(07-23-2013 07:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 06:37 PM)Planks Wrote:  The amount of Big 12 hate on this board is incredible

for me it started back when all the b12 homers claimed FSU & co. were a lock for joining the b12 and dismissed everyone who said otherwise as acc homers. plus the whole mindset that they were better off without aggie unl mizz, & cu

im sorry but you dont lose 4 land grant flagship, aau schools, from large states and just so happened to be charter members then say that makes you a better conference because of it.....

but my personal favorite is that the b12 wrote the book on building a 12 team conference whereas the pac/b10 focused on round robin style. now all i see is b12 fans claiming round robin, no divisions is the best thing for a conference.

talk about hypocrisy......

Only three of the departing schools were land grant schools. I wouldn't call any state with fewer than 15 electoral votes a big state.

(07-23-2013 11:29 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  3A. Boise plays in a 30K + stadium and usually has good TV ratings but can't sniff an invite from the PAC 12 or Big 12. I stand by the statement that if you have trouble filling a 30K seat stadium, more than likely those same students & alumni could care less when their school is on TV. With a few exceptions, most big schools that put 60K + in the stands will always outdraw schools that average 30K on TV. Simple math.

If Boise played TX on national tv one week and TT played TX on national tv the following week, I'm willing to bet $$$ that the Boise game would have a higher national rating.... Not that Boise plays better football than TT (MWC fball isn't on the same level as the B12), but it is a better national brand and has more appeal because it's the "little guy" that has been on the "BIG BOY'" national stage before in BCS bowls (the win over OU was epic). Consequently, people would tune in to see if cinderfalla can pull off another upset against a marquee school.

Nevertheless, you're right about Boise being unable to get a PAC or B12 invite. Its academics is a big hindrance for PAC 12 consideration, and its fan base doesn’t meet B12 standards. However, the PAC made a mistake in my opinion by not offering Boise and San Diego football only memberships when they decided to go back to the MWC.

(07-24-2013 08:49 AM)lew240z Wrote:  I wouldn't call any state with fewer than 15 electoral votes a big state.

Alaska doesn't have 15 electoral votes. But I dare you to walk across the state, starting at Prudhoe Bay. You can pick the time of year...

I wouldn't exactly call Alaska small...

Apologize for not reading the whole thread but I don't think Bowlsby is blowing smoke.

The current mix of teams provide the best return. Could the Big 12 add schools? Absolutely. If the Big 12 wanted to, they could call pretty much any of the AAC or MWC schools, along with BYU, and get to 12, 14, or 16 tomorrow.

However, adding schools for the sake of adding doesn't make sense. Having more teams wouldn't make the Big 12 more stable unless the pieces are right for two major reasons:

1. It probably wouldn't make financial sense. In other words, it would probably make the payouts/team go down;
2. Unless the teams had a pedigree, there are programs like OU/Texas/etc that don't want to "water down" the league*;

*- Not that there aren't plenty of AAC/MWC programs that could add to the league competitively. I'm speaking more of the elitest nature of the "blueblood" programs like OU/Texas/etc. Just like Ohio State and Michigan probably don't want to have Cincy in the Big Ten, UT/OU probably wouldn't want a Boise, UH, etc in the Big 12. Fair or not (mostly not), they would view it as a downgrade in respectability.

(07-24-2013 09:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:49 AM)lew240z Wrote:  I wouldn't call any state with fewer than 15 electoral votes a big state.

Alaska doesn't have 15 electoral votes. But I dare you to walk across the state, starting at Prudhoe Bay. You can pick the time of year...

I wouldn't exactly call Alaska small...

I assume you are being humorous and know that we meant size of population.

(07-24-2013 06:23 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and again you are comparing those conferences to conferences like the b10 who have been around since the 19th century and have never lost a member....

and to be clear..... are you really trying to compare a failed experiment from the 20s & 30s and using it for a reason why these new conferences are going to fail?

I'm not, but you said that the megaconferences failed because they were weaker conferences raided by stronger conferences. I was just saying that most of them were secessions of the more valuable schools from the less valuable schools. SEC, ACC from SoCon, MWC from WAC, Big East from AAC.

I'm not saying that the Southern Conference and WAC and hybrid Big East experience means that 14- or 16-team power conferences would have the same problems. I don't see a group of SEC schools dumping Vanderbilt or the Mississippi schools.

The only comparable looking forward would be a real superconference, something like USC Stanford Texas Texas A&M Oklahoma LSU ALabama Auburn Tennessee Georgia Florida Ohio State Michigan Penn State Nebraska Notre Dame--and I don't see that either.

if the b10 was adding ohio & cincy you would have a case, but they didnt.

the b10 has added only 4 schools in the last 35-40 years, same with the pac, same with the sec. plus they are adding quality schools. its not a stretch to say that aggie or nebraska are your average to upper tier b10/sec schools. whereas the wac/southern/big east added a bunch of bottom feeders and added a bunch of new schools too fast. miami & syracuse have a history, as do miami & florida state, as do florida state & duke. the acc schools have some pretty solid bonds with each other even though they have almost as many new schools as old schools.

this really is an apples to oranges argument

(07-24-2013 03:03 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 09:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:49 AM)lew240z Wrote:  I wouldn't call any state with fewer than 15 electoral votes a big state.

Alaska doesn't have 15 electoral votes. But I dare you to walk across the state, starting at Prudhoe Bay. You can pick the time of year...

I wouldn't exactly call Alaska small...

I assume you are being humorous and know that we meant size of population.

I was simply giving you some perspective. Having more electoral votes merely allows states with more votes more opportunities to screw things up on a national scale...

You got that right Bit!

(07-24-2013 08:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 11:29 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Nevertheless, you're right about Boise being unable to get a PAC or B12 invite. Its academics is a big hindrance for PAC 12 consideration, and its fan base doesn’t meet B12 standards. However, the PAC made a mistake in my opinion by not offering Boise and San Diego football only memberships when they decided to go back to the MWC.

How was that a mistake, Boise and SD State are not going to raise $$ enough to maintain the $$ they have now. The Pac doesn't have to add for the sake of adding.

(07-25-2013 08:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 11:29 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Nevertheless, you're right about Boise being unable to get a PAC or B12 invite. Its academics is a big hindrance for PAC 12 consideration, and its fan base doesn’t meet B12 standards. However, the PAC made a mistake in my opinion by not offering Boise and San Diego football only memberships when they decided to go back to the MWC.

How was that a mistake, Boise and SD State are not going to raise $$ enough to maintain the $$ they have now. The Pac doesn't have to add for the sake of adding.

Boise would have helped improved the football image of the PAC 12, and San Diego would have improved PAC 12 bball. Moreover, both schools would have added more value and entertainment to the pathetic PAC 12 network, which is overrated.

(07-25-2013 10:38 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 11:29 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Nevertheless, you're right about Boise being unable to get a PAC or B12 invite. Its academics is a big hindrance for PAC 12 consideration, and its fan base doesn’t meet B12 standards. However, the PAC made a mistake in my opinion by not offering Boise and San Diego football only memberships when they decided to go back to the MWC.

How was that a mistake, Boise and SD State are not going to raise $$ enough to maintain the $$ they have now. The Pac doesn't have to add for the sake of adding.

Boise would have helped improved the football image of the PAC 12, and San Diego would have improved PAC 12 bball. Moreover, both schools would have added more value and entertainment to the pathetic PAC 12 network, which is overrated.

The TV networks and PAC presidents disagree. The PAC isn't expanding unless they get the Texoma 4.

(07-25-2013 12:38 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:38 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 11:29 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

Nevertheless, you're right about Boise being unable to get a PAC or B12 invite. Its academics is a big hindrance for PAC 12 consideration, and its fan base doesn’t meet B12 standards. However, the PAC made a mistake in my opinion by not offering Boise and San Diego football only memberships when they decided to go back to the MWC.

How was that a mistake, Boise and SD State are not going to raise $$ enough to maintain the $$ they have now. The Pac doesn't have to add for the sake of adding.

Boise would have helped improved the football image of the PAC 12, and San Diego would have improved PAC 12 bball. Moreover, both schools would have added more value and entertainment to the pathetic PAC 12 network, which is overrated.

The TV networks and PAC presidents disagree. The PAC isn't expanding unless they get the Texoma 4.

They had that chance a couple of years ago. I don't see anything now that has changed that. The Texoma 4 won't go anywhere, unless the Big12 is definitely dead. Way too early to even speculate.