(08-27-2013 12:10 PM)RebelRobert Wrote:  Big-12 best options are to go to 14 schools by adding these four:

UNLV (Las Vegas)
SDSU (San Diego)
BYU (Salt Lake City)
Cincinnati

Those are the four schools the Big12 should add immediately.

If they can't come to an agreement on BYU, they should take New Mexico (Albuquerque) market instead.

For the Big-12 to survive they must go west. They must get the Las Vegas and San Diego markets.

I sort of agree - but I would go to 16 - but not with both Florida schools as so many concepts do - and ONLY if it includes BYU (without BYU, there's no reason to stretch in both directions):

WEST: SDSU, UNLV, BYU, TexasTech, Texas, Baylor, TCU, Memphis
EAST: Oklahoma, OklahomaSt, Kansas, KState, IowaSt, Cincinnati, WVU, USF or UCF (but not both)

There's no reason to dilute their influence in Florida into two schools (and it doesn't matter which you pick - by virtue of being in the Big12 instead of the AAc, it takes a huge step in recruiting/image/money over the other school). In other words, whichever of the Florida schools the Big12 picks - becomes the school that excels over the other, so it doesn't even matter what they look like now. If they try and take both in the hopes that both improve - the double drain may make it hard for either to rise to the level of a Florida, FSU or Miami.

Throwing Memphis into the west (even though it is a little further east than some other choices) avoids breaking up the Oklahomas or the Kansas schools (or the Texas schools, for that matter) and helps offset the BB imbalance of having Kansas/Cincinnati/WVU in the east.

Having Texas/TexasTech/BYU in the west and Oklahoma/KState/WVU in the east gives you decent balance in FB.

It could also be aranged like this and the balance is about the same:

WEST: SDSU, UNLV, BYU, Oklahoma, OklahomaSt, Kansas, KState, IowaSt
EAST: TexasTech, Texas, Baylor, TCU, Memphis, Cincinnati, WVU, USF or UCF (but not both)

But this all depends on getting BYU. If the Big12 can't get BYU, I say they go completely to the east.

All-east expansion:
North: IowaSt, Kansas, KState, Oklahoma, OklahomaSt, WVU, Cincinnati, UConn
South: Texas, TexasTech, TCU, Baylor, Memphis, SoMiss, ECU, USF or UCF (but not both)

WEST: SDSU, UNLV, BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, KState, IowaSt
EAST: OK, OK State, Texas, Baylor, Cincinnati, WVU, USF, UCF

JMHO

Why is it that it works to have 2 schools in Oklahoma, Kansas and Multiple Texas Schools in the conference but 2 Florida schools is a bad idea? You have one of the Largest recruiting bases in the state of Florida and the old battle of supremacy between Texas and Florida would be off the charts with both schools involved. Right now Florida exports more players to other schools out of state than Texas ever thought about. Keeping more home would vastly improve the strength of those two schools. I say both are essential to the Big12 survival.

(08-28-2013 09:32 AM)nert Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 12:10 PM)RebelRobert Wrote:  Big-12 best options are to go to 14 schools by adding these four:

UNLV (Las Vegas)
SDSU (San Diego)
BYU (Salt Lake City)
Cincinnati

Those are the four schools the Big12 should add immediately.

If they can't come to an agreement on BYU, they should take New Mexico (Albuquerque) market instead.

For the Big-12 to survive they must go west. They must get the Las Vegas and San Diego markets.

I sort of agree - but I would go to 16 - but not with both Florida schools as so many concepts do - and ONLY if it includes BYU (without BYU, there's no reason to stretch in both directions):

WEST: SDSU, UNLV, BYU, TexasTech, Texas, Baylor, TCU, Memphis
EAST: Oklahoma, OklahomaSt, Kansas, KState, IowaSt, Cincinnati, WVU, USF or UCF (but not both)

There's no reason to dilute their influence in Florida into two schools (and it doesn't matter which you pick - by virtue of being in the Big12 instead of the AAc, it takes a huge step in recruiting/image/money over the other school). In other words, whichever of the Florida schools the Big12 picks - becomes the school that excels over the other, so it doesn't even matter what they look like now. If they try and take both in the hopes that both improve - the double drain may make it hard for either to rise to the level of a Florida, FSU or Miami.

Throwing Memphis into the west (even though it is a little further east than some other choices) avoids breaking up the Oklahomas or the Kansas schools (or the Texas schools, for that matter) and helps offset the BB imbalance of having Kansas/Cincinnati/WVU in the east.

Having Texas/TexasTech/BYU in the west and Oklahoma/KState/WVU in the east gives you decent balance in FB.

It could also be aranged like this and the balance is about the same:

WEST: SDSU, UNLV, BYU, Oklahoma, OklahomaSt, Kansas, KState, IowaSt
EAST: TexasTech, Texas, Baylor, TCU, Memphis, Cincinnati, WVU, USF or UCF (but not both)

But this all depends on getting BYU. If the Big12 can't get BYU, I say they go completely to the east.

All-east expansion:
North: IowaSt, Kansas, KState, Oklahoma, OklahomaSt, WVU, Cincinnati, UConn
South: Texas, TexasTech, TCU, Baylor, Memphis, SoMiss, ECU, USF or UCF (but not both)

The All East expansion with North/South divisions looks the best. It maintains important rivalies, minimizes travel and only crosses two timezones.

(08-28-2013 12:09 AM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  Larry Scott tried to convince UT and OU to bring KU instead of OSU.

Not true. KU was not intended to "replace" Ok St, they were intended to "replace" TAMU in the event TAMU had no interest in the Pac. And the Pac was pretty sure, even before Scott talked to the Big 12 schools, that A&M would say no, which is why they had KU next in line.

At this point, why would any Big12 want to go west?

Has it really paid off for CU?

(08-27-2013 07:22 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Look, Cincy and Louisville are not Southern. You may be in between and have some elements of northern culture and some of southern culture but you are not Southern so just stop with the selling points of it being Southern so that you can try to get a few people on a message board to think Cincy fits with the SEC.

It doesn't even matter if it is Southern or not. 42K maximum size of your stadium. Pretty much ends the story right there, I'm sorry.

Cincy is not Southern. What is it coming to when an Ohio folks are trying to say their City is Southern. Really????

Have you ever spent much time in Cincinnati?
Do you actually know anyone who is a native Cincinnatian?

I don't think anyone from Cincinnati is making the case that Cincinnati is southern to try and get into the SEC. But Cincinnati is kind of an enigma. It isn't exactly like any other city...it has elements similar to all of the cities mentioned...St. Louis, Louisville, Nashville, Pittsburgh, etc.

Cincinnati definitely isn't like the rest of Ohio. Our topography is different. Our winters are different being in general milder than the rest of the state. Heck our Airport is in Kentucky. Cincinnatians even speak differently... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_American_English

While Cincinnati has a strong German and Irish heritage, the city had a very large influx of southerners who came up from the coal mines and farming areas of the VA, KY and TN looking for factory work in the early to mid 1900s. This influx has had a profound effect on what had been the Irish and German roots of the city.

Cincinnati is a very family-oriented city full of nice neighborly people. People in Cincinnati are polite to a fault. Most big cities are not polite, friendly and neighborly like Cincinnati.

Cincinnati still boasts a ton of Catholic grade schools and high schools. We hold festivals at pretty much all of them over the course of the summer. Cincinnatians care about where we went to high school not college. When someone in Cincinnati asks where you went to school they want to know your high school – not your college.

We love high school football and produce top talent. The GCL in Cincinnati is one of the best high school leagues in the country.

We play softball in leagues until we are too old to run the bases. We hang out at neighborhood watering holes after the games. We love our Cincinnati Reds. We hold out a glimmer of hope each year that this will be the year for our Bengals...

We love our Oktoberfest but are fond of our BBQ (ever heard of Montgomery Inn?) There are plenty of other BBQ places too. We love Chili too but it's Cincinnati style Chili. LaRosas pizza is our hometown original.

Elements of north and south mix together for Cincinnati's culture.

BTW Cincinnati doesn't kiss the ground of OSU like the rest of the state of Ohio and never will. (A fact that doesn't get past the Buckeye faithful).

Grew up near Huntington, WV and I attest that Cincy is an Ohio River Valley town/city with a mix of Midwestern, Northern and Southern culture. Huntington is also - go Reds & Bengals.

(08-28-2013 11:29 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  At this point, why would any Big12 want to go west?

Has it really paid off for CU?

CU's problems are internal more than anything. and just so you know they were always a b12 outlier. they have always been a west coast school. their last NC was won with a roster that had almost all of its out of staters from california and the amount of alumni living in the p12 footprint is 5x greater than the b12 footprint. because of that their donations were at record numbers

so yes it has paid of very well for them already with most of the benefits of being a p12 school coming down the road. its insane to say because they have had 2 bad seasons they made a bad move

(08-28-2013 12:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:29 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  At this point, why would any Big12 want to go west?

Has it really paid off for CU?

CU's problems are internal more than anything. and just so you know they were always a b12 outlier. they have always been a west coast school. their last NC was won with a roster that had almost all of its out of staters from california and the amount of alumni living in the p12 footprint is 5x greater than the b12 footprint. because of that their donations were at record numbers

so yes it has paid of very well for them already with most of the benefits of being a p12 school coming down the road. its insane to say because they have had 2 bad seasons they made a bad move

I always thought it was pretty obvious that Colorado had more in common with States to the West of it than it does with those states to the East and Southeast of it.

I don't get why folks are trying to define the move as bad. Perhaps they are looking for reasons to say why a Texas move to the PAC would be bad. I don't see how the Colorado situation has anything to do with it though. It is going to take them time to rebuild that heap of a program. Whether they can successfully draw in some Western players, time will tell. What they weren't doing very well was drawing in Texas players. Seems like a no brainer that the move was a good one for Colorado and I don't see how folks can say the overall move was a bad one for Colorado based off of a football season.

(08-28-2013 12:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:29 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  At this point, why would any Big12 want to go west?

Has it really paid off for CU?

CU's problems are internal more than anything. and just so you know they were always a b12 outlier. they have always been a west coast school. their last NC was won with a roster that had almost all of its out of staters from california and the amount of alumni living in the p12 footprint is 5x greater than the b12 footprint. because of that their donations were at record numbers

so yes it has paid of very well for them already with most of the benefits of being a p12 school coming down the road. its insane to say because they have had 2 bad seasons they made a bad move

I always thought it was pretty obvious that Colorado had more in common with States to the West of it than it does with those states to the East and Southeast of it.

I don't get why folks are trying to define the move as bad. Perhaps they are looking for reasons to say why a Texas move to the PAC would be bad. I don't see how the Colorado situation has anything to do with it though. It is going to take them time to rebuild that heap of a program. Whether they can successfully draw in some Western players, time will tell. What they weren't doing very well was drawing in Texas players. Seems like a no brainer that the move was a good one for Colorado and I don't see how folks can say the overall move was a bad one for Colorado based off of a football season.

Even if it wasn't a boon for the Athletic Dept, the university itself absolutely won by moving to the PAC.

(08-28-2013 01:28 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:29 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  At this point, why would any Big12 want to go west?

Has it really paid off for CU?

CU's problems are internal more than anything. and just so you know they were always a b12 outlier. they have always been a west coast school. their last NC was won with a roster that had almost all of its out of staters from california and the amount of alumni living in the p12 footprint is 5x greater than the b12 footprint. because of that their donations were at record numbers

so yes it has paid of very well for them already with most of the benefits of being a p12 school coming down the road. its insane to say because they have had 2 bad seasons they made a bad move

I always thought it was pretty obvious that Colorado had more in common with States to the West of it than it does with those states to the East and Southeast of it.

I don't get why folks are trying to define the move as bad. Perhaps they are looking for reasons to say why a Texas move to the PAC would be bad. I don't see how the Colorado situation has anything to do with it though. It is going to take them time to rebuild that heap of a program. Whether they can successfully draw in some Western players, time will tell. What they weren't doing very well was drawing in Texas players. Seems like a no brainer that the move was a good one for Colorado and I don't see how folks can say the overall move was a bad one for Colorado based off of a football season.

Even if it wasn't a boon for the Athletic Dept, the university itself absolutely won by moving to the PAC.

This. Alumni are in California and Arizona, not Oklahoma and Kansas.

Interestingly, Colorado was the only old Big 8 school that didn't increase its recruiting (all significantly) in Texas after the Big 12 was founded. They had a slight reduction.

(08-28-2013 11:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:09 AM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  Larry Scott tried to convince UT and OU to bring KU instead of OSU.

Not true. KU was not intended to "replace" Ok St, they were intended to "replace" TAMU in the event TAMU had no interest in the Pac. And the Pac was pretty sure, even before Scott talked to the Big 12 schools, that A&M would say no, which is why they had KU next in line.

Once A&M started talking to the SEC, Scott flew to Lawrence. KU was absolutely next in line.

The current state of Colorado's football program has nothing to do with being in the PAC 12.
Any program can go through good times and bad times. Washington Huskies went from a very solid
program to being really bad, and then trending back up. Same deal with Syracuse who was awful
under Robinson.

If the Big 12 were to expand, I expect it to be driven by the average teams, and not Texas and Oklahoma. I see it as those teams trying to maximize TV deals in the event of Texas going independent, and Oklahoma joining somewhere else. Thus, I see a push to 14 teams. It is much easier to get quality teams to join before they leave than after.

In the past they have gone for quality teams over markets - TCU and WVU. Thus, I think Boise gets the nod, but only for football and wrestling, and a stadium expansion requirement. They also form a nicely matched pair with BYU, once again for football only.

In the East, Cincy would be a good all-sports add, once again with the requirement that they expand their stadium. Also, Ohio is a very populous state, providing both continuity and expanding TV markets. I think the last team in would be UConn as all-sports. The basketball is too good for Kansas to pass up, and it would even up basketball with the Cincy add.

Divisions would be a mess, but it is more important to get good teams. Figure each division will always have at least 1 game in the state of Texas each year.

Football:

Eastern: UConn, WVU, Cincy, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.
Western: BYU, BSU, Tx Tech, Texas, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St.

Basketball:

North: Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Cincy, WVU, UConn

South: OK, Okie St, Tx Tech, Texas, Baylor, TCU

Go Cougs!!!!

(08-28-2013 10:32 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Why is it that it works to have 2 schools in Oklahoma, Kansas and Multiple Texas Schools in the conference but 2 Florida schools is a bad idea? You have one of the Largest recruiting bases in the state of Florida and the old battle of supremacy between Texas and Florida would be off the charts with both schools involved. Right now Florida exports more players to other schools out of state than Texas ever thought about. Keeping more home would vastly improve the strength of those two schools. I say both are essential to the Big12 survival.

I assume this was directed toward my post (although I haven't read all 100+ posts).

I don't know if it wouldn't work your way (it certainly could if both could attract enough D-I quality players over Florida, FSU, Miami, the rest of the schools that come to Florida for talent and each other) - but my rationale was that it's easier to have one program get fattened on the talent pool, than it is for 2 simultaneously.

Anyway - to answer your other questions:
1. I wouldn't suggest adding 4 teams in any state (even Texas) if we were building a Big16 from scratch, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing what paths the Big12 could take to expand from what we're starting from. You'll notice, I don't suggest they add Houston, SMU, UTEP, UNT, Rice etc etc either because of redundancy of markets/recruiting territory and in-state competition with the established programs would make building a consistently good program very difficult - and the fact that the conference has a presence there already.

2. In Oklahoma and Kansas - there are not 3 better established in-state athletic programs to compete with as you try and grow another D-I program. UCF and USF will always have to convince kids to forego Florida, FSU and Miami (and Alabama, OhioSt, UMich, NotreDame, etc) to get depth and top level talent.

(08-28-2013 11:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:09 AM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  Larry Scott tried to convince UT and OU to bring KU instead of OSU.

Not true. KU was not intended to "replace" Ok St, they were intended to "replace" TAMU in the event TAMU had no interest in the Pac. And the Pac was pretty sure, even before Scott talked to the Big 12 schools, that A&M would say no, which is why they had KU next in line.

You misunderstand. Scott said the PAC would accept OSU to get UT/TTU/OU but he tried to convince the other 3 Texoma schools that KU (and later he even brought up Mizzou) was more valuable and it was in "our" longterm interests to bring KU instead of OSU. He figured it wouldn't hurt to make the argument. And I won't argue with you about this because I'm not posting some rumor or regurgitating an article by an uninformed media hack. I know exactly what happened during both negotiations with Larry Scott and the PAC. What's been reported publicly is maybe 20% of the story.

EDIT: Haven't read every post but, to avoid any misunderstanding, my post above is related to Round 2 of our PAC dalliance. During Round 1 there was no mention of KU or Mizzou coming with us.

(08-28-2013 08:05 PM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:09 AM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  Larry Scott tried to convince UT and OU to bring KU instead of OSU.

Not true. KU was not intended to "replace" Ok St, they were intended to "replace" TAMU in the event TAMU had no interest in the Pac. And the Pac was pretty sure, even before Scott talked to the Big 12 schools, that A&M would say no, which is why they had KU next in line.

You misunderstand. Scott said the PAC would accept OSU to get UT/TTU/OU but he tried to convince the other 3 Texoma schools that KU (and later he even brought up Mizzou) was more valuable and it was in "our" longterm interests to bring KU instead of OSU. He figured it wouldn't hurt to make the argument. And I won't argue with you about this because I'm not posting some rumor or regurgitating an article by an uninformed media hack. I know exactly what happened during both negotiations with Larry Scott and the PAC. What's been reported publicly is maybe 20% of the story.

EDIT: Haven't read every post but, to avoid any misunderstanding, my post above is related to Round 2 of our PAC dalliance. During Round 1 there was no mention of KU or Mizzou coming with us.

I think both of us were talking about round 1. In round 1, Scott did go to Kansas when it appeared A&M was out. Kansas would have been #16 instead of A&M.

(08-28-2013 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  In round 1, Scott did go to Kansas

I watched that one live on the FAA website. His pilot filed a flight plan from TX to Lawrence, but then never completed the flight.

The Big XII is fine, thank you. I wouldn't be surprised to see an extension of the GoR in the works.

But I also wouldn't be surprised to see us add two when, and if, a championship game is required. Nor would I be very surprised by a merger with the SEC, B1G, PAC12, or even the ACC.

(08-27-2013 05:21 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 04:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 04:31 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 03:16 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 02:49 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Well your opinion isn't fact. If it was Rice would have at least gotten a AAC invite. What school got brought in purely because of academics?

Conference networks are hard to sell to providers. The ACC doesn't have one and the SEC is having trouble getting one up and running. The Pac-12 can't even get on with the two satellite providers.

I'm sorry but what media hype for B1G hockey? Seriously. You might see one crazy play on a sportscenter top ten once every few weeks during the season but thats it. I don't know where you got that from.

If every B1G school played hockey that number of $ per school would drop. They wouldn't all get 2 million. Only 6 schools out of 14 play that sport. If they all did then thats less than a mil a school.

Not that I believe it would ever happen but a package combo that included Texas and Rice would be very attractive for a conference like the Pac-12. Rice offers top academics (one of the top 5 academic FBS schools) and the Houston market. If instead of Baylor it was Rice when the Pac-16 almost happened, the Pac-10 would've been fine going to 16 especially the liberal academia of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. But since it was Baylor which is the equivalent of BYU, they invited Colorado first in order to leave Baylor behind. Once again, Rice going to a P5 conference is not happening anytime soon but I would not call that scenario crazy either.

Baylor was never in the loop for the Pac 16. It was Texas, OU, OSU, A&M, Tech and Colorado.

Rice would need to improve it's athletics greatly to see any kind of invite to a major conference. They were passed over by the AAC so I don't think the Pac or anyone would be interested. Yes, academics are nice but these are athletic conferences and Rice is in no position to be in any of those leagues.

AAC doesnt need academics they need the strongest FB program possible to stay alive. they took bsu for crying out loud. you act like every conference has the same tendencies when in reality that cant be further from the truth.

just because the AAC didnt take them doesnt mean the power conferences wont. they have more value to the pac12 or b12 than the AAC

Oh my god, you really truly think any P5 league would take Rice? Seriously. Do you honestly think they have any shot at all?

The Pac would look at Houston before they looked at Rice. They were looking at Texas Tech which is no where near as good academically as Rice.

I totally disagree…. You’re forgetting that the PAC 12 is the conference the kicked OU and OSU to the curb because TX and the LHN weren’t included in the deal. Rice meets the PAC’s picky academic profile. Moreover, it’s located in a large market. Rice has a much better chance at the PAC 12 than Houston. Performance is secondary when you consider CU and Utah were taken over better football programs because they met the PAC’s academic profile and market requirement. It appears those are the two primary evaluators used by the PAC 12.
Therefore, I could see Rice,TX, and TT in the PAC 12.

(08-28-2013 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 01:28 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:29 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  At this point, why would any Big12 want to go west?

Has it really paid off for CU?

CU's problems are internal more than anything. and just so you know they were always a b12 outlier. they have always been a west coast school. their last NC was won with a roster that had almost all of its out of staters from california and the amount of alumni living in the p12 footprint is 5x greater than the b12 footprint. because of that their donations were at record numbers

so yes it has paid of very well for them already with most of the benefits of being a p12 school coming down the road. its insane to say because they have had 2 bad seasons they made a bad move

I always thought it was pretty obvious that Colorado had more in common with States to the West of it than it does with those states to the East and Southeast of it.

I don't get why folks are trying to define the move as bad. Perhaps they are looking for reasons to say why a Texas move to the PAC would be bad. I don't see how the Colorado situation has anything to do with it though. It is going to take them time to rebuild that heap of a program. Whether they can successfully draw in some Western players, time will tell. What they weren't doing very well was drawing in Texas players. Seems like a no brainer that the move was a good one for Colorado and I don't see how folks can say the overall move was a bad one for Colorado based off of a football season.

Even if it wasn't a boon for the Athletic Dept, the university itself absolutely won by moving to the PAC.

This. Alumni are in California and Arizona, not Oklahoma and Kansas.

Interestingly, Colorado was the only old Big 8 school that didn't increase its recruiting (all significantly) in Texas after the Big 12 was founded. They had a slight reduction.

California has been CU's primary recruiting area for decades. Texas was and is a distant third behind Colorado.