(05-11-2013 11:58 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Ok I don't think anyone believes for a minute there are teams that will bring the type of money that Texas feels should be bestowed upon the Big12 like they are currently receiving. So with that said their pool of teams are going to look like this like or not we shouldn't care for the TV guys will determine once everything is settled what payouts will be.

Cincinnati is going to be a team who will bring them a huge portion of Ohio and surrounding areas as well. This gives WVU the regional partner they are needing for them and their fans.

Memphis is another team that will be looked at due to locale towards the Big12 as well as their prospects of bringing Tennessee to the table. Memphis is a longtime rival of Cincy's and not to far from other amongst the conference and would give Kansas a run for their money in basketball.

Both teams from Florida USF & UCF should be looked at for this would give the Big12 the exposure they are wanting amongst Florida and all those recruits not to mention the big markets of Tampa and Orlando would give the conference. Also this is a heated rival with the war of I-4.

New Mexico is a team that should and most likely will get looked at for their market is very good and are a continuos state to the conference that would only enhance the footprint.

BYU is most likely the only team out west the Big12 will look at, but the trick is getting BYU to believe that playing as a member of a conference is better than the independent route they are now.

Another package dual of teams I would look at that also brings you two more states to the fold of the footprint of the Big12 would be Colorado State & Wyoming. These two teams sit right amongst the conference and would only enhance it with their competitive nature.

So if the Big12 would go to 16 teams which we know they won't then they should bring in at least my opinion Cincinnati, Memphis, USF, UCF, New Mexico, BYU

Division 1 - West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, USF, UCF, Iowa State, Kansas Sate, TCU

Division 2 - Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, New Mexico, BYU

I am almost positive that Texas AD Deloss Dodds would rather see Texas go independent, but if he wants to keep his precious lonestar conference of misfits around to play top dog then they will need to expand regardless of the payouts per team. I would have to think if Texas and BYU would merge forces along with the conference they could sell a network more so than what other could perceive. Just a thought.

All valid points, but I think the Big12 is gambling on the success of OU and UT to keep the appearance of the BIG12's position in CFB. It's a decent bet, but if OU and UT falter, it would a definite setback for the conference as a whole.

So, is staying at 10 teams and betting on OU's and UT's continued success a good idea? Time will tell, but its definitely a risk considering that OU and UT could bail for another conference, if they did fail, and leave the Big12 in a tight spot. Just because of the brand value of both schools, they'd still have a bright future even if it was at the cost of the Big12 becoming irrelevant.

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 11:58 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I am almost positive that Texas AD Deloss Dodds would rather see Texas go independent, but if he wants to keep his precious lonestar conference of misfits around to play top dog then they will need to expand regardless of the payouts per team. I would have to think if Texas and BYU would merge forces along with the conference they could sell a network more so than what other could perceive. Just a thought.

Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

(05-12-2013 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 11:58 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I am almost positive that Texas AD Deloss Dodds would rather see Texas go independent, but if he wants to keep his precious lonestar conference of misfits around to play top dog then they will need to expand regardless of the payouts per team. I would have to think if Texas and BYU would merge forces along with the conference they could sell a network more so than what other could perceive. Just a thought.

Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

Recent history would support this. 12-14 teams seems to be the "sweet spot". The 10 team model is being sold as the ideal size because they want to keep their TV payout high, and have an easier path to the playoffs. The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 11:58 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I am almost positive that Texas AD Deloss Dodds would rather see Texas go independent, but if he wants to keep his precious lonestar conference of misfits around to play top dog then they will need to expand regardless of the payouts per team. I would have to think if Texas and BYU would merge forces along with the conference they could sell a network more so than what other could perceive. Just a thought.

Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

Recent history would support this. 12-14 teams seems to be the "sweet spot". The 10 team model is being sold as the ideal size because they want to keep their TV payout high, and have an easier path to the playoffs. The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

I see this eventually becoming a requirement.

(05-12-2013 10:42 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 11:58 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I am almost positive that Texas AD Deloss Dodds would rather see Texas go independent, but if he wants to keep his precious lonestar conference of misfits around to play top dog then they will need to expand regardless of the payouts per team. I would have to think if Texas and BYU would merge forces along with the conference they could sell a network more so than what other could perceive. Just a thought.

Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

Recent history would support this. 12-14 teams seems to be the "sweet spot". The 10 team model is being sold as the ideal size because they want to keep their TV payout high, and have an easier path to the playoffs. The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

I see this eventually becoming a requirement.

Doubt it...just don't see Notre Dame or even the Big XII/Texas going for this...I don't even see the SEC going for this since they just want the 4 best schools...that is a lot of political clout with just those two schools & the SEC...

(05-12-2013 10:42 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 11:58 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I am almost positive that Texas AD Deloss Dodds would rather see Texas go independent, but if he wants to keep his precious lonestar conference of misfits around to play top dog then they will need to expand regardless of the payouts per team. I would have to think if Texas and BYU would merge forces along with the conference they could sell a network more so than what other could perceive. Just a thought.

Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

Recent history would support this. 12-14 teams seems to be the "sweet spot". The 10 team model is being sold as the ideal size because they want to keep their TV payout high, and have an easier path to the playoffs. The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

I see this eventually becoming a requirement.

I am actually somewhat surprised that the SEC & BigTen did not address this when they started the whole expansion preocess. One would figure those two being the top dogs of the power 5 group would have had something stating just that that only 12 team conferences that support a CCG would have access into the playoffs. I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing or hearing rumors of a rule change into the playoff system??? I personally wouldn't like the fact they are able to get more money with less play than the others, but if the top dogs are okay with it then I am sure once they start winning it will be addressed.

(05-12-2013 10:57 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:42 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

Recent history would support this. 12-14 teams seems to be the "sweet spot". The 10 team model is being sold as the ideal size because they want to keep their TV payout high, and have an easier path to the playoffs. The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

I see this eventually becoming a requirement.

I am actually somewhat surprised that the SEC & BigTen did not address this when they started the whole expansion preocess. One would figure those two being the top dogs of the power 5 group would have had something stating just that that only 12 team conferences that support a CCG would have access into the playoffs. I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing or hearing rumors of a rule change into the playoff system??? I personally wouldn't like the fact they are able to get more money with less play than the others, but if the top dogs are okay with it then I am sure once they start winning it will be addressed.

I see the SEC just wanting the 4 best schools period...

(05-12-2013 10:57 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:42 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has been able to explain why this is true. From what i can see, a 10-team model is entirely viable for the Big 12.

In fact, the opposite has been shown in history. No conference over 12 teams has ever lasted intact. And 16 and up conferences have always collapsed rather quickly.

Recent history would support this. 12-14 teams seems to be the "sweet spot". The 10 team model is being sold as the ideal size because they want to keep their TV payout high, and have an easier path to the playoffs. The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

I see this eventually becoming a requirement.

I am actually somewhat surprised that the SEC & BigTen did not address this when they started the whole expansion preocess. One would figure those two being the top dogs of the power 5 group would have had something stating just that that only 12 team conferences that support a CCG would have access into the playoffs. I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing or hearing rumors of a rule change into the playoff system??? I personally wouldn't like the fact they are able to get more money with less play than the others, but if the top dogs are okay with it then I am sure once they start winning it will be addressed.

The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl. The second best team in most 12+ team conferences will be coming off a CCG loss. In the Big-12, the second best team will likely be coming off a victory and will not have to risk its final regulkar season record in a CCG. As soon as a few SEC teams dont make the playoffs or Access Bowl because of a CCG loss, we will hear the wailing for change. The easiest way to handle it wont be to require the Big-12 go to 12. The easy fix is simply allowing 10 game conferences to hold a CCG and requiring a CCG for the playoffs. When that occcurs, they will probably approve multiple conference division models which would clear the way for larger conferences. That likley begins consolidation at the mid-major level and ends the need for FCS call ups.

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

Why is not having a playoff an advantage? You have a playoff when necessity means that the regular season can't produce a legitimate champion. For example, if the NFL could have a 62 game schedule in which all 32 teams play each other home and away, then there'd be no need for a playoff as the team with the best record would have proven themselves best. But this isn't feasible so they need a playoff system.

Likewise, in college football, you only need a playoff when the conference is so large that every team can't play every other team. But in a 10-team conference, they can, and that produces an even more legitimate champ than a playoff does.

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl. The second best team in most 12+ team conferences will be coming off a CCG loss. In the Big-12, the second best team will likely be coming off a victory and will not have to risk its final regulkar season record in a CCG. As soon as a few SEC teams dont make the playoffs or Access Bowl because of a CCG loss, we will hear the wailing for change.

Er, the SEC has had absolutely no trouble putting two teams in the BCS despite having a CCG. Just this past year, Georgia lost the CCG and yet Alabama and Florida made BCS games. In contrast, the PAC often struggled to get two in when it did not have a CCG. So why will this be a problem in the future?

(05-12-2013 12:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl. The second best team in most 12+ team conferences will be coming off a CCG loss. In the Big-12, the second best team will likely be coming off a victory and will not have to risk its final regulkar season record in a CCG. As soon as a few SEC teams dont make the playoffs or Access Bowl because of a CCG loss, we will hear the wailing for change.

Er, the SEC has had absolutely no trouble putting two teams in the BCS despite having a CCG. Just this past year, Georgia lost the CCG and yet Alabama and Florida made BCS games. In contrast, the PAC often struggled to get two in when it did not have a CCG. So why will this be a problem in the future?

I didnt say it would. I said if it happens, the wailing will begin. And it might not be the SEC that wails, might be the B1G or the Pac-12.

(05-12-2013 12:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 12:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl. The second best team in most 12+ team conferences will be coming off a CCG loss. In the Big-12, the second best team will likely be coming off a victory and will not have to risk its final regulkar season record in a CCG. As soon as a few SEC teams dont make the playoffs or Access Bowl because of a CCG loss, we will hear the wailing for change.

Er, the SEC has had absolutely no trouble putting two teams in the BCS despite having a CCG. Just this past year, Georgia lost the CCG and yet Alabama and Florida made BCS games. In contrast, the PAC often struggled to get two in when it did not have a CCG. So why will this be a problem in the future?

I didnt say it would. I said if it happens, the wailing will begin. And it might not be the SEC that wails, might be the B1G or the Pac-12.

Without the support of the SEC I just don't see it happening...the Big XII/Texas should feel confident that a 1 loss team has a very good chance of being in the Top 4 and a 1 Loss ND has decent shot.

(05-12-2013 01:15 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 12:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 12:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl. The second best team in most 12+ team conferences will be coming off a CCG loss. In the Big-12, the second best team will likely be coming off a victory and will not have to risk its final regulkar season record in a CCG. As soon as a few SEC teams dont make the playoffs or Access Bowl because of a CCG loss, we will hear the wailing for change.

Er, the SEC has had absolutely no trouble putting two teams in the BCS despite having a CCG. Just this past year, Georgia lost the CCG and yet Alabama and Florida made BCS games. In contrast, the PAC often struggled to get two in when it did not have a CCG. So why will this be a problem in the future?

I didnt say it would. I said if it happens, the wailing will begin. And it might not be the SEC that wails, might be the B1G or the Pac-12.

Without the support of the SEC I just don't see it happening...the Big XII/Texas should feel confident that a 1 loss team has a very good chance of being in the Top 4 and a 1 Loss ND has decent shot.

Requiring a CCG will eventually happen in my opinion. Consequently, it forces the B12 to expand and ND to join a conference.

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl.

A 10-2 or 11-1 second-place team in a larger conference's division has exactly the same advantage, i.e., they don't have to risk another loss in a conference title game. Five teams in the past two seasons have been been in a BCS game after finishing second in their division. 2012: Oregon, Florida. 2011: Alabama, Stanford, Michigan.

(05-12-2013 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:31 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  The downside to that is the media and other P5 conferences might take exception to them having an unfair advantage to the playoffs and decide to make 12 teams a minimum to qualify for the playoffs. It's not a rule yet, but I could it getting pushed by the media and the other P5 conferences.

Why is not having a playoff an advantage? You have a playoff when necessity means that the regular season can't produce a legitimate champion. For example, if the NFL could have a 62 game schedule in which all 32 teams play each other home and away, then there'd be no need for a playoff as the team with the best record would have proven themselves best. But this isn't feasible so they need a playoff system.

Likewise, in college football, you only need a playoff when the conference is so large that every team can't play every other team. But in a 10-team conference, they can, and that produces an even more legitimate champ than a playoff does.

Not sure if you misunderstood me or not. When I said playoffs, I was referring to the 4 team, CFB playoff. I'm saying that the Big12 currently has 10 teams, and cannot have a CCG. As a result, the Big12 champion is determined by regular season record, and wind up playing less games than the other conferences. (12 reg season games vs. 12 reg season games +1 CCG)

That gives the Big12 one less game, and more time to rest players, recover from injuries, than the other conferences with a CCG. That also equates to one less game to the conference championship, and access to the College football playoffs.

As Sergio Garcia puts it. "It doesn't take a rocket engineer" to realize the other conferences won't like the Big12 having those advantages. Eventually the Big12 will be forced to increase their size, due to this. Oh, oh, IMO of course.

(05-12-2013 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl.

A 10-2 or 11-1 second-place team in a larger conference's division has exactly the same advantage, i.e., they don't have to risk another loss in a conference title game. Five teams in the past two seasons have been been in a BCS game after finishing second in their division. 2012: Oregon, Florida. 2011: Alabama, Stanford, Michigan.

Fair point, but there's no guarantee that's the case every year. Also, expect the playoff system to expand to 8 teams, once the P5 folks have figured out how to shove the rest of the FBS teams out of the running (AKA, playoff for P5 schools only).

(05-12-2013 01:26 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Requiring a CCG will eventually happen in my opinion. Consequently, it forces the B12 to expand and ND to join a conference.

And who exactly benefits from that? Why would the Big Ten, SEC, Texas, or Notre Dame want this. The only people that benefit from Notre Dame to the ACC is the ACC itself.

(05-12-2013 12:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 12:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The big advantage a 10 team conference has is not landing a champion in the playoff. The advanatage is landing a second team in the playoff or in an access bowl. The second best team in most 12+ team conferences will be coming off a CCG loss. In the Big-12, the second best team will likely be coming off a victory and will not have to risk its final regulkar season record in a CCG. As soon as a few SEC teams dont make the playoffs or Access Bowl because of a CCG loss, we will hear the wailing for change.

Er, the SEC has had absolutely no trouble putting two teams in the BCS despite having a CCG. Just this past year, Georgia lost the CCG and yet Alabama and Florida made BCS games. In contrast, the PAC often struggled to get two in when it did not have a CCG. So why will this be a problem in the future?

I didnt say it would. I said if it happens, the wailing will begin. And it might not be the SEC that wails, might be the B1G or the Pac-12.

I think everyone understands that having or not having a CCG are both valid methods of choosing a champion. During the BCS era there was a mix of conferences with and without CCGs and nobody from either side ever complained. Won't happen in the future.

(05-12-2013 01:26 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Requiring a CCG will eventually happen in my opinion. Consequently, it forces the B12 to expand and ND to join a conference.

OK, but since it has never happened in the past, what makes you think it will happen in the future - other than the fact that you are a fan of an AAC school and thus desperate for the Big 12 to be forced to expand?

Good Luck Bearcats and Bulls!