(06-11-2016 12:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 12:58 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  His school could be left and regulated to the G5 ranks.

ISU is a football wasteland, but still fills its stadium and travels. It's a significantly sized school and it's AAU.

ISU will retain their place at the major's table. I wouldn't be surprised who'd line up to take them, even if we hear Big Ten people say "not us" all of the time.

ISU's president can be that kind of snob, if that's what he really means with that quote. His school will be fine.

That is 0ld school thinking since the 1900s. There is no support in this and age for having snobs in college sports. Boren, the PAC 12 commish and others know this, and a change should take place. Academics should not play a role in this at all. Adding Boise State with their strong athletics into the conference could draw people to them than without.

You forgot Arkansas Tech, NDSU and UCA.

(06-11-2016 01:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Iowa State have no value since they are not in a heavy population area.

Aimes has about 60,000 but, 30 miles away is Des Moines which has 210,000.

Fargo only has 118,000.

Russellville has only about 30,000

The Big 12 is starting to resemble the Big East, when they could make a decision about football! Hence. they were raided and destroyed. Texas may well kill the Big 12!

The fans do not want crappy teams that the school have academics strength. That is why Iowa State is alone on that issue. Look at how the PAC 12 failed by adding Colorado? It is a complete failure, and Colorado brought no value to the conference, and the PAC 12 network is failing big time. College sports is an entertainment and people will pay money to see the best, not crappy teams. Boise State is the hot team right now that people will come and see play in person. These people are not seeing the big picture here like this Iowa State president. There are worthy schools like Boise State that deserves to be in the Big 12 while others do not. I am seeing a fight from the old snobs who do not really care about the health of the conference by wanted schools who have terrible athletics, while turning their nose up to great teams, and ones who wants to take a chance with Boise State, BYU, Air Force, Colorado State, Cincinnati, Memphis, East Carolina and so forth.

(06-12-2016 03:32 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The fans do not want crappy teams that the school have academics strength. That is why Iowa State is alone on that issue. Look at how the PAC 12 failed by adding Colorado? It is a complete failure, and Colorado brought no value to the conference, and the PAC 12 network is failing big time. College sports is an entertainment and people will pay money to see the best, not crappy teams. Boise State is the hot team right now that people will come and see play in person. These people are not seeing the big picture here like this Iowa State president. There are worthy schools like Boise State that deserves to be in the Big 12 while others do not. I am seeing a fight from the old snobs who do not really care about the health of the conference by wanted schools who have terrible athletics, while turning their nose up to great teams, and ones who wants to take a chance with Boise State, BYU, Air Force, Colorado State, Cincinnati, Memphis, East Carolina and so forth.

To be fair to the Big XII, they do want Air Force. And, I think they would want CSU and BYU, too, if, respectively, CSU had an athletic department of value and BYU would be more reasonable with logistics. ISU's president's comments aren't out of line with his conference's, though. The "play by the rules" thing, while it is snobbish, points at schools without the academic pedigree, unlike those within in the conference that think they do, such as Iowa State, who lean on athletics a bit much to the degree of raising integrity issues.

I took those comments as an arrow aimed at the heart of Memphis. But, is that any worse than a conference overlooking a school claiming things like media impact, alumni footprints, and other factors? It's all just PR. Some can just spin it better than others, and ISU's guy just isn't good with it.

(06-12-2016 01:43 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 02:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  If they go to divisions, they don't have to play 9 conference games. You have to play all the schools in your division and any number from the other division to have the CCG. They'd have the luxury of playing 8 and missing one conference team every year.

They could play it like the Big East used to, and guess the two best teams, and have them play on Championship Saturday. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Yes, they do have to continue to play 9 conference games. Splitting into divisions has nothing to do with it. For any league with less than 12 schools (yes, 10 is less than 12) that conference MUST play a round robin schedule with every school in the league in order to stage a CCG. It doesn't matter if they split into divisions or not. Only once the threshold of 12 schools is met is when they no longer have to play every school in the conference (just every school in their division) in order to stage a CCG.

It's amazing that some people still cannot grasp this simple concept. This was passed back in January the stipulations were clear. smh.

yes they are VERY CLEAR

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

“We felt that this more flexible amendment with two options was the best way to help our conference colleagues to play a championship game without the uncertainty that comes with complete deregulation,” said Jim Phillips, Northwestern University athletics director and chair of the Council. Phillips also represents the Big Ten Conference on the Council.

The smart thing for the Big 12 to do is add two schools, drop to 8 conference games and hold a championship game between two division-winners. This allows each school to opt for a marquee out-of-conference game each year (such as Texas vs Nebraska or West Virginia vs Penn State) and to increase chances of making the national championship tournament by 14%. Playing 9 conference games and holding a CCG with only 10 schools is stupid by contrast.

(06-12-2016 09:51 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  The smart thing for the Big 12 to do is add two schools, drop to 8 conference games and hold a championship game between two division-winners. This allows each school to opt for a marquee out-of-conference game each year (such as Texas vs Nebraska or West Virginia vs Penn State) and to increase chances of making the national championship tournament by 14%. Playing 9 conference games and holding a CCG with only 10 schools is stupid by contrast.

Marquee game for West Virginia next year. They are playing Delaware State. Why am I not seeing Big 12 schools want to schedule schools from the MWC more often? They are completely ignoring Boise State. Boise went 2 wins over P5 schools last year, and lost to BYU who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. Both those schools could compete in the Big 12. When The Big 12 invited TCU a few years ago, they were like tier 3 on Carnegie's list. Boise State is now in the spot as a research institution, and they are adding more research degrees and all that in the future. They are growing their academics faster than Memphis and Cincinnati. Something tells me Boise State could be a heavy hitter soon in research than people think. I would take a gamble with Boise right now. They seemed to be growing, and they might get the medical school in Boise if the state politicians approve a medical school which would be located in Boise.

(06-10-2016 01:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:03 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Well, when a president, who gets the vote on such matters, says something like:

Quote:“It’s got to be the kind of school that adds value to the league. An academically successful school playing by the rules that gives everyone the right impression that this is a first-class league going forward

That cuts the field down. Some of these people will never look past flagships or ivy-lites.

Probably not good for BYU, either.

It is the exact opposite than what Boren said. Boren said it did not have to be academics, but who can field the best teams that could draw fans and viewers alike that can bring a possible Big 12 Network, and a much better tv contract. Adding a strong academics school who brings nothing of media value will kill the conference. Glad this guy is not in the making of expanding because if his school do not except schools like BYU, Boise State, Cincinnati, East Carolina and Memphis as possible candidates? His school could be left and regulated to the G5 ranks.

The round robin ensure ISU gets $30 million disbursements, trips into Texas and has either the Longhorns or Sooners visiting Ames every year. At this point expansion is like Schrödinger's cat for the B12. Opening that box might result in lower payments or even discovering that OU and UT aren't willing to sign a GOR extension. Better to just stick with what you know.

Boren also made the academic comment. That, combined with Memphis's limited history of success in football making them a risk is why I have long thought they had very little chance. Personally, I think they would be a good risk and would be my pick with #12. Houston, Cincinnati, USF, UCF and UConn all are high research and ranked in the international rankings (ARWU, WUR).

(06-11-2016 07:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this proposal makes no sense at all

if they are stupid enough to keep playing 9 conference games then the only thing more stupid would be to do it in divisions......well that is not true more stupid than that would be to play 9 conference games in divisions and then annually try and swap those divisions up so the best teams meet in the CCG

this when you could instead not have divisions, be stupid enough to play 9 conference games and then be able to match the two best teams in the CCG every year

this is why the Big 12 has the ADs and the staff of the conference looking at how to make the CCG work instead of the presidents and chancellors of the university

The constantly swapping divisions would be the dumbest thing. That would top legends and leaders and even the semi-zipper ACC format.

(06-12-2016 09:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 01:43 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 02:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  If they go to divisions, they don't have to play 9 conference games. You have to play all the schools in your division and any number from the other division to have the CCG. They'd have the luxury of playing 8 and missing one conference team every year.

They could play it like the Big East used to, and guess the two best teams, and have them play on Championship Saturday. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Yes, they do have to continue to play 9 conference games. Splitting into divisions has nothing to do with it. For any league with less than 12 schools (yes, 10 is less than 12) that conference MUST play a round robin schedule with every school in the league in order to stage a CCG. It doesn't matter if they split into divisions or not. Only once the threshold of 12 schools is met is when they no longer have to play every school in the conference (just every school in their division) in order to stage a CCG.

It's amazing that some people still cannot grasp this simple concept. This was passed back in January the stipulations were clear. smh.

yes they are VERY CLEAR

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

“We felt that this more flexible amendment with two options was the best way to help our conference colleagues to play a championship game without the uncertainty that comes with complete deregulation,” said Jim Phillips, Northwestern University athletics director and chair of the Council. Phillips also represents the Big Ten Conference on the Council.

And its also clear their TV contract requires the 9 conference games. So if they stay at 10, the round robin stays.

(06-12-2016 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 01:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:03 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Well, when a president, who gets the vote on such matters, says something like:

Quote:“It’s got to be the kind of school that adds value to the league. An academically successful school playing by the rules that gives everyone the right impression that this is a first-class league going forward

That cuts the field down. Some of these people will never look past flagships or ivy-lites.

Probably not good for BYU, either.

It is the exact opposite than what Boren said. Boren said it did not have to be academics, but who can field the best teams that could draw fans and viewers alike that can bring a possible Big 12 Network, and a much better tv contract. Adding a strong academics school who brings nothing of media value will kill the conference. Glad this guy is not in the making of expanding because if his school do not except schools like BYU, Boise State, Cincinnati, East Carolina and Memphis as possible candidates? His school could be left and regulated to the G5 ranks.

The round robin ensure ISU gets $30 million disbursements, trips into Texas and has either the Longhorns or Sooners visiting Ames every year. At this point expansion is like Schrödinger's cat for the B12. Opening that box might result in lower payments or even discovering that OU and UT aren't willing to sign a GOR extension. Better to just stick with what you know.

Boren also made the academic comment. That, combined with Memphis's limited history of success in football making them a risk is why I have long thought they had very little chance. Personally, I think they would be a good risk and would be my pick with #12. Houston, Cincinnati, USF, UCF and UConn all are high research and ranked in the international rankings (ARWU, WUR).

UCF, USF and UConn had crappy football. UCF went downhill last year.

Boise State is a 3 tiered research school which they are slowly becoming in the academics club. Good football that could compete just like TCU. History playing with TCU. Knows how to play tough against Oklahoma, and could pull off trick plays.

Maybe the noise over Boise died down a bit after the way they handled the BEF/AAC thing? Making their non-fb sports second-class citizens, futzing around on membership until the zero hour, then trying to skip out on the bill? Boise hurt themselves on that one as much as anything. They're a football school, sure, but they made it painfully obvious that was *all* they were, and weren't good with the administrative components.

If you're a major conference, do you want to work with that? Is that what you expect from a peer/colleague/equal?

It was embarrassing. And I don't doubt it made them some enemies. I wonder if someone else in the MWC gets into a P5 conference, or a program or two from AAC get there, if it hurls Boise into the abyss. To hear it from some, Boise's not very well liked even in its own conference now.

(06-12-2016 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 01:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:03 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Well, when a president, who gets the vote on such matters, says something like:

Quote:“It’s got to be the kind of school that adds value to the league. An academically successful school playing by the rules that gives everyone the right impression that this is a first-class league going forward

That cuts the field down. Some of these people will never look past flagships or ivy-lites.

Probably not good for BYU, either.

It is the exact opposite than what Boren said. Boren said it did not have to be academics, but who can field the best teams that could draw fans and viewers alike that can bring a possible Big 12 Network, and a much better tv contract. Adding a strong academics school who brings nothing of media value will kill the conference. Glad this guy is not in the making of expanding because if his school do not except schools like BYU, Boise State, Cincinnati, East Carolina and Memphis as possible candidates? His school could be left and regulated to the G5 ranks.

The round robin ensure ISU gets $30 million disbursements, trips into Texas and has either the Longhorns or Sooners visiting Ames every year. At this point expansion is like Schrödinger's cat for the B12. Opening that box might result in lower payments or even discovering that OU and UT aren't willing to sign a GOR extension. Better to just stick with what you know.

Boren also made the academic comment. That, combined with Memphis's limited history of success in football making them a risk is why I have long thought they had very little chance. Personally, I think they would be a good risk and would be my pick with #12. Houston, Cincinnati, USF, UCF and UConn all are high research and ranked in the international rankings (ARWU, WUR).

I think the academic association with the B12 as a multiplier are over. That is why it would better to focus on athletic aspect. Boren's comments strike as justification not to expand. Add more teams and they are going to want to know if the Sooners are willing to make a 20 year commitment to the be B12.

(06-12-2016 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 09:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 01:43 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 02:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  If they go to divisions, they don't have to play 9 conference games. You have to play all the schools in your division and any number from the other division to have the CCG. They'd have the luxury of playing 8 and missing one conference team every year.

They could play it like the Big East used to, and guess the two best teams, and have them play on Championship Saturday. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Yes, they do have to continue to play 9 conference games. Splitting into divisions has nothing to do with it. For any league with less than 12 schools (yes, 10 is less than 12) that conference MUST play a round robin schedule with every school in the league in order to stage a CCG. It doesn't matter if they split into divisions or not. Only once the threshold of 12 schools is met is when they no longer have to play every school in the conference (just every school in their division) in order to stage a CCG.

It's amazing that some people still cannot grasp this simple concept. This was passed back in January the stipulations were clear. smh.

yes they are VERY CLEAR

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

“We felt that this more flexible amendment with two options was the best way to help our conference colleagues to play a championship game without the uncertainty that comes with complete deregulation,” said Jim Phillips, Northwestern University athletics director and chair of the Council. Phillips also represents the Big Ten Conference on the Council.

And its also clear their TV contract requires the 9 conference games. So if they stay at 10, the round robin stays.

and it is also clear that Bowlsby has in the past mentioned playing fewer conference games and specifically at 24 minutes into the Big 12 press conference when ask about how the CCG would benefit the conference he said "up to 14%" and then stated "but that depends on the number of conference games played" and there was no mention of that being in conjunction with more teams being added

and that was just after they had made clear over and over when pressed that the CCG decision was in no way related to expansion and was not made with expansion in mind and had no impact on any decision on expansion

(06-12-2016 01:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe the noise over Boise died down a bit after the way they handled the BEF/AAC thing? Making their non-fb sports second-class citizens, futzing around on membership until the zero hour, then trying to skip out on the bill? Boise hurt themselves on that one as much as anything. They're a football school, sure, but they made it painfully obvious that was *all* they were, and weren't good with the administrative components.

If you're a major conference, do you want to work with that? Is that what you expect from a peer/colleague/equal?

It was embarrassing. And I don't doubt it made them some enemies. I wonder if someone else in the MWC gets into a P5 conference, or a program or two from AAC get there, if it hurls Boise into the abyss. To hear it from some, Boise's not very well liked even in its own conference now.

TCU and San Diego State also backed out of that deal as well. The conference was not something that they agreed to be part of. It was more of an embarrassment on the Big East/AAC schools who could not keep themselves together, and it was a sinking ship over there with not being stable. Boise is not a one sport that is good. There good at multiple sports.

(06-12-2016 11:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  TCU and San Diego State also backed out of that deal as well. The conference was not something that they agreed to be part of. It was more of an embarrassment on the Big East/AAC schools who could not keep themselves together, and it was a sinking ship over there with not being stable. Boise is not a one sport that is good. There good at multiple sports.

But Boise didn't have a conference to place its other programs. Going full-bore into AAC football and then going to Twitter to plead with other conferences to take other sports is about as bad as it can get administratively. Then, skip out on the bill? Are Boise's other athletics worthwhile? I personally think so, but I think Boise themselves made them look like burdens. And administratively? I don't think B12 presidents and ADs want to work with that.

TCU will probably get a pass for what it did, but you're right...when Pitt sued the Big East, it raised how poorly the conference handled the TCU thing. However, SDSU did its homework.

SDSU backed out after Boise did -- as per their agreement. They didn't want to be the only western school.

Boise got a better deal from the MWC than they would from a non-Power, non-AQ Big East. It happens.

And yes, the Big East was in a complete state of disarray.

(06-10-2016 09:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Since they're going to continue playing a full round-robin, then the make-up of the divisions don't matter beyond the fact that the winner of each division gets to play in the CCG.

So the idea of making new divisions every year basically just means they're going to try to guess who the two best teams in the conf will be each year --- and they're of course going to guess wrong.

From taking ALL of the comments quote in the OP (note I did not go the link), it sounds as though the idea of division swapping is if divisions are made and there are more than ten teams. I am going off of this part from the OP - "When asked if the Big 12 would remain at 10 teams by the time the league’s media rights contracts expire after the 2024-25 school year, Leath said, “I would be surprised.”

If he is referring to divisions with ten teams, then I really have no idea what he is trying to do.

(06-12-2016 09:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 01:43 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 02:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  If they go to divisions, they don't have to play 9 conference games. You have to play all the schools in your division and any number from the other division to have the CCG. They'd have the luxury of playing 8 and missing one conference team every year.

They could play it like the Big East used to, and guess the two best teams, and have them play on Championship Saturday. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Yes, they do have to continue to play 9 conference games. Splitting into divisions has nothing to do with it. For any league with less than 12 schools (yes, 10 is less than 12) that conference MUST play a round robin schedule with every school in the league in order to stage a CCG. It doesn't matter if they split into divisions or not. Only once the threshold of 12 schools is met is when they no longer have to play every school in the conference (just every school in their division) in order to stage a CCG.

It's amazing that some people still cannot grasp this simple concept. This was passed back in January the stipulations were clear. smh.

yes they are VERY CLEAR

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

“We felt that this more flexible amendment with two options was the best way to help our conference colleagues to play a championship game without the uncertainty that comes with complete deregulation,” said Jim Phillips, Northwestern University athletics director and chair of the Council. Phillips also represents the Big Ten Conference on the Council.

Reading is fundamental. There is an "OR" in there. They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin. It says you only have to meet one of the two conditions. Right there, in black and white. Now they would have TV concerns to deal with, but in terms of whether the NCAA allows it: they could switch to 8 games if they moved to divisions, even at ten teams.

Remember this when you try to call other people out about interpretations of rules. You apparently suck at it.

(06-13-2016 06:38 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 11:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  TCU and San Diego State also backed out of that deal as well. The conference was not something that they agreed to be part of. It was more of an embarrassment on the Big East/AAC schools who could not keep themselves together, and it was a sinking ship over there with not being stable. Boise is not a one sport that is good. There good at multiple sports.

But Boise didn't have a conference to place its other programs. Going full-bore into AAC football and then going to Twitter to plead with other conferences to take other sports is about as bad as it can get administratively. Then, skip out on the bill? Are Boise's other athletics worthwhile? I personally think so, but I think Boise themselves made them look like burdens. And administratively? I don't think B12 presidents and ADs want to work with that.

TCU will probably get a pass for what it did, but you're right...when Pitt sued the Big East, it raised how poorly the conference handled the TCU thing. However, SDSU did its homework.

TCU wasn't involved in that deal.