(04-11-2019 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Kansas has as much reason as any of the other Little Eight to keep the Big 12 together. They would be high and dry, and headed to the AAC, without it.

Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

(04-11-2019 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 07:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:50 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  A pal who is an alumn of Kansas doesn’t expect them to be in the Big 12 in the near future. Also mentioned they suddenly started emphasizing improving the football program which seemed odd to him.

I don't know why that should seem odd. It looks like they're trying to improve their desirability to other power conferences in the event that UT and/or OU leave the Big 12. Sure, they've got the basketball chops, but football is far more financially important. It's just a bit late in the game for KU to be getting its FB act together. Whether or not they'll have time enough before things fall apart is debatable. This is not to say that things will fall apart, but it's far from impossible.

Kansas is in deep trouble if the Big 12 falls apart. The PAC, SEC, and ACC surely wouldn't want them, and it's unlikely that the B1G would either, because if the B1G wanted them they would have taken them by now.

I’d disagree there: I think Kansas might be one of the most consistently underrated schools on this forum. They are part of a very small handful of schools where the basketball branding is so powerful (the others being Duke, UNC and Kentucky) that any football issues are completely irrelevant for their conference realignment value. Believe me: the Big Ten would unequivocally 100% take Kansas *alone*. I’m fairly certain all of the other P5 leagues would, too. The issue with KU up to this point is that they can’t *proactively* leave alone without taking Kansas State... and no other P5 league wants Kansas State. It’s a similar situation with respect to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Texas could force another P5 league to take Texas Tech with them because of its market size and power, but that won’t work for OU and KU. If the Big 12 is truly falling apart, though (which essentially requires Texas to leave), then that need for political protection goes away. In essence, KU and OU can’t be the ones *causing* the Big 12 to collapse and then relegating their little brothers to G5 status, but if the Big 12 is collapsing around them, then the state politicians aren’t myopic enough to force those flagships to relegate themselves to the G5 for the sake of their little brothers.

If the Pac-16 would have occurred back in 2010, Kansas would have been politically free to ditch Kansas State and be in the Big Ten or one of the other P5 conferences today. There’s no doubt in my mind. Kansas has a TON of conference realignment value as a true sole free agent (in contrast to having to be a package deal with Kansas State).

To be sure, I’ve stated before that the Big 12’s best protection to staying together is that the politicians in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas won’t let their flagships proactively leave without taking a little brother with them, which essentially forces conference realignment stasis for the time being.

And yet Frank, when the B1G added Nebraska as their #12, there was never any Kansas consideration. There was talk of Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse and even Boise State, Iowa State and West Virginia, but never a mention of KU.

did you smoke out with David Sate last night?

when the Big 10 was looking to expand the teams talked about were UVA, UNC, GT, and ND

once it was clear ND was not coming there were message board people saying "maybe they want in Florida" and knowing full well Florida was not coming they would mention FSU.....but that was no one with any credibility ot that remotely had any real information just people talking about "markets"

no one on earth (and I don't even believe David State on planet David) mentioned Boise...if anyone did mention it besides David State it was to get a laugh

I never saw anyone mention VT especially that could be considered credible and there was perhaps a "what about Syracuse" and then a yawn and back to talk about UVA, UNC and GT and how they screwed up with ND

as to Kansas they were NEVER mentioned (no offense to Kansas at all) and OU was NEVER mentioned as well and it was wildly reported that when Kansas thought that 6 were going to the PAC 10 and NU to the Big 10 they were talking to the AAC.....no reports at all that they were talking to the Big 10 or were in consideration

there were two rounds

the first round people thought that MU was a lock for the Big 10 then the MU leadership ran their mouths and let work get to Nebraska and also upset the Big 10 because the Big 10 was still looking to make a big raid all at one time

once that happened and the Big 10 realized that MU leadership was blabber mouths and they were never getting in the Big 10 and NU wedged in that was when the UVA, UNC, GT talk started (by then the ACC leadership acting to stop things including BOR members of FSU saying they were wanting to explore options

Syracuse to the Big 10 was just a "what about" and any FSU to the Big 10 was a "Florida tho" and after that it was UVA, UNC and GT that the Big 10 wanted

Boise was probably not even a David State consideration (after all they were headed to the PAC!)

(04-09-2019 08:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Put this in perspective: lowly Iowa St outdrew all but 2 PAC 12 members (Wash, UCLA) in 2018. Let that sink in--more people wanted to watch the Cyclones in person than the Trojans, Ducks, Cardinal, Sun Devils, Bears, or Buffaloes. The conference is facing a serious relevance and market penetration problem. West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports and the PAC 12 is no longer fielding national title contenders in the two major revenue sports. The conference is 5th in revenue behind all the other major leagues including a Big 12 that beyond their big 2 has very little in branding. Media revenue is the very biggest revenue source for big time collegiate athletics and the PAC 12s market share is dwindling. They aren't paying for coaching staffs like the SEC does. The networks aren't going to continue to pay piles of money when the folks in those markets aren't interested. They are in the early stages but mark my words, in 25 years the PAC 12, in its present configuration, will no longer be a major player in the highest echelons of collegiate sports. They will occupy a niche market, quite a bit larger than the current Ivy League niche, but a niche nonetheless.

Mark my words. That is always convincing. The state of Iowa has some great fans. In 2017, Iowa State had an average attendance in football of 57,931. That is impressive. The Oregon Ducks in 2017 had an average attendance of 55,483, even more impressive when you consider the fact that their stadium capacity is 54,000. Comparing attendance numbers is not going to prove your point. Not all stadiums have the same seating capacity.

In 2016-2017, Iowa State had $82 million in athletic revenue. The media revenue was $34.8 million. In 2016-2017, Oregon had $145 million in athletic revenue, with $30.9 million coming from their media deal. The fact that Oregon had about $4 million less in "media revenue," did not effect their athletic revenue. They clearly have other sources of revenue. Keeping things in perspective, the Pac-12 received $6 million per school on their media deals in 2010-2011. They were up to almost $31 million in 2016-2017. So despite the disastrous Pac-12 Network operation, the media revenue is up significantly.

As recently as 2017, the Pac-12 had a team in the final four (Oregon). In fact, Oregon has been to the sweet sixteen three of the last four years. They have also been in the national championship game in football twice in the past decade. As recently as the 2016 season, the Pac-12 had a team in the college football playoffs (Washington).

Two bad years does not define a conference forever. There is plenty of talent on the west coast, they will rebound. Rivals 2020 basketball rankings has five of the top fifteen players from California. Rivals 2020 football rankings has three of the top four high school players from California. You can see it in the 2018 NFL draft, where five of the first fifteen players drafted played high school football in California. Even Idaho and Wyoming high school football were represented in the first round (Leighton Vander Esch and Taven Bryan).

Your statement that "West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports" is ridiculous. It just shows that you know nothing about the West Coast. I want to see ESPN or Fox walk away from the large markets in the west. The LA TV market is the 2nd largest in the country. The San Francisco Bay Area #8. The Phoenix market #12. The Seattle market #13. Half of the Pac-12 schools play in those four markets.

The Pac-12 schools will stick together and be just fine. These schools are close-knit, through good times and bad times. Frank the Tank got it perfectly: "The Pac-12 members love their conference but don't love their current revenue. The Big 12 members love their current revenue but don't love their conference." The Pac-12 will eventually fix their Larry Stewart/Pac-12 Network revenue issues. The Big 12 has a larger challenge because the members have to trust OU and UT to do the right thing.

(04-12-2019 01:36 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Put this in perspective: lowly Iowa St outdrew all but 2 PAC 12 members (Wash, UCLA) in 2018. Let that sink in--more people wanted to watch the Cyclones in person than the Trojans, Ducks, Cardinal, Sun Devils, Bears, or Buffaloes. The conference is facing a serious relevance and market penetration problem. West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports and the PAC 12 is no longer fielding national title contenders in the two major revenue sports. The conference is 5th in revenue behind all the other major leagues including a Big 12 that beyond their big 2 has very little in branding. Media revenue is the very biggest revenue source for big time collegiate athletics and the PAC 12s market share is dwindling. They aren't paying for coaching staffs like the SEC does. The networks aren't going to continue to pay piles of money when the folks in those markets aren't interested. They are in the early stages but mark my words, in 25 years the PAC 12, in its present configuration, will no longer be a major player in the highest echelons of collegiate sports. They will occupy a niche market, quite a bit larger than the current Ivy League niche, but a niche nonetheless.

Mark my words. That is always convincing. The state of Iowa has some great fans. In 2017, Iowa State had an average attendance in football of 57,931. That is impressive. The Oregon Ducks in 2017 had an average attendance of 55,483, even more impressive when you consider the fact that their stadium capacity is 54,000. Comparing attendance numbers is not going to prove your point. Not all stadiums have the same seating capacity.

In 2016-2017, Iowa State had $82 million in athletic revenue. The media revenue was $34.8 million. In 2016-2017, Oregon had $145 million in athletic revenue, with $30.9 million coming from their media deal. The fact that Oregon had about $4 million less in "media revenue," did not effect their athletic revenue. They clearly have other sources of revenue. Keeping things in perspective, the Pac-12 received $6 million per school on their media deals in 2010-2011. They were up to almost $31 million in 2016-2017. So despite the disastrous Pac-12 Network operation, the media revenue is up significantly.

As recently as 2017, the Pac-12 had a team in the final four (Oregon). In fact, Oregon has been to the sweet sixteen three of the last four years. They have also been in the national championship game in football twice in the past decade. As recently as the 2016 season, the Pac-12 had a team in the college football playoffs (Washington).

Two bad years does not define a conference forever. There is plenty of talent on the west coast, they will rebound. Rivals 2020 basketball rankings has five of the top fifteen players from California. Rivals 2020 football rankings has three of the top four high school players from California. You can see it in the 2018 NFL draft, where five of the first fifteen players drafted played high school football in California. Even Idaho and Wyoming high school football were represented in the first round (Leighton Vander Esch and Taven Bryan).

Your statement that "West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports" is ridiculous. It just shows that you know nothing about the West Coast. I want to see ESPN or Fox walk away from the large markets in the west. The LA TV market is the 2nd largest in the country. The San Francisco Bay Area #8. The Phoenix market #12. The Seattle market #13. Half of the Pac-12 schools play in those four markets.

The Pac-12 schools will stick together and be just fine. These schools are close-knit, through good times and bad times. Frank the Tank got it perfectly: "The Pac-12 members love their conference but don't love their current revenue. The Big 12 members love their current revenue but don't love their conference." The Pac-12 will eventually fix their Larry Stewart/Pac-12 Network revenue issues. The Big 12 has a larger challenge because the members have to trust OU and UT to do the right thing.

Every school in the country puts themselves first. As they should. Just that some are self-righteous and pretentious and pretend they are doing something different. The advantage the Pac 12 has is geography. Its hard for USC and UCLA to go somewhere else.

Note that the Big 12 schools offered Texas and Oklahoma a guaranteed $20 million in TV revenue out of their share if they would turn down the Pac 16 deal. Both refused, said it wouldn't be right. Texas A&M threw a fit when they couldn't get the guaranteed $20 million. USC and UCLA had a guaranteed $17 million written into their contract. They would get at least that amount regardless of what the contract paid. As it turned out, the contract was bigger than that, so it was a null point.

Texas and OU turned down an actual offer from the other schools to get more than their share. USC and UCLA wrote it into the contract. So enough of this bs about Texas and OU "doing the right thing."

(04-12-2019 01:36 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Put this in perspective: lowly Iowa St outdrew all but 2 PAC 12 members (Wash, UCLA) in 2018. Let that sink in--more people wanted to watch the Cyclones in person than the Trojans, Ducks, Cardinal, Sun Devils, Bears, or Buffaloes. The conference is facing a serious relevance and market penetration problem. West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports and the PAC 12 is no longer fielding national title contenders in the two major revenue sports. The conference is 5th in revenue behind all the other major leagues including a Big 12 that beyond their big 2 has very little in branding. Media revenue is the very biggest revenue source for big time collegiate athletics and the PAC 12s market share is dwindling. They aren't paying for coaching staffs like the SEC does. The networks aren't going to continue to pay piles of money when the folks in those markets aren't interested. They are in the early stages but mark my words, in 25 years the PAC 12, in its present configuration, will no longer be a major player in the highest echelons of collegiate sports. They will occupy a niche market, quite a bit larger than the current Ivy League niche, but a niche nonetheless.

Mark my words. That is always convincing. The state of Iowa has some great fans. In 2017, Iowa State had an average attendance in football of 57,931. That is impressive. The Oregon Ducks in 2017 had an average attendance of 55,483, even more impressive when you consider the fact that their stadium capacity is 54,000. Comparing attendance numbers is not going to prove your point. Not all stadiums have the same seating capacity.

In 2016-2017, Iowa State had $82 million in athletic revenue. The media revenue was $34.8 million. In 2016-2017, Oregon had $145 million in athletic revenue, with $30.9 million coming from their media deal. The fact that Oregon had about $4 million less in "media revenue," did not effect their athletic revenue. They clearly have other sources of revenue. Keeping things in perspective, the Pac-12 received $6 million per school on their media deals in 2010-2011. They were up to almost $31 million in 2016-2017. So despite the disastrous Pac-12 Network operation, the media revenue is up significantly.

As recently as 2017, the Pac-12 had a team in the final four (Oregon). In fact, Oregon has been to the sweet sixteen three of the last four years. They have also been in the national championship game in football twice in the past decade. As recently as the 2016 season, the Pac-12 had a team in the college football playoffs (Washington).

Two bad years does not define a conference forever. There is plenty of talent on the west coast, they will rebound. Rivals 2020 basketball rankings has five of the top fifteen players from California. Rivals 2020 football rankings has three of the top four high school players from California. You can see it in the 2018 NFL draft, where five of the first fifteen players drafted played high school football in California. Even Idaho and Wyoming high school football were represented in the first round (Leighton Vander Esch and Taven Bryan).

Your statement that "West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports" is ridiculous. It just shows that you know nothing about the West Coast. I want to see ESPN or Fox walk away from the large markets in the west. The LA TV market is the 2nd largest in the country. The San Francisco Bay Area #8. The Phoenix market #12. The Seattle market #13. Half of the Pac-12 schools play in those four markets.

The Pac-12 schools will stick together and be just fine. These schools are close-knit, through good times and bad times. Frank the Tank got it perfectly: "The Pac-12 members love their conference but don't love their current revenue. The Big 12 members love their current revenue but don't love their conference." The Pac-12 will eventually fix their Larry Stewart/Pac-12 Network revenue issues. The Big 12 has a larger challenge because the members have to trust OU and UT to do the right thing.

I don't see how any of that refutes any of my points. You're cherry picking stats with your Oregon comments. what about all of USC's empty seats? Small capacity stadiums are a good indicator of one thing---they don't expect to sell more seats than what they've got so there's no point in adding more.

Having big markets in the west means nothing. China has big markets; do they care about college football?--No. If those markets aren't watching college football they don't have any value for a media package.

Frank is right--the PAC 12 schools like each other--but that doesn't make them relevant or valuable for tv.

(04-12-2019 09:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 01:36 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Put this in perspective: lowly Iowa St outdrew all but 2 PAC 12 members (Wash, UCLA) in 2018. Let that sink in--more people wanted to watch the Cyclones in person than the Trojans, Ducks, Cardinal, Sun Devils, Bears, or Buffaloes. The conference is facing a serious relevance and market penetration problem. West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports and the PAC 12 is no longer fielding national title contenders in the two major revenue sports. The conference is 5th in revenue behind all the other major leagues including a Big 12 that beyond their big 2 has very little in branding. Media revenue is the very biggest revenue source for big time collegiate athletics and the PAC 12s market share is dwindling. They aren't paying for coaching staffs like the SEC does. The networks aren't going to continue to pay piles of money when the folks in those markets aren't interested. They are in the early stages but mark my words, in 25 years the PAC 12, in its present configuration, will no longer be a major player in the highest echelons of collegiate sports. They will occupy a niche market, quite a bit larger than the current Ivy League niche, but a niche nonetheless.

Mark my words. That is always convincing. The state of Iowa has some great fans. In 2017, Iowa State had an average attendance in football of 57,931. That is impressive. The Oregon Ducks in 2017 had an average attendance of 55,483, even more impressive when you consider the fact that their stadium capacity is 54,000. Comparing attendance numbers is not going to prove your point. Not all stadiums have the same seating capacity.

In 2016-2017, Iowa State had $82 million in athletic revenue. The media revenue was $34.8 million. In 2016-2017, Oregon had $145 million in athletic revenue, with $30.9 million coming from their media deal. The fact that Oregon had about $4 million less in "media revenue," did not effect their athletic revenue. They clearly have other sources of revenue. Keeping things in perspective, the Pac-12 received $6 million per school on their media deals in 2010-2011. They were up to almost $31 million in 2016-2017. So despite the disastrous Pac-12 Network operation, the media revenue is up significantly.

As recently as 2017, the Pac-12 had a team in the final four (Oregon). In fact, Oregon has been to the sweet sixteen three of the last four years. They have also been in the national championship game in football twice in the past decade. As recently as the 2016 season, the Pac-12 had a team in the college football playoffs (Washington).

Two bad years does not define a conference forever. There is plenty of talent on the west coast, they will rebound. Rivals 2020 basketball rankings has five of the top fifteen players from California. Rivals 2020 football rankings has three of the top four high school players from California. You can see it in the 2018 NFL draft, where five of the first fifteen players drafted played high school football in California. Even Idaho and Wyoming high school football were represented in the first round (Leighton Vander Esch and Taven Bryan).

Your statement that "West coasters are becoming less and less interested in college sports" is ridiculous. It just shows that you know nothing about the West Coast. I want to see ESPN or Fox walk away from the large markets in the west. The LA TV market is the 2nd largest in the country. The San Francisco Bay Area #8. The Phoenix market #12. The Seattle market #13. Half of the Pac-12 schools play in those four markets.

The Pac-12 schools will stick together and be just fine. These schools are close-knit, through good times and bad times. Frank the Tank got it perfectly: "The Pac-12 members love their conference but don't love their current revenue. The Big 12 members love their current revenue but don't love their conference." The Pac-12 will eventually fix their Larry Stewart/Pac-12 Network revenue issues. The Big 12 has a larger challenge because the members have to trust OU and UT to do the right thing.

I don't see how any of that refutes any of my points. You're cherry picking stats with your Oregon comments. what about all of USC's empty seats? Small capacity stadiums are a good indicator of one thing---they don't expect to sell more seats than what they've got so there's no point in adding more.

Having big markets in the west means nothing. China has big markets; do they care about college football?--No. If those markets aren't watching college football they don't have any value for a media package.

Frank is right--the PAC 12 schools like each other--but that doesn't make them relevant or valuable for tv.

earth to larry scott....earth to larry scott you have an urgent message on the west of the rockies wild card line

The problem with the Pac-12 is that its most important football and basketball schools have been mediocre. A top 10 USC team with a chance for the playoffs will generate national interest because love them or hate them, the Trojans are a blue blood, national program. The same applies in basketball. UCLA needs to live up to the expectations. The talent is there. Will Cronin deliver or flop like Howland and Alford? Time will tell.

This reminds me of the Big XII a few years ago. I said at the time Texas and Oklahoma needed to reclaim their spot in football especially Texas because having TCU and Baylor representing the conference was not good perception wise. OU has been in the playoffs four times since then and it looks UT is back with Herman. Look at the ACC ten years ago. Virginia Tech being the face of the ACC in football while Miami, Florida State and Clemson were stuck in mediocrity didn’t help them perception wise. Guess what conference is currently going through that same issue? Yep, the Pac-12. These things are cyclical.

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Kansas has as much reason as any of the other Little Eight to keep the Big 12 together. They would be high and dry, and headed to the AAC, without it.

Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

I worded it poorly. The little 8 would not join the AAC, but rather they would backfill, taking 4 teams from the AAC and/or the MWC.

But they wouldn't be a "Power" anymore, at least not after the next CFP deal.

(04-14-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Kansas has as much reason as any of the other Little Eight to keep the Big 12 together. They would be high and dry, and headed to the AAC, without it.

Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

I worded it poorly. The little 8 would not join the AAC, but rather they would backfill, taking 4 teams from the AAC and/or the MWC.

But they wouldn't be a "Power" anymore, at least not after the next CFP deal.

Would USF make the invite list to join the Little 8?

(04-13-2019 12:14 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The problem with the Pac-12 is that its most important football and basketball schools have been mediocre. A top 10 USC team with a chance for the playoffs will generate national interest because love them or hate them, the Trojans are a blue blood, national program. The same applies in basketball. UCLA needs to live up to the expectations. The talent is there. Will Cronin deliver or flop like Howland and Alford? Time will tell.

This reminds me of the Big XII a few years ago. I said at the time Texas and Oklahoma needed to reclaim their spot in football especially Texas because having TCU and Baylor representing the conference was not good perception wise. OU has been in the playoffs four times since then and it looks UT is back with Herman. Look at the ACC ten years ago. Virginia Tech being the face of the ACC in football while Miami, Florida State and Clemson were stuck in mediocrity didn’t help them perception wise. Guess what conference is currently going through that same issue? Yep, the Pac-12. These things are cyclical.

You get better ratings with the bluebloods, but you can do ok as long as you have consistent schools AND multiple schools. The ACC has had Clemson the last few years even though FSU and Miami have been down. The Big East 2.0 was doing alright with Louisville and WVU consistently ranked.

(04-14-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Kansas has as much reason as any of the other Little Eight to keep the Big 12 together. They would be high and dry, and headed to the AAC, without it.

Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

I worded it poorly. The little 8 would not join the AAC, but rather they would backfill, taking 4 teams from the AAC and/or the MWC.

But they wouldn't be a "Power" anymore, at least not after the next CFP deal.

A Big 12 umbrella conference consisting of any assortment of these teams:

West Virginia
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
Kansas State
Iowa State
BYU
Cincy
UConn
Temple
Houston
Memphis
UCF
USF

Is 100% still a power conference even if WVU/TT leave from that group too. They’d definitely still get a NY6 bowl equivalent tie in even though it would likely be a Fiesta/Peach bowl type instead of a Sugar bowl type.

I’d put the Big 12 4th out of the P5 based on national opinion RIGHT NOW and I think they’re still 4th ahead of the PAC with a conference filled with the teams listed above.

The teams with nowhere to go if Texahoma leave really aren’t in that bad of a position, they’d still be in a P5 conference that they can backfill with very solid brand schools in major markets, that likely will be even more attractive in 5 years. Plus it would be a wide open league with new East coast exposure that may be better for them long term.

The idea that the Iowa States and Texas Techs would just whither and die without Texahoma is over exaggerated. If the playoff really does get to a 8 teams this league would be getting 1 team in annually.

(04-14-2019 10:00 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Kansas has as much reason as any of the other Little Eight to keep the Big 12 together. They would be high and dry, and headed to the AAC, without it.

Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

I worded it poorly. The little 8 would not join the AAC, but rather they would backfill, taking 4 teams from the AAC and/or the MWC.

But they wouldn't be a "Power" anymore, at least not after the next CFP deal.

Would USF make the invite list to join the Little 8?

I think it would be close. There are probably 7 or 8 candidates who would all have a roughly equal chance, IMO:

USF
UCF
Colorado State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Memphis
Cincy

Given the geographic realities, I would bet that Boise, Colorado State, Houston, and SMU would probably get the invites. Cincy would be 5th in line.

(04-14-2019 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 10:00 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Kansas has as much reason as any of the other Little Eight to keep the Big 12 together. They would be high and dry, and headed to the AAC, without it.

Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

I worded it poorly. The little 8 would not join the AAC, but rather they would backfill, taking 4 teams from the AAC and/or the MWC.

But they wouldn't be a "Power" anymore, at least not after the next CFP deal.

Would USF make the invite list to join the Little 8?

I think it would be close. There are probably 7 or 8 candidates who would all have a roughly equal chance, IMO:

USF
UCF
Colorado State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Memphis
Cincy

Given the geographic realities, I would bet that Boise, Colorado State, Houston, and SMU would probably get the invites. Cincy would be 5th in line.

I'm guessing if only UT and OU left the Big 12, they'd only replace them with 2 schools, but 4 is possible. SMU is out due to proximity with TCU. WVU will want someone close by. Expanding east is smarter than west, so Boise and CSU are out. Probably Cincinnati and Houston are the first picks. The Floridas would be a close 3rd and 4th. Memphis is 5th, but not especially close.

Big 12
North: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia
South: Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech

OR

Big 12
North: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia
South: Baylor, Central Florida, South Florida, TCU, Texas Tech

OR

Big 12
North: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia
South: Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, South Florida, TCU, Texas Tech

(04-14-2019 04:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 10:00 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Are you saying that this group of eight would go for the AAC or just Kansas? Because, in either scenario, I think they'd stick together, sans OU and UT. Kansas would still have games with their remaining Big 8 buddies plus they could still recruit Texas athletes directly. Without UT and OU, the recruiting might get closer to even for the northern teams. Then the question becomes would they add back programs and where they may get them from. They could stick to eight and use the out of conference games to enhance their resumes.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I think the Big 12 accepts that both UT and OU will have deals going forward that won't be part of the general conference package in exchange for those two staying. That may be the price for keeping their place at the big league table. Going by bullet's comments, the real threat to Big 12 stability would likely come from the SEC, not the Big Ten, as UT doesn't want to play in north on a regular basis and OU may get cold feet towards the end of the contract.

I worded it poorly. The little 8 would not join the AAC, but rather they would backfill, taking 4 teams from the AAC and/or the MWC.

But they wouldn't be a "Power" anymore, at least not after the next CFP deal.

Would USF make the invite list to join the Little 8?

I think it would be close. There are probably 7 or 8 candidates who would all have a roughly equal chance, IMO:

USF
UCF
Colorado State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Memphis
Cincy

Given the geographic realities, I would bet that Boise, Colorado State, Houston, and SMU would probably get the invites. Cincy would be 5th in line.

I'm guessing if only UT and OU left the Big 12, they'd only replace them with 2 schools, but 4 is possible. SMU is out due to proximity with TCU. WVU will want someone close by. Expanding east is smarter than west, so Boise and CSU are out. Probably Cincinnati and Houston are the first picks. The Floridas would be next.

Yup 0 chance they’d go West unless somehow BYU worked out but that’s it.

My expansion line would be:

Locks

1. Cincy - Former BCS team. Just an obvious add.
2. Houston - Makes too much sense if Texahoma gone. Excellent programs.
3. UCF/USF - One of them or package makes too much sense. Brand could be issue but not enough to make them worse than 3rd and 4th.

Next up

4. Temple - Former BCS team. Big market. Both programs win despite near constant turnover.
5. UConn - Former BCS team. Great brand. Could see package with Temple.
6. Memphis - Feels like a good fit and would be a solid addition not a home run.

Doubt it

7. BYU - Would be a great add but just don’t see it happening for the same reasons they aren’t in the Big 12 now.
8. Boise State - Just don’t see any way they do this.

Easily could see all these teams getting the invite however Memphis seems to be black balled for some reason. If the Big 12 is down a couple members though I’m sure their chances of inclusion go up. All of them wouldn’t have any problem transitioning into a power conference and have solid brands already outside maybe the Florida schools.

I think the schools added IF the Big 12 was needing to add schools would surprise most people

I think the criteria would be different than most think

I think the major candidates in no particular order would be USF, UCF, Cincy, Colorado State, and BYU

I don't think they would go past 12 and I think there might be other candidates that would surprise some

also some of those "locks" are not quite the lock that people think because current members are not looking to put up with the BS that would come with some of those programs and the idea that a Big 12 that lost their two top members is somehow going to "secure markets" is a bit of a stretch especially with adding a single team that only believes they do that currently

I think the Big 12 would look to add areas outside the current footprint and places that programs might have a chance to at least be equal to the top programs there now.....Florida is actually a bit of a stretch there as is Ohio, but Colorado and Utah is not a stretch for that

I don't think most if not all of the non-Texas members would be in a rush to get 4 Texas schools back together again and the idea that "they can't ignore this area or us" has only fallen on deaf ears for over 25 years and will for at least another 6 years

all the more so what one program in particular sees themselves as and acts like little UT and thinks that when they get in a power conference they will just start telling the others how things are now and don't worry we are here now to save you all....I think the answer to that is get back in your lifeboat and go save yourself we will take the chance without you

(04-14-2019 04:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I'm guessing if only UT and OU left the Big 12, they'd only replace them with 2 schools, but 4 is possible. SMU is out due to proximity with TCU.

Good point about SMU, I forgot all about TCU (LOL) but that would knock SMU out.

But, I do think 4 is more likely. This Rump 12 would probably feel the need to add more warm bodies to appeal more to TV. Kind of like the Big East/AAC backfilled with more teams than left when the Big East was raided.

Also, I'm not sure about the Rump 12 heading east. What are you heading towards? The B1G in the north, and the SEC in the south. That's crowded territory.

After picking up Houston, IMO the most obvious first candidate, the sweet spot would be more towards the west, in the mountain area. Not as much competition there.

I left out BYU on the assumption they wouldn't be interested, but if they were, then I think adding BYU, Boise, CSU, and Houston would work best for this new Rump 12.

One other thing: I think Tulane is being given short-shrift here. If the Rump 12 was going to go a bit east, it could do a lot worse than Tulane. Tulane extends the footprint but not in a radical, state-jumping way. Tulane of course is an outstanding school, is located in an interesting city for road trips, and would give the Rump 12 some access to the extremely fertile Louisiana recruiting ground.

If BYU is interested, I could see the Rump 12 adding BYU, Boise, Houston, and Tulane.

I don't think they would stretch it out that far with Boise especially with WVU still on the far east side of the USA

I do not think the academics of Boise would excite the conference either especially if they were looking at Tulane where the academics would be a factor

besides BYU I think the furthest west would be CSU where the academics would be very good along with facilities and the chance for them to easily become the better team in the state

I do not think there would be a rush at all to get 4 schools back in Texas I think that would be the least of the concerns and probably viewed as a negative

No shot in hell Boise gets an invite. They’re gonna pick up the best Eastern AAC Teams to appeal to TV.

Maybe BYU and .01% chance CSU but I really doubt it.

The Big XII can't raid the PAC12. There's simply no way.

What I could see (and that's also unlikely in my opinion) is a large-scale merger that takes the combined conference to 18 - leaving the centrally located Big XII schools largely together, and the west coast PAC teams largely together. The Big XII teams still play the bulk of their games in the central time zone, and existing associations are not enormously disrupted. It'd work best if they could pry Nebraska out of the B1G, but that'd just add to the complexity of the deal. But as unlikely as all that may be, I could still see it happening before an outright raid of the PAC by the Big XII.

(04-16-2019 10:49 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The Big XII can't raid the PAC12. There's simply no way.

What I could see (and that's also unlikely in my opinion) is a large-scale merger that takes the combined conference to 18 - leaving the centrally located Big XII schools largely together, and the west coast PAC teams largely together. The Big XII teams still play the bulk of their games in the central time zone, and existing associations are not enormously disrupted. It'd work best if they could pry Nebraska out of the B1G, but that'd just add to the complexity of the deal. But as unlikely as all that may be, I could still see it happening before an outright raid of the PAC by the Big XII.

With the PAC turning down ESPN overtures and with ESPN getting cozier with the Big 12 I don't see any possibility of a merger, or partial merger.