This is sssooo funny, last month DeLoss Dodds saying they should have added Louisville with WVU & now the OU AD. Your loss is the ACC Gain and with L1C4 we would not have it any other way...

Here are some of the quotes from the article:
University of Oklahoma director of athletics Joe Castiglione expressed regret the Big 12 Conference wasn't able to secure Louisville as a member of the league last summer.

"I absolutely did (regret it). There is a piece of me that said that and I did say it," Castiglione said. "I understand why others felt the way they felt, but I don't think there's any secret (we wanted Louisville)."

The OU athletic director now has to watch as Louisville takes their affiliation to the ACC, but his respect for their institution is evident.

He saw the infrastructure of a winner last summer.

"If you were to go and see the University of Louisville's facilities, you look at their financial resources, you look at their success across the board, you look at how they've improved academically and the growth of that campus and accessibility, and the fact we had another member institution in that area, there were reasons why we felt it made some sense," he explained.

It made sense to Oklahoma, but not to the majority.

"We get it and we're doing well," said Castiglione of other conference members not being ready to add the Cards. "When we move forward that's the benchmark we're using to make decisions."

- See more at: http://oklahoma.rivals.com/content.asp?C...eVgiS.dpuf

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

(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....

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.

(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.

I would agree with that if that was the case but outside of the Kragthorpe years across the board UofL has been very successful for the past 10 years.

What the OU AD is saying is not one school would make or break the league but that they missed an opportunity to add a valuable commodity...

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.

And if the Big 12 has to expand, the current group of possible schools are no where near the caliber of Louisville...so huge opportunity missed

(07-03-2013 09:32 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And if the Big 12 has to expand, the current group of possible schools are no where near the caliber of Louisville...so huge opportunity missed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!

But right now I don't think any league could pry Louisville out of the ACC...the school & fan base are absolutely giddy about the ACC.

I just find the revisionist history from especially Texas on this...it is funny as hell to me...

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.

(07-03-2013 09:36 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:32 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And if the Big 12 has to expand, the current group of possible schools are no where near the caliber of Louisville...so huge opportunity missed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!

But right now I don't think any league could pry Louisville out of the ACC...the school & fan base are absolutely giddy about the ACC.

I just find the revisionist history from especially Texas on this...it is funny as hell to me...

I know I'm going to with this, but technically, Louisville isn't in the ACC just yet. They *could* pull a TCU and back out to go to another conference. I'm not saying it would happen or even that it is being discussed, but it is a possibility.

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.

(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.

(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.

I agree I think they thought Louisville would be there as the obvious 11 for a while until they could agree on who 12 would be. No one really foresaw the Rutgers/Maryland moves. Had those not happened maybe BYU would have greatly softened their demands and it would have been UL and BYU 11 and 12, but it's pretty clear that the B12 doesn't currently have enough support to add 2 more members of what's available.

(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.

(07-03-2013 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns 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.

I agree I think they thought Louisville would be there as the obvious 11 for a while until they could agree on who 12 would be. No one really foresaw the Rutgers/Maryland moves. Had those not happened maybe BYU would have greatly softened their demands and it would have been UL and BYU 11 and 12, but it's pretty clear that the B12 doesn't currently have enough support to add 2 more members of what's available.

UL and BYU would have been a perfect 11 and 12. BYU was the first school the B12 looked at before settling on TCU, in large part due to BYU's difficult demands. It could have seen BYU as football only, thereby eliminating a variety of scheduling headaches. UL would have been a perfect "bridge" to WVU, uniting the conference geographically and bringing one of the best athletic programs in the country. However, the B12 was indecisive about going to 12. Now Cincinnati appears to be the only alternative to take the slot that could have gone to UL.

The real edge that WVU had over UL for the tenth slot was its willingness to shoot its way out of the Big East. The B12 needed someone to start immediately so that it could fulfill its television commitments. UL was not willing to aggressively attack the Big East the way WVU was. They probably figured that an invite to be number 11 would come in due time.

(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.

The long term of the Big 12 depends on keeping three schools (UT, OU, KU) happy enough (and/or politically entangled enough) to not leave, and on the other leagues not having an appetite for (over)expansion. If UT, OU, and KU are making big bucks off of the Tier 3 revenue they don't have to share, that's good for the stability of the league.

You're probably right that those factors wouldn't have changed much if the Big 12 added Louisville to the 10 schools they already have, even though adding Louisville would have made the Big 12 competitively stronger.

(07-03-2013 09:40 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:36 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:32 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And if the Big 12 has to expand, the current group of possible schools are no where near the caliber of Louisville...so huge opportunity missed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!

But right now I don't think any league could pry Louisville out of the ACC...the school & fan base are absolutely giddy about the ACC.

I just find the revisionist history from especially Texas on this...it is funny as hell to me...

I know I'm going to with this, but technically, Louisville isn't in the ACC just yet. They *could* pull a TCU and back out to go to another conference. I'm not saying it would happen or even that it is being discussed, but it is a possibility.

Uh...you have @ least $50 Million reason why this will not happen...plus the Alums & Fan Base would riot...I am telling you not even the B1G or SEC would get us to move with the ACC currently constructed...

(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.

(07-03-2013 09:49 AM)Wedge 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.

The long term of the Big 12 depends on keeping three schools (UT, OU, KU) happy enough (and/or politically entangled enough) to not leave, and on the other leagues not having an appetite for (over)expansion. If UT, OU, and KU are making big bucks off of the Tier 3 revenue they don't have to share, that's good for the stability of the league.

You're probably right that those factors wouldn't have changed much if the Big 12 added Louisville to the 10 schools they already have, even though adding Louisville would have made the Big 12 competitively stronger.

Agree with this assessment, including the last sentence.

(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.

Cincy and one of the Florida schools would cause the rest of the Big 12 to give up some cash. They are not willing to do that.