I know that the other conference commissioners and presidents don't want to see it happen, but if the other members (Texas & Oklahoma excluded for now) of the Big 12 wanted to save the Big 12, I think I know a way.

WVU needs to see about getting Oliver Luck to be commissioner of the Big 12. Luck is a man who is not a afraid to grab the proverbial bull by the horns, and I think he would be someone to stand up to both Fenves & Boren (Texas & OU's presidents). Luck then needs to negotiate a tv contract for the conference with just about anyone. If Fox is interested in staying on, keep them. If not, ditch them. Same thing with ESPN.
Luck needs to show OU & UT what they would be giving up by leaving the Big 12, and how giving in on expansion would actually help their cause. The Big 12 does need to go back to 12 teams, but the way the conference title game is determined needs to be revisited. Simply winning the division only to lose to someone who's a lot worse than your team is not going to work. The true best 2 teams in the conference need to slug it out. So, pick the two teams with the best conference records, and put them in the championship game. I don't know how to get that done in a 12 team conference, but it needs to be figured out. The SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & the Pac 12 can all take notes.
A horns poster mentioned getting Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado, Arkansas, & Cincy while dumping Baylor for the Big 12. I believe that's wishful thinking, but here's something along the lines that makes a lot more sense, and doable, IMO: BYU, Colorado State, Cincinnati, & New Mexico/Houston. Not quite Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado, Arkansas caliber, but I don't think they're not exactly chopped liver either.

Oh yes, and Bowlsby would already be fired.

Colorado State, New Mexico and Cincinnati does not bring good teams to the field right now. Boise State, UCF, USF, Tulsa, San Diego State, Navy, Air Force, Wyoming, Old Dominion, Western Michigan, Western Kentucky and North Dakota State are the better teams.

(12-13-2016 05:17 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Colorado State, New Mexico and Cincinnati does not bring good teams to the field right now. Boise State, UCF, USF, Tulsa, San Diego State, Navy, Air Force, Wyoming, Old Dominion, Western Michigan, Western Kentucky and North Dakota State are the better teams.

None of these teams will save the Big 12. Outside of the Oklahoma and Texas programs. Only WVU recruits anywhere near decent.

(12-13-2016 03:37 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I know that the other conference commissioners and presidents don't want to see it happen, but if the other members (Texas & Oklahoma excluded for now) of the Big 12 wanted to save the Big 12, I think I know a way.

WVU needs to see about getting Oliver Luck to be commissioner of the Big 12. Luck is a man who is not a afraid to grab the proverbial bull by the horns, and I think he would be someone to stand up to both Fenves & Boren (Texas & OU's presidents). Luck then needs to negotiate a tv contract for the conference with just about anyone. If Fox is interested in staying on, keep them. If not, ditch them. Same thing with ESPN.
Luck needs to show OU & UT what they would be giving up by leaving the Big 12, and how giving in on expansion would actually help their cause. The Big 12 does need to go back to 12 teams, but the way the conference title game is determined needs to be revisited. Simply winning the division only to lose to someone who's a lot worse than your team is not going to work. The true best 2 teams in the conference need to slug it out. So, pick the two teams with the best conference records, and put them in the championship game. I don't know how to get that done in a 12 team conference, but it needs to be figured out. The SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & the Pac 12 can all take notes.
A horns poster mentioned getting Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado, Arkansas, & Cincy while dumping Baylor for the Big 12. I believe that's wishful thinking, but here's something along the lines that makes a lot more sense, and doable, IMO: BYU, Colorado State, Cincinnati, & New Mexico/Houston. Not quite Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado, Arkansas caliber, but I don't think they're not exactly chopped liver either.

Oh yes, and Bowlsby would already be fired.

The Big 12 really can't be saved. Mostly because no one in the Big 12 wants to save it. The Oklahoma and Texas programs will most likely form a new conference when the contracts expire. Almost half of the current members don't recruit well and have no recruiting base at all. I've posted similar things before. But look at Arkansas. We would currently have the 3rd best recruiting class if we were in the Big 12. In the SEC, We have the 9th best. Houston would have the 4th or 5th best.

I may be naive but I'm not really that concerned about the long term viability of the league. I think the playoff probably expands to 8, and if so that is a stabilizing force. But even if it doesn't the league has strong recruiting (not on the level of the SEC, but no one is), strong budgets, strong coaching and coaching salaries, good facilities, and solid attendance. The SEC and Big 10 are kings, but that doesn't mean the other power 5 conferences aren't viable. I think the league has some short term issues, in particular the on the field performance nadir, but the major viability factors above are strong.

(12-13-2016 07:29 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I may be naive but I'm not really that concerned about the long term viability of the league. I think the playoff probably expands to 8, and if so that is a stabilizing force. But even if it doesn't the league has strong recruiting (not on the level of the SEC, but no one is), strong budgets, strong coaching and coaching salaries, good facilities, and solid attendance. The SEC and Big 10 are kings, but that doesn't mean the other power 5 conferences aren't viable. I think the league has some short term issues, in particular the on the field performance nadir, but the major viability factors above are strong.

Baylor and TCU were top 25 in recruiting last year, along with Texas and Oklahoma. West Virginia did well. Oklahoma St. has typically been up there, but wasn't last year. Tech always does fine. Kansas St. hasn't needed top recruits. They had Bill Snyder.

In the last 10 years everybody in the conference except Iowa St. has been in the running for an MNC in mid-November or later. No other conference has such a high % of their teams in that position, not even the SEC (which has more teams winning MNCs). In case you don't remember, Kansas in 2007 (last game loss to Mizzou), Texas Tech in 2008 (last game loss to OU), Oklahoma St. in 2011 (next to last game loss to ISU and ESPN pushing LSU/AL rematch), Kansas St. in 2012 (next to last game loss to Baylor), WVU in 2007 (last game loss to Pitt), Baylor in 2014, TCU in 2010/2014/2015, Texas 2008/2009, OU 2008/2015.

Add these six teams:

Cincinnati
East Carolina
Houston
Colorado State
BYU
Boise State

I think a strong Big 12 is good for college football. In fact, I think that is true of all five major conferences (and Notre Dame too). When they are strong, college football is better. As such, I think anything the rest of college football can do to help ensure the viability of all of these conferences is best for everyone's long-term interests.

The problem is nobody is looking out for college football as a whole. They are only interested in serving their narrow self interests. Therefore, you can bet your bottom dollar that at some point guys like Larry Scott or Jim Delany are going to make a run at further destabilizing what looks like the weakest bull in the herd.

Scott is already saber-rattling and as we get closer to the 2020s, more will join him.

I think the Big 12 made a huge mistake in passing over Louisville and Cincinnati when it added West Virginia. I think that was incredibly shortsighted and they will always regret that decision.

I also think they will regret not expanding this past go around. I just think adding two more teams would have given them greater stability. Obviously, their analysis showed differently. Time will tell who was right?

One thing to consider this time versus last time though is that this time their calculation that the candidates they are looking at will still be there is probably right. When they passed over Louisville, they assumed that the Cardinals would be there whenever they wanted them. That was obviously bad analysis.

However, where is Houston going? Where is Cincinnati going? Where is BYU going? Those schools will very likely still be available 5–10 years from now because there is no room at the inn for them. That gives the B12 plenty of time to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

(12-13-2016 08:52 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the Big 12 made a huge mistake in passing over Louisville and Cincinnati when it added West Virginia. I think that was incredibly shortsighted and they will always regret that decision.

I also think they will regret not expanding this past go around. I just think adding two more teams would have given them greater stability. Obviously, their analysis showed differently. Time will tell who was right?

One thing to consider this time versus last time though is that this time their calculation that the candidates they are looking at will still be there is probably right. When they passed over Louisville, they assumed that the Cardinals would be there whenever they wanted them. That was obviously bad analysis.

However, where is Houston going? Where is Cincinnati going? Where is BYU going? Those schools will very likely still be available 5–10 years from now because there is no room at the inn for them. That gives the B12 plenty of time to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I agree, they should have taken WV, Louisville and CincyorBYU. It would have made the Big12 stronger and weakened the ACC as Lousiville would not have been available for them. They would have added a weaker team (from a FB standpoint) when Maryland left. This may have opened the door to poach teams from the ACC down the road.

(12-13-2016 07:29 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I may be naive but I'm not really that concerned about the long term viability of the league. I think the playoff probably expands to 8, and if so that is a stabilizing force. But even if it doesn't the league has strong recruiting (not on the level of the SEC, but no one is), strong budgets, strong coaching and coaching salaries, good facilities, and solid attendance. The SEC and Big 10 are kings, but that doesn't mean the other power 5 conferences aren't viable. I think the league has some short term issues, in particular the on the field performance nadir, but the major viability factors above are strong.

Playoff going to 8 teams will stabilize the big 10...er 12....they just don't know how to count in that conference or the Big 14...er 10.

The Big 12 is in the same situation it has been in since Nebraska left: So long as TX and OU are members, it is fine. Without them, it dissolves.

Nothing new here.

(12-13-2016 08:52 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the Big 12 made a huge mistake in passing over Louisville and Cincinnati when it added West Virginia. I think that was incredibly shortsighted and they will always regret that decision.

I also think they will regret not expanding this past go around. I just think adding two more teams would have given them greater stability. Obviously, their analysis showed differently. Time will tell who was right?

One thing to consider this time versus last time though is that this time their calculation that the candidates they are looking at will still be there is probably right. When they passed over Louisville, they assumed that the Cardinals would be there whenever they wanted them. That was obviously bad analysis.

However, where is Houston going? Where is Cincinnati going? Where is BYU going? Those schools will very likely still be available 5–10 years from now because there is no room at the inn for them. That gives the B12 plenty of time to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I think the problem is the wheat will be of little more value than chaff 10 years from now. The gap in conference revenues from top of the non-BCS to BCS was only about a million dollars in 2010. To the top was only about $10 million. Now the minimum is over $15 million. The top will be over $30 million. P5 will spend G5 into a non-competitive status over time.

I think it was expand now or forget about it.

The biggest issue IMO was that Fox got the Big 10, ESPN already had excess inventory and the Big 12 didn't have a conference network, so there was no place to put the extra inventory from adding two more teams. Fox and ESPN were extraordinarily public in their opposition to Big 12 expansion. If they had been neutral, I think the Big 12 would have expanded with Houston and either Cincinnati or BYU. The idea of a 10 team conference ccg is just stupid. It will help financially, but hurt the conference in getting teams into the NY6 as one of the top 2 teams is guaranteed a loss to a team they have already played before.

WVU should just walk away from Big 12 after contract. Announce tomorrow. Let bidding begin.

(12-13-2016 09:58 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  WVU should just walk away from Big 12 after contract. Announce tomorrow. Let bidding begin.

Er, I think the Sun Belt, C-USA, AAC and MAC would be very interested in WVU. Wonder how high the bidding would get?

It seems to me that having only 40 million people in your media footprint is the problem for the B12.

Depending on how you measure it the ACC has 115-130 million people in their media footprint
The B10 has 105-110 million
The SEC has about 100
The P2 has about 75 million
But the B12 only has about 40 million

This dearth of population is the big issue in my opinion.

Many P5 leaders think that some of the G5 schools could be the future power schools in football. Boise State is almost there, and they have averaged between 33,000 to 34,000. Last year, they averaged more fans in the seats than schools like Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Washington State and one other in P5.
California only had an average I think 48,000 or something. Or was that 43,000? Not sure, but below some G5 schools as well.

(12-13-2016 03:37 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The Big 12 does need to go back to 12 teams, but the way the conference title game is determined needs to be revisited. Simply winning the division only to lose to someone who's a lot worse than your team is not going to work. The true best 2 teams in the conference need to slug it out. So, pick the two teams with the best conference records, and put them in the championship game. I don't know how to get that done in a 12 team conference, but it needs to be figured out. The SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & the Pac 12 can all take notes.

This issue was already settled over the settled. The Big 12 *can* take the top 2 teams and play a conference championship game if it has 10 teams or less and plays a round-robin. If the Big 12 goes to 12, then it needs to split into divisions (and there needs to be intra-divisional round robins). So, your scenario is only possible if the Big 21 stays at 10 teams. The other P5 leagues don't need to take notes because they very explicitly killed off your proposal over the summer (albeit the ACC did push for the flexibility to take the top two teams without regard to divisions, but the Big Ten particularly pushed back and that's why we see the compromise here).

Here's the Big 12 announcement from October (after it announced that it wasn't expanding):

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=211258195

Going to at least an 8 team playoff with guaranteed spots for P5 conference champions would be the best thing that could happen to the Big 12.

(12-13-2016 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 is in the same situation it has been in since Nebraska left: So long as TX and OU are members, it is fine. Without them, it dissolves.

Nothing new here.

In that respect, I agree.

As long as Texas wants the Big 12 to live, then it will live.

I do think the non-Texas portion of the Big 12 was short-sighted in not expanding. They were being emotionally illogical in not wanting another Texas-based school (such as Houston). On the one hand, they were concerned about the influence of Texas state politics and the fact that UT would have a voting bloc within the league. However, that should have been a very minor concern compared to the fact that each additional Texas-based school in the Big 12 would have actually made it harder for UT to ever *politically* leave the Big 12 in the future. The Big 12's survival is based upon Texas staying in that league, and a major part of the political pressure to keep UT in the league is to ensure that it has as much political baggage in the form of "little brothers" that it needs to take care of.

(OU is certainly critical to the league, too, but they have their own political baggage in needing to protect Oklahoma State. That is very different than Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado, who didn't have any little brothers. Texas A&M had little brothers, but they got a pass since they left an even bigger brother in UT to take of everyone.)