(12-05-2010 04:48 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  I agree Bill. If they expand I would think that BYU is a lock, then they would try and take a Pac-12 school (which won't work) and Arkansas (which won't work) and a Big East team (which won't work). As someone said, I can't remember who, the Big 12's only options are the remaining MWC schools and C-USA.

Actually I wonder if they'd consider going into California. Fresno State sits in a valley with a population of 10 million. San Diego State also sits in a pretty big market. There is no direct competition from the Pac Ten in the sense of having a local school in either of these 2 markets.

Frankly though, I believe the Big XII when it says that it kind of likes the idea of a 10 member conference without a conference championship game.

(12-05-2010 04:52 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  If Big 12 is expanding without us getting any of the 3/4 schools linked to the Big East, then they should go get BYU and Boise and be done with it. BYU and their tv deal will help take less money to get in, and Boise would just take anything to get in at this rate.

Why in the world would the Big XII want Boise?

Fresno's academics will keep them out of the Big 12 (Texas won't allow Fresno and several other schools to get into the conference because of that, that has hurt several schools as far as getting into the Pac-10 and Big East as well). For whatever reason the Big 12 doesn't seem to have a lot of interest in the West Coast, which is why I like BYU's chances if the Big 12 ever expands again.

(12-05-2010 05:05 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Fresno's academics will keep them out of the Big 12 (Texas won't allow Fresno and several other schools to get into the conference because of that, that has hurt several schools as far as getting into the Pac-10 and Big East as well). For whatever reason the Big 12 doesn't seem to have a lot of interest in the West Coast, which is why I like BYU's chances if the Big 12 ever expands again.

Thanks for the thoughts. Good points.

(12-05-2010 05:00 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 04:56 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 04:53 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 04:51 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Big 12's posture is that there hasn't been as much support for a championship game, so there is no need for 12. All schools will receive increased TV revenue because ABC and FSN are not decreasing their rights fees or television windows while they will be at 10 teams (approx $1.5 million more per team).

Wow, that's VERY interesting. That is the reason why the Big 12 doesn't want to add another team unless it's someone like Arkansas. Big 12 basketball isn't affected by Colorado and Nebraska leaving and they still have Texas and Oklahoma so they would still be more then happy to pay out the money. And they don't have to worry about the Big 12 trying to get a raise so now they have money to throw at the Big East, or sit on their current deals.

Another reason ABC and FSN confirmed this revenue level for the Big 12 was that the conference went to nine conference games in football and round-robin play in basketball.

So, in a way, the Big 12 being raided actually helped them financially since they slimmed down and spread the money around. Unbelievable.

Yep. Also consolidated the power of the Big 12 South schools.

(12-05-2010 05:05 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Fresno's academics will keep them out of the Big 12 (Texas won't allow Fresno and several other schools to get into the conference because of that, that has hurt several schools as far as getting into the Pac-10 and Big East as well). For whatever reason the Big 12 doesn't seem to have a lot of interest in the West Coast, which is why I like BYU's chances if the Big 12 ever expands again.

As we thought, Big Ten is done unless Texas/ND - which isn't happening. Louisville loves being in the Big East - and we don't have to worry about implosion anytime soon. Glad to see the Big Ten presidents step-up and make a statement instead of holding all of college athletics hostage. Delaney is probably ticked.

Oh yeah. Delaney had to go on an ego trip and a power play and the Big Ten presidents weren't having any of it. People forget that the presidents of the schools from different conferences are friends. They probably asked them to make a statement like that.

So, Delany plays the fool.

He does it so well.

9 conference games also gets you higher on the BCS polls too I would imagine. (vs playing cupcakes). Without a CCG they might need it?

Good points about going out west.

Who knows. Maybe everything is stable now? =p

The thing is, the Big 12 was never originally envisioned as a 12 team super conference. The idea was for the original Big 8 to absorb the 2 Texas Flagships only. Obviously politics got in the way and the Big 8 were forced to take two teams they didn't want.

Had the original plan worked out and the Great 10 (or whatever the hell it would have been called) would have worked out well.

There would have been no divisions to split up traditional rivalries and prevent new ones from forming or preventing a sense of unity from developing in place of the "us vs them" attitude and mega-egos run wild that did instead.

The Big 12 is now the right size, just with the wrong teams. NU/CU >>>> TT/BU

(12-05-2010 04:42 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Cat's Claw... honestly... Did you think there'd be NO ONE in denial?

Wait until to the Big East adds Kansas and Missouri!

If the Big 12 wanted to expand they would probably look at Louisville and Cincinnati, BYU and AF, but from all indications there is no reason for them to do so. Big 12 stays at 10. They are not going to invite academically inferior schools.

If the Big 12 implodes, or Texas demands a bigger slice of the money, then maybe Kansas & Co. come looking for sanctuary.

But if the Big East adds TCU and UCF to get to 10, then in the event Kansas & Co become available we can add all four of them and go to a perfectly reasonable 14.

(12-05-2010 04:42 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Did you think there'd be NO ONE in denial?

DeNile is a river in Egypt. It has several large cities along its banks, one of which is Egypt's capital city. I'm sure there are people in the river somewhere along its length at about any time of day...

(12-05-2010 05:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Big 12 is now the right size, just with the wrong teams. NU/CU >>>> TT/BU

Yup. As Richard Justice said in that column last week, the B12 will regret not finding a way to keep Nebraska happy.

Really what they have now is more like the old SWC. OU fits the Arkansas role in the league as the third football school in the troika with UT and TAMU. They've replaced half the Texas schools in the SWC with the Big 12 North remnants and Okie Lite.

(12-05-2010 05:00 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 04:56 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 04:53 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 04:51 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Big 12's posture is that there hasn't been as much support for a championship game, so there is no need for 12. All schools will receive increased TV revenue because ABC and FSN are not decreasing their rights fees or television windows while they will be at 10 teams (approx $1.5 million more per team).

Wow, that's VERY interesting. That is the reason why the Big 12 doesn't want to add another team unless it's someone like Arkansas. Big 12 basketball isn't affected by Colorado and Nebraska leaving and they still have Texas and Oklahoma so they would still be more then happy to pay out the money. And they don't have to worry about the Big 12 trying to get a raise so now they have money to throw at the Big East, or sit on their current deals.

Another reason ABC and FSN confirmed this revenue level for the Big 12 was that the conference went to nine conference games in football and round-robin play in basketball.

So, in a way, the Big 12 being raided actually helped them financially since they slimmed down and spread the money around. Unbelievable.

Yes, this is a critical point that I think too many of the "Why doesn't the Big 12 add 2 more teams?" crowd is missing: the Big 12 as a 10-team league WITHOUT a championship game is getting paid the same amount as a 12-team league WITH a championship game. There's absolutely ZERO financial incentive for the Big 12 to expand right now.

The other important thing is that the Big 12 was made unstable this past summer because TEXAS was not getting paid enough compared to the Big Ten and SEC schools. It had nothing to do with the "Little 4", who are actually pretty fairly compensated for what they bring to the table. That's why Texas sought out the Pac-16 proposal. Once Texas secured itself a financial deal that evened the playing field between it and the average Big Ten/SEC team, the need to leave the conference went away and then everyone else followed suit.

The 2 schools that chose to leave the Big 12 also had special circumstances. Nebraska is a national marquee brand leaving for the Big Ten which also features 3 other national marquee brands (Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State). Colorado has long been a West Coast school personality-wise and the Pac-10 will always be buoyed by USC/UCLA. Neither of those schools had to worry about taking care of any fellow in-state "little brothers", either - they could leave on their own without any political repurcussions.

Finally, please note that the Little 4 will get to play both UT and OU annually for the very first time starting next season with the round-robin schedule (whereas the old division format meant that they'd only play one of those schools each season). Under a revenue distribution formula tied to TV appearances, this helps out the Little 4 a lot compared to now since they can count on at least 2 conference games per year that will always get good coverage. It also mutes the old Big 12 South advantage in recruiting the state of Texas - everyone is going to be playing there with a whole lot more frequency. As much as they might hate them right now, the Little 4 will find it very hard to leave UT and OU as those 2 programs are marquee programs (plus a 3rd program in A&M that would be a headliner in any other conference besides the Big Ten and SEC) that drive a disproportionate amount of TV revenue.

I agree Frank, but I think that part of Kansas' talks with the Big East is a way of showing Texas, A&M and Oklahoma that they have a BCS conference as well and the Big Ten ending expansion combined with the Big East currently expanding (especially into Texas) helps Kansas.

(12-06-2010 02:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Finally, please note that the Little 4 will get to play both UT and OU annually for the very first time starting next season with the round-robin schedule (whereas the old division format meant that they'd only play one of those schools each season). Under a revenue distribution formula tied to TV appearances, this helps out the Little 4 a lot compared to now since they can count on at least 2 conference games per year that will always get good coverage. It also mutes the old Big 12 South advantage in recruiting the state of Texas - everyone is going to be playing there with a whole lot more frequency. As much as they might hate them right now, the Little 4 will find it very hard to leave UT and OU as those 2 programs are marquee programs (plus a 3rd program in A&M that would be a headliner in any other conference besides the Big Ten and SEC) that drive a disproportionate amount of TV revenue.

So are Colorado and Utah really going to make it worth it for Washington State losing their USC game every year? I feel like the PAC 10 gambled and schools like Wazzou ended up losing out.