(08-08-2016 08:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  basketball doesn't mean anything quite frankly.

Just add this to the list of uninformed comments. If basketball meant nothing, UConn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

(08-08-2016 08:51 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  basketball doesn't mean anything quite frankly.

Just add this to the list of uninformed comments. If basketball meant nothing, UConn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

UConn's only in the conversation for the market they reside. Exactly the same thing with Rutgers. They literally offered nothing and still got in. Basketball success has nothing to do with it; it's only an added bonus.

(08-08-2016 08:57 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:51 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  basketball doesn't mean anything quite frankly.

Just add this to the list of uninformed comments. If basketball meant nothing, UConn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

UConn's only in the conversation for the market they reside. Exactly the same thing with Rutgers. They literally offered nothing and still got in. Basketball success has nothing to do with it; it's only an added bonus.

And with their overall athletic budget, UConn spends like a P5 school. They "look" more like a P5 school than anyone else. Just that their football program doesn't. Maybe they believe it can. I doubt it.

(08-08-2016 09:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:57 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:51 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  basketball doesn't mean anything quite frankly.

Just add this to the list of uninformed comments. If basketball meant nothing, UConn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

UConn's only in the conversation for the market they reside. Exactly the same thing with Rutgers. They literally offered nothing and still got in. Basketball success has nothing to do with it; it's only an added bonus.

And with their overall athletic budget, UConn spends like a P5 school. They "look" more like a P5 school than anyone else. Just that their football program doesn't. Maybe they believe it can. I doubt it.

Yeah but then I think about Wake Forest, Duke, and UNC football. In the last 15 years they haven't been good at all but they can turn it around on a dime given P5 resources and exposure.

(08-08-2016 08:29 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  Football certainly is the major driver of change in realignment, but it would be remiss to not acknowledge basketball as it still carries some amount of weight.

..........................................Cincy...........Houston
Tournament Appearances..........30................19
Last Sweet 16 Appearance........2012............1984
National Titles..........................2.................0

Cincy has also made the tournament 6 consecutive years, meanwhile, Houston hasn't made it in 6 years.

Someone asked why Oklahoma was lobbying so hard for Cincy. The answer is pretty simple. They are the better choice. The football records between the 2 over the last 10 and 20 years are roughly equal despite Cincy playing in a tougher conference a good chunk of the years. Going into Cincy introduces the B12 to a new market which will bring in more recruits and TV dollars. Lastly, Cincy has a basketball program that can compete from day 1 and will help bank the conference those ever so valuable NCAA credits.

Cincinnati being in the Big East while it was BCS and not being in a better position and doing more in football (relative to Houston in the SWC or Houston's poll rankings as CUSA) is an argument against them. But what they did do in football is an argument for them relative to UConn or USF.

(08-08-2016 08:43 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:19 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I thought all along it would be those 3. Wasn't sure if they were going to try and get UConn into the mix, but the travel must just be too much.

If American loses 2 maybe they just sit pat with a 9/10 league.

Why not do like the ACC did with ND. Add Houston and Cincinnati as 11 & 12 then Have BYU in as 13 in all sports but Football but with a 5-6 game annual commitment to the Big 12 while remaining a Football Indy like both They, and ND currently are with a national following and scheduling anywhere OOC with rivals . Seems like a plan.

Seems like a poor plan. What you'd get with an Olympic-sports-only arrangement are the scheduling headaches relating to BYU's rigid no-Sunday-play policy.

(08-08-2016 08:57 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:51 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  basketball doesn't mean anything quite frankly.

Just add this to the list of uninformed comments. If basketball meant nothing, UConn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

UConn's only in the conversation for the market they reside. Exactly the same thing with Rutgers. They literally offered nothing and still got in. Basketball success has nothing to do with it; it's only an added bonus.

It's entirely different than Rutgers. You are correct that Rutgers was chosen because of the NYC market. That allowed the B1G to pick up a huge number of carriage fees in a massive metropolitan market. Apples and oranges with the B12. It does not have a network so while markets are important, this isn't about carriage fees. UConn basketball and women's basketball are good, revenue generating products. That's appealing and it's silly to argue otherwise.

What the Big 12 should do is expel WVU and invite BYU, UH and UC, assuming of course that the interest in UC is more than just giving WVU a travel partner. No need to cry for WVU. Either the SEC or the ACC will pick up the school.

(08-08-2016 09:07 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:43 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:19 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I thought all along it would be those 3. Wasn't sure if they were going to try and get UConn into the mix, but the travel must just be too much.

If American loses 2 maybe they just sit pat with a 9/10 league.

Why not do like the ACC did with ND. Add Houston and Cincinnati as 11 & 12 then Have BYU in as 13 in all sports but Football but with a 5-6 game annual commitment to the Big 12 while remaining a Football Indy like both They, and ND currently are with a national following and scheduling anywhere OOC with rivals . Seems like a plan.

Seems like a poor plan. What you'd get with an Olympic-sports-only arrangement are the scheduling headaches relating to BYU's rigid no-Sunday-play policy.

Well wouldn't You have that same issue with BYU as a Full Member ?

(08-08-2016 09:18 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What the Big 12 should do is expel WVU and invite BYU, UH and UC, assuming of course that the interest in UC is more than just giving WVU a travel partner. No need to cry for WVU. Either the SEC or the ACC will pick up the school.

It wouldn't hurt My feelings to have both WVU & Cincinnati in the ACC. Much better being regional schools that tie in nicely with both Good Football and Basketball.

ESPN should have the acc jump to 18 with wvu, uconn and cincy. Than put byu, col state and Houston in the big 12. End game is p5 till the gor run out.

(08-08-2016 09:24 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 09:18 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What the Big 12 should do is expel WVU and invite BYU, UH and UC, assuming of course that the interest in UC is more than just giving WVU a travel partner. No need to cry for WVU. Either the SEC or the ACC will pick up the school.

It wouldn't hurt My feelings to have both WVU & Cincinnati in the ACC. Much better being regional schools that tie in nicely with both Good Football and Basketball.

I agree! There's nothing better than geographic rivals in close proximity.

(08-08-2016 01:24 AM)PAC Power Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 11:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 11:12 PM)PAC Power Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 11:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 10:51 PM)PAC Power Wrote:  People forget the football records! This is expansion and it is far more about political pressure. Texas wants to build that campus in Houston. No Houston in BIG 12 guess what no campus. A hell a lot of money on the line here. Everybody knows what Texas wants it will get.

this is not true at all

UT does not need any approval from anyone to move forward with the campus in Houston the only thing that could stop it is legislative action against it and that is not going to happen based on athletics conference membership.....especially not to UT and not because of dem coogs doh

Exactly! The legislative has put a lot of pressure to get Houston in the BIG 12. That's the political pressure so guess what Houston is in.

Also don't just think this is deal between Oklahoma and Texas. You know ESPN and Fox are having their say. BYU solves the TV contract issue for ESPN and Oklahoma has been wanting to get BYU in. Houston gets Texas' approval and they get their campus. Deal done and everybody happy.

1. the vast majority of the political pressure has nothing to do with dem coogs doh

the senator from Houston that is "against" the idea is a loser and a nobody and can easily be bought off with a few trinkets, beads and shiny objects and he will go away

the other senators that have expressed "concern" have not expressed that because of anything to do with dem coogs doh they have expressed it because they falsely believe that the money being spent could instead be spent on a UT System campus in their area of the state, but that is not correct

and then there is kirk watson that is concerned that the money UT is spending could be spent in Austin instead (which it could), but it would be as much or more of a benefit to UT Austin to have the project in Houston as it would in Austin where UT already has a major research campus (apart from the main campus) and where UT is building a medical school as well

3. at the end of the day no matter what no one is going to pass actual legislation that prevents the campus in Houston from happening based on dem coogs doh not getting into the Big 12

the only person that has that concern at all as I said before is a shill and a loser and can easily be bought off with garbage.....and no other politician from any other area is going to move that legislation forward and make The State of Texas look stupid for stopping a major research initiative based on conference affiliations it is simply not going to happen

there is no actual real pressure on UT over this campus and they can move ahead with it tomorrow if they desire to and there is not going to be legislation passed specifically to prevent it especially related to the Big 12

and the others with concerns have concerns that are not valid and once that is explained to them they will move on with other things they will not suddenly care about dem coogs doh

Dude you are in complete denial. Your own statements even prove it. You keep saying there is no pressure, however the legislature is concerned about the money being spent for a campus in Houston as opposed to Austin. Hello! Guess what that's called political pressure!

You need to get you head out of the sand. The Cougs are in!

Now please take two Advil with a shot of Texas Whiskey and get good night sleep and hopefully, maybe, you will wake up to the reality of the situation!

the campus in Houston will be a part of UT Austin

it is good for UT Austin

once kirk watson understands this he will not have any issues with the deal

you are the one understanding how this works the political pressure is not about dem coogs doh and anyone caring what happens to them as far as the Big 12

it is about UT System campuses (where the money cannot be legally spent) and about someone thinking the money would be better spend in Austin than Houston (it could be spent in Austin, but spending it in Houston is good for Austin as well)

and none of those people care what happens with the Big 12 and they are not pressuring UT about anything to do with the Big 12

(08-07-2016 11:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 10:51 PM)PAC Power Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 10:48 PM)PAC Power Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 10:41 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 09:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  [quote='Dr. Isaly von Yinzer' pid='13453127' dateline='1470624126']
What a second.

As I was relinking the article – thanks by the way – I reread what I wrote and it was exactly what the article says – and exactly what you said afterwards.

The conference is expanding by two teams and it is down to BYU, Houston and Cincinnati. Everyone prefers BYU but a compromise could be struck whereby Cincinnati and Houston get in at BYU's expense.

As for the program thing, I do believe that Cincinnati is a better bet to succeed than Houston.

Houston had a great year last year. However, Cincinnati has sustained its program through multiple coaches and over a longer period of time. Is Houston going to hold onto Tom Herman forever? That's pretty doubtful. Who knows, maybe Houston can sustain it as well? That's entirely possible.

I just think for this expansion to be successful the big 12 needs to get another eastern time zone team and a new tent BYU. Again, if they go to 14 teams, then I would consider Houston. However, to pass on the BYU or Cincinnati for yet another Texas school would be stupid.

I'm not attached to either school so this is just a cold analysis on my part. However, if you asked me to bet on one or the other over the long haul, I would definitely bet on Cincinnati over Houston. Also, I would take BYU over both of you.

Just one man's opinion.

In fairness, Houston has outdone Cincy in sustained success across coaches. You can't forget Art Briles and then Sumlin came before.

I think that Cincy and Houston make more sense than any other combination of the three. That said, Houston has several strong strikes both for and against it that make it a kind of wildcard.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Look at the last 20 years. Cincinnati comes out on top in wins, bowls and conference championships. Your gut tells you that Houston is better because Houston is coming off its best season in a decade while Cincinnati is coming off its worst in a decade. Sometimes the gut is wrong. Compare the two football programs over the last few decades and Cincinnati has been objectively better.

People forget the football records! This is expansion and it is far more about political pressure. Texas wants to build that campus in Houston. No Houston in BIG 12 guess what no campus. A hell a lot of money on the line here. Everybody knows what Texas wants it will get.

this is not true at all

UT does not need any approval from anyone to move forward with the campus in Houston the only thing that could stop it is legislative action against it and that is not going to happen based on athletics conference membership.....especially not to UT and not because of dem coogs doh

yea, you keep on thinking that

(08-07-2016 10:22 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  There is a saying 2 private schools in a conference is ok 3 in your coference you've got a problem. Wouldn't be surprised BYU is left out.

Don't tell the Big East that. They have 10 and just won the BBall national title. hahaha

Oh or the ACC (BC, Cuse, Duke, Wake, Miami)

(08-07-2016 10:36 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 10:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 09:39 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Some of Jason Williams from the Cincinnati Enquirer tweets:

@Manny_Insanity I don't think Memphis' very attractive. FedEx nice. But FB & academics not strong overall. No on-campus stadium or arena.

@cjnelson79 I agree. Just don't see TV going for four. Take away politics (which we can't of course), BYU and Cincy are best candidates.

The thing is, if the Big-12 didn't have 4 members in Texas already, UH probably be a slam dunk. Everyone is just playing the cards they have.

Maybe the PAC 12 will make a move and go to 14. They should go with San Diego State and BYU and then the Big 12 could add two more with Memphis and Colorado State.

BYU is not a fit for the PAC 12.

(08-08-2016 08:50 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:29 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  Football certainly is the major driver of change in realignment, but it would be remiss to not acknowledge basketball as it still carries some amount of weight.

..........................................Cincy...........Houston
Tournament Appearances..........30................19
Last Sweet 16 Appearance........2012............1984
National Titles..........................2.................0

Cincy has also made the tournament 6 consecutive years, meanwhile, Houston hasn't made it in 6 years.

Someone asked why Oklahoma was lobbying so hard for Cincy. The answer is pretty simple. They are the better choice. The football records between the 2 over the last 10 and 20 years are roughly equal despite Cincy playing in a tougher conference a good chunk of the years. Going into Cincy introduces the B12 to a new market which will bring in more recruits and TV dollars. Lastly, Cincy has a basketball program that can compete from day 1 and will help bank the conference those ever so valuable NCAA credits.

They're both exceptional candidates. Neither is without its weaknesses, but anyone who tries to argue that one or the other is clearly inferior has zero credibility. Everyone has their own self-serving narrative, but at the end of the day if Houston or Cincinnati make it, they are deserving. End of story.

I have no dog in this race and honestly can care less how it ends up playing out. I just don't see how it makes any sense to add a 5th Texas team when a sizable chunk of the Houston market already follows the Big 12 in some capacity. Cincinnati meanwhile exposes the Big 12 to a market share that they have little to no current presence in.

(08-07-2016 10:41 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Sorry, but that's just wrong. Look at the last 20 years. Cincinnati comes out on top in wins, bowls and conference championships.

Before I get into this Cincinnati is a good school/program and I would say Houston and Cincinnati are close enough where neither jumps out in front of the other. I will focus on FB here because I am well aware of Cincinnati's BB program. Just want to squash the walking on imported air attitude some Cincy fans have....

Cincinnati, lets do an in depth analysis here.... Let's start with...
1976-1985 Cincy was 45-62-3. Houston 70-44-2
1986-1995 Cincy was 37-71-3. Houston 45-64-2
1996-2005 Cincy was 56-62-0. Houston 44-69-0
2006-2015 Cincy was 90-40-0. Houston 88-44-0

Overall Cincinnati,
40 years 1976-2015 228-235-6. Houston 247-221-4
30 years 1986-2015 183-173-3. Houston 177-177-2
20 years 1996-2015 146-102-0. Houston 132-113-0
10 years 2006-2015 90-40-0. Houston 88-44-0

Cincinnati joined the Big East in 2005. So let's look at this aspect since you "elevated" yourselves to a top tier league. Let's dig into the details here. In the 10 years prior to joining the Big East Cincy was 58-60-1. That works out to a 6-6 program with your highest win total of 8 (once) and a low of 2 (once).

(08-07-2016 10:41 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Your gut tells you that Houston is better because Houston is coming off its best season in a decade while Cincinnati is coming off its worst in a decade. Sometimes the gut is wrong. Compare the two football programs over the last few decades and Cincinnati has been objectively better.

I would argue again that they have been just as equally good (and bad at times) but to help you out with more misinformation here I'll address this.

We finished 13-1 in 2015 but we also finished 13-1 in 2011. We have had 4 seasons of 10 wins or more and you have had 5. If you want to go by the strictest of definitions yes Cincy has been better but by any factor I run across the margin is small enough in a large enough sample to be statistically a wash.

2 more wins in the last 10 years for example is more but that works out to .2 more wins a year. Looks pretty even to me. I can go on and on here but let's just agree in football that we are both the same.

Tweet just went out that "Big 12 sources are cooling on BYU"...Travis Haney of ESPN.

(08-08-2016 11:01 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 10:41 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Sorry, but that's just wrong. Look at the last 20 years. Cincinnati comes out on top in wins, bowls and conference championships.

Before I get into this Cincinnati is a good school/program and I would say Houston and Cincinnati are close enough where neither jumps out in front of the other. I will focus on FB here because I am well aware of Cincinnati's BB program. Just want to squash the walking on imported air attitude some Cincy fans have....

Cincinnati, lets do an in depth analysis here.... Let's start with...
1976-1985 Cincy was 45-62-3. Houston 70-44-2
1986-1995 Cincy was 37-71-3. Houston 45-64-2
1996-2005 Cincy was 56-62-0. Houston 44-69-0
2006-2015 Cincy was 90-40-0. Houston 88-44-0

Overall Cincinnati,
40 years 1976-2015 228-235-6. Houston 247-221-4
30 years 1986-2015 183-173-3. Houston 177-177-2
20 years 1996-2015 146-102-0. Houston 132-113-0
10 years 2006-2015 90-40-0. Houston 88-44-0

Cincinnati joined the Big East in 2005. So let's look at this aspect since you "elevated" yourselves to a top tier league. Let's dig into the details here. In the 10 years prior to joining the Big East Cincy was 58-60-1. That works out to a 6-6 program with your highest win total of 8 (once) and a low of 2 (once).

(08-07-2016 10:41 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Your gut tells you that Houston is better because Houston is coming off its best season in a decade while Cincinnati is coming off its worst in a decade. Sometimes the gut is wrong. Compare the two football programs over the last few decades and Cincinnati has been objectively better.

I would argue again that they have been just as equally good (and bad at times) but to help you out with more misinformation here I'll address this.

We finished 13-1 in 2015 but we also finished 13-1 in 2011. We have had 4 seasons of 10 wins or more and you have had 5. If you want to go by the strictest of definitions yes Cincy has been better but by any factor I run across the margin is small enough in a large enough sample to be statistically a wash.

2 more wins in the last 10 years for example is more but that works out to .2 more wins a year. Looks pretty even to me. I can go on and on here but let's just agree in football that we are both the same.

7.3 wins per season over the last two decades for Cincinnati; 6.6 per season for Houston. Huge difference? Not really. I'm tired of Houston fans trying to paint a narrative that Cincinnati is somehow objectively worse in football. It's not supported by any measure. Cincinnati fans should recognize Houston's football accomplishments and Houston fans should recognize Cincinnati's football accomplishments.