU, Texas & Tech would be the most financially viable expansion option. Heck, might even add KU and WVU if the numbers still work out.

Seems like that would be the best option.

We might have to sub Baylor for Tech though in order to get another league to bite on some of these other schools so that we can end it.

I'd be ok with this...

OU, OSU, UT, TT, TCU, and BU

Go to 20 and dominate the region. Let Texas have their division and capitalize on OU's brand at the same time.

WVU can go to the ACC.

The PAC can take Kansas, Kansas State, SMU, and Houston

Iowa State is the only one left out.

That's supersaturation in Texas. If we have A&M, UT-A and Tech, that's the three largest schools in the state. Can Baylor wins without signing a bunch of criminals? TCU fans are still fair weather and leave early even in big games.

Anyway, here is Arkansas Sports reporting interviewing Barry Switzer today:


Bo Mattingly @SportsTalkwBo


College football Hall of Fame coach @Barry_Switzer joins the @FSBank Hotline next!

Switzer: The Big 12 doesn’t recruit very well. Kansas, Iowa State…they don’t get the blue-chip players.
3:36 PM · May 2, 2017

Switzer: The only teams in the Big 12 that recruit well are Texas and Oklahoma.

Switzer: The players out of the Big 12 came from Texas and Oklahoma, and Nebraska, back when they were in the league.
3:37 PM · May 2, 2017

I could understand going with UT/TT/OU/OSU to secure the brands, but adding more would dilute the conference talent and possibly the payouts.

Ideally, we'd only take Texas and Oklahoma. I don't know that that's possible. I don't know that Texahoma is possible either.

Somehow that GOR has got to be dealt with.