(08-17-2021 03:07 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  My only problem with BYU is geography. If the Big 12 maintains a presence in Eastern Time, it's awkward to expand into Mountain.

I'd like to see how Connecticut stands.

I’m on board with BYU but agree completely on Uconn

Jackson

(08-17-2021 05:19 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

A better ranking, and one I thought about, may be to take negative points after the 5th place team (6th=-1, etc…). I didn’t because I was done looking at it, but anecdotally I think the rankings would change fairly significantly.

My team, Memphis, would be ranked lower for sure due to academics (9th) and endowment (8 or 9th…don’t remember) dragging them down. UCF would face a similar fate while Cincinnati and HOU would rise due to being in the mid to upper range in most rankings.

After looking at this too long, if I were the L8 I’d go
BYU, Cincy, MEM, UCF/HOU in that order. I’m biased. I think the TX schools may block HOU/SMU and the non-TX schools would welcome that after the Longhorns running the show. Could be wrong though. Maybe they consider UCF too far. Maybe they want both Florida schools and HOU and MEM are left out.

I DO believe 4 is too small a number. Leaving schools like UCF, HOU, and/or MEM out there with Boise etc leaves too much competition/meat on the bone. You could still fall behind the leftover conference. The 8 have to strip mine the lower tier. Leave no doubt. I think 6 does that, while 4 does not. However, I doubt they go 6 at least not right away

I disagree. The Big 12 needs to keep the distance to the Pac 12 and ACC narrow, not to widen the difference vs. the AAC. A gap is a gap. The power teams are only looking for the first gap to separate themselves.

(08-17-2021 01:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:45 PM)usffan Wrote:  A Memphis fan puts together a series of criteria (including one that even he admits is "squishy") and weights things accordingly and... (checks rankings)... Memphis is the highest ranked AAC school.



USFFan

Perhaps a fair point in general. But there is no question Memphis ranks highly in many categories that relate to expansion considerations — regardless of who assembles such a ranking.

Lots of folks like to criticize Memphis for having "not made the cut" the last Big 12 expansion candidate go-around. But I would think that many of them (at least privately) would agree that Memphis was as qualified overall (if not more so) than many of the programs that were considered and did make the cut.

Let's be blunt: Some of this board's posters view Memphis — both the city and the university — as "villains" of sorts. You don't get that level of dismissiveness with most other schools/athletic programs/locations of those schools.

Good work, Bill Dazzle. Interesting data and analysis. It's tough to craft a methodology to properly score the potential candidates. A primary issue with your methodology is the bias inserted in the process. You base the categories mostly on outside, third-party data and criteria...but then use an arbitrary and Memphis-favorable customization for the Demographics category.

I suggest you replace the Demographics with separate (1) Market Size and (2) Market Competition categories... Market Competition could refer to pro sports competition and other nearby P schools...but the Market Size category should be the main points driver, with the Market Competition providing a potential to downgrade, but not completely erase the Market Size category.

For instance, even with pro sports and multiple P schools, the Houston market provides access to 2.3M TV households; whereas the Memphis market only provides 580K TV households. You can't just subjectively skim over those facts and push Memphis three spots ahead of Houston...THAT is where you bias is showing.

Just realized this was for me…

I weighed most heavily the number of +1m viewer games, then saturation/competition, then DMA with the idea that size doesn’t matter if you can’t deliver . It ended up pretty much ranked by #of +1M viewer games with the exception of HOU/BYU but feel free to move the Demo category around…it’s definitely debatable and the least direct number driven category.

(08-17-2021 05:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:19 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

A better ranking, and one I thought about, may be to take negative points after the 5th place team (6th=-1, etc…). I didn’t because I was done looking at it, but anecdotally I think the rankings would change fairly significantly.

My team, Memphis, would be ranked lower for sure due to academics (9th) and endowment (8 or 9th…don’t remember) dragging them down. UCF would face a similar fate while Cincinnati and HOU would rise due to being in the mid to upper range in most rankings.

After looking at this too long, if I were the L8 I’d go
BYU, Cincy, MEM, UCF/HOU in that order. I’m biased. I think the TX schools may block HOU/SMU and the non-TX schools would welcome that after the Longhorns running the show. Could be wrong though. Maybe they consider UCF too far. Maybe they want both Florida schools and HOU and MEM are left out.

I DO believe 4 is too small a number. Leaving schools like UCF, HOU, and/or MEM out there with Boise etc leaves too much competition/meat on the bone. You could still fall behind the leftover conference. The 8 have to strip mine the lower tier. Leave no doubt. I think 6 does that, while 4 does not. However, I doubt they go 6 at least not right away

I disagree. The Big 12 needs to keep the distance to the Pac 12 and ACC narrow, not to widen the difference vs. the AAC. A gap is a gap. The power teams are only looking for the first gap to separate themselves.

I think you do that though…the AAC wasn’t THAT far behind the PAC the last couple years. Taking the top programs from them+BYU creates an insurmountable gap down and puts you on par with the PAC. The PAC still has the edge due to the top tier schools, but there’s nothing the 8 can do about that

(08-17-2021 05:33 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:45 PM)usffan Wrote:  A Memphis fan puts together a series of criteria (including one that even he admits is "squishy") and weights things accordingly and... (checks rankings)... Memphis is the highest ranked AAC school.



USFFan

Perhaps a fair point in general. But there is no question Memphis ranks highly in many categories that relate to expansion considerations — regardless of who assembles such a ranking.

Lots of folks like to criticize Memphis for having "not made the cut" the last Big 12 expansion candidate go-around. But I would think that many of them (at least privately) would agree that Memphis was as qualified overall (if not more so) than many of the programs that were considered and did make the cut.

Let's be blunt: Some of this board's posters view Memphis — both the city and the university — as "villains" of sorts. You don't get that level of dismissiveness with most other schools/athletic programs/locations of those schools.

Good work, Bill Dazzle. Interesting data and analysis. It's tough to craft a methodology to properly score the potential candidates. A primary issue with your methodology is the bias inserted in the process. You base the categories mostly on outside, third-party data and criteria...but then use an arbitrary and Memphis-favorable customization for the Demographics category.

I suggest you replace the Demographics with separate (1) Market Size and (2) Market Competition categories... Market Competition could refer to pro sports competition and other nearby P schools...but the Market Size category should be the main points driver, with the Market Competition providing a potential to downgrade, but not completely erase the Market Size category.

For instance, even with pro sports and multiple P schools, the Houston market provides access to 2.3M TV households; whereas the Memphis market only provides 580K TV households. You can't just subjectively skim over those facts and push Memphis three spots ahead of Houston...THAT is where you bias is showing.

Just realized this was for me…

I weighed most heavily the number of +1m viewer games, then saturation/competition, then DMA with the idea that size doesn’t matter if you can’t deliver . It ended up pretty much ranked by #of +1M viewer games with the exception of HOU/BYU but feel free to move the Demo category around…it’s definitely debatable and the least direct number driven category.

May be I misunderstand how the +1m viewer games factor into the demographics/market size category, but isn't that already covered in the TV viewership category?

(08-17-2021 05:19 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

A better ranking, and one I thought about, may be to take negative points after the 5th place team (6th=-1, etc…). I didn’t because I was done looking at it, but anecdotally I think the rankings would change fairly significantly.

My team, Memphis, would be ranked lower for sure due to academics (9th) and endowment (8 or 9th…don’t remember) dragging them down. UCF would face a similar fate while Cincinnati and HOU would rise due to being in the mid to upper range in most rankings.

After looking at this too long, if I were the L8 I’d go
BYU, Cincy, MEM, UCF/HOU in that order. I’m biased. I think the TX schools may block HOU/SMU and the non-TX schools would welcome that after the Longhorns running the show. Could be wrong though. Maybe they consider UCF too far. Maybe they want both Florida schools and HOU and MEM are left out.

I DO believe 4 is too small a number. Leaving schools like UCF, HOU, and/or MEM out there with Boise etc leaves too much competition/meat on the bone. You could still fall behind the leftover conference. The 8 have to strip mine the lower tier. Leave no doubt. I think 6 does that, while 4 does not. However, I doubt they go 6 at least not right away

Question is payouts.

(08-17-2021 05:21 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 03:07 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  My only problem with BYU is geography. If the Big 12 maintains a presence in Eastern Time, it's awkward to expand into Mountain.

I'd like to see how Connecticut stands.

I’m on board with BYU but agree completely on Uconn

Jackson

I say this with all due respect, but their football program is FCS level. Add them to the BXII and along with Kansas you have two of the weakest programs in all of FBS. With no substantial in-state recruiting their ceiling is limited.

(08-17-2021 05:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 03:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  Note that BYU is closer than either of the U_F twins. Colorado St, is pretty similar to Cincinnati.

Distance-wise, CSU is not similar to Cincinnati.

Colorado State is 75 minutes away from the Denver Airport. Cincinnati is 15 minutes away from the Cincinnati airport (which is actually in Covington, Kentucky).

Even if you're doing a charter jet, CSU is 25 minutes from the Northern Colorado Regional Airport. Cincinnati is 10 minutes from Lunken Field.

Well I'm not going to try to figure out price, but I know, because of Delta's dominance, Cincinnati has typically been one of the most expensive airports in the country. Going to Middletown one time, I flew Houston to Columbus because it was so much cheaper than CVG.

That used to be the case but Delta does not have the monopoly they once had. Last I heard there are 9-10 different airline carriers now, and CVG has gone to one most expensive in the country to one of the more affordable in the region.

(08-17-2021 05:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:33 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:45 PM)usffan Wrote:  A Memphis fan puts together a series of criteria (including one that even he admits is "squishy") and weights things accordingly and... (checks rankings)... Memphis is the highest ranked AAC school.



USFFan

Perhaps a fair point in general. But there is no question Memphis ranks highly in many categories that relate to expansion considerations — regardless of who assembles such a ranking.

Lots of folks like to criticize Memphis for having "not made the cut" the last Big 12 expansion candidate go-around. But I would think that many of them (at least privately) would agree that Memphis was as qualified overall (if not more so) than many of the programs that were considered and did make the cut.

Let's be blunt: Some of this board's posters view Memphis — both the city and the university — as "villains" of sorts. You don't get that level of dismissiveness with most other schools/athletic programs/locations of those schools.

Good work, Bill Dazzle. Interesting data and analysis. It's tough to craft a methodology to properly score the potential candidates. A primary issue with your methodology is the bias inserted in the process. You base the categories mostly on outside, third-party data and criteria...but then use an arbitrary and Memphis-favorable customization for the Demographics category.

I suggest you replace the Demographics with separate (1) Market Size and (2) Market Competition categories... Market Competition could refer to pro sports competition and other nearby P schools...but the Market Size category should be the main points driver, with the Market Competition providing a potential to downgrade, but not completely erase the Market Size category.

For instance, even with pro sports and multiple P schools, the Houston market provides access to 2.3M TV households; whereas the Memphis market only provides 580K TV households. You can't just subjectively skim over those facts and push Memphis three spots ahead of Houston...THAT is where you bias is showing.

Just realized this was for me…

I weighed most heavily the number of +1m viewer games, then saturation/competition, then DMA with the idea that size doesn’t matter if you can’t deliver . It ended up pretty much ranked by #of +1M viewer games with the exception of HOU/BYU but feel free to move the Demo category around…it’s definitely debatable and the least direct number driven category.

May be I misunderstand how the +1m viewer games factor into the demographics/market size category, but isn't that already covered in the TV viewership category?

There was no separate category for TV viewership aside from what is included in Demographics.

(Revenue (ticket sales+donations+sponsorships)
Attendance
Athletic budget
Education ranking
Football game TV ratings
Demographics (market size - competition for market + 1M viewer games)
Institution size and support (enrollment + endowment)
Intangibles (politics, religious affiliation, duplicate markets))

Just a measure of marquee matchup draw…similar to the thread about 4M+ viewer games being used to determine high $$$ games that the scheduling alliance is looking at to counter the SEC

[/quote]

I say this with all due respect, but their football program is FCS level. Add them to the BXII and along with Kansas you have two of the weakest programs in all of FBS. With no substantial in-state recruiting their ceiling is limited.
[/quote]

I agree to some extent - and UConn is certainly intriguing -

UConn to KC is 1300 miles.

Vs 1080 BYU to KC

Orlando (UCF) to KC is 1200

Lincoln to Rutgers is also 1200 miles

The trick is you need enough teams that you play some sort of pod system and minimize excessive travel every season

No to UConn.

You need teams that will consistently win and recruit in football. UConn does neither and their hoops would probably prefer life in the Big East.

If you want a hoops school add Memphis or Cincinnati.

(08-17-2021 05:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:21 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 03:07 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  My only problem with BYU is geography. If the Big 12 maintains a presence in Eastern Time, it's awkward to expand into Mountain.

I'd like to see how Connecticut stands.

I’m on board with BYU but agree completely on Uconn

Jackson

I say this with all due respect, but their football program is FCS level. Add them to the BXII and along with Kansas you have two of the weakest programs in all of FBS. With no substantial in-state recruiting their ceiling is limited.

That’s not wrong but they went from nothing to a solid program in the big East really quickly. They’d probably get there brains beat in a couple of years in football but there are advantages. It’s a state school with good academics, in/near major markets with great fan support. And like it or not they are a brand that most college fans recognize. B12 needs as much of that as possible. Not saying that they’ll be #9 but maybe #12? Not sure Randy Edsall is the guy to lead them through that but that’s a different discussion.

Cincinnati is prob in. Can really see Memphis has being a comprise candidate because of geography and they don’t infringe on anyone’s recruiting area.

Jackson

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

Agree.

Comment for the Memphis guy who said they spend $58m on R&D. Every school's numbers fluctuate, but schools are in the same neighborhood year after year. Don't get hung up on #13 vs #22 or #297 vs #385, it's more what general level are you at. Projects start and end causing fluctuations. I used the latest HERD.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

I think that is the grain of salt one has to take. You can only sort schools into rough tiers of value, then make individual choice based on need or often interviewing personality. If Memphis, Cincy and UCF are seen as roughly equal then the one who interviews best will get the call.

(08-17-2021 08:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

Agree.

Comment for the Memphis guy who said they spend $58m on R&D. Every school's numbers fluctuate, but schools are in the same neighborhood year after year. Don't get hung up on #13 vs #22 or #297 vs #385, it's more what general level are you at. Projects start and end causing fluctuations. I used the latest HERD.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

I think that is the grain of salt one has to take. You can only sort schools into rough ties of value, then make individual choice based on need or often interviewing personality. If Memphis, Cincy and UCF are seen as roughly equal then the one who interviews best will get the call.

He took that from the link I gave in response to your first post. The link I posted has the latest R&D numbers. Like I guessed you got those numbers from that link. They have 2019's numbers in a different location if you go back to my post.

(08-17-2021 05:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:21 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 03:07 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  My only problem with BYU is geography. If the Big 12 maintains a presence in Eastern Time, it's awkward to expand into Mountain.

I'd like to see how Connecticut stands.

I’m on board with BYU but agree completely on Uconn

Jackson

I say this with all due respect, but their football program is FCS level. Add them to the BXII and along with Kansas you have two of the weakest programs in all of FBS. With no substantial in-state recruiting their ceiling is limited.

You could say the same thing on recruiting about Tennessee and Notre Dame.

(08-17-2021 05:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:19 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

A better ranking, and one I thought about, may be to take negative points after the 5th place team (6th=-1, etc…). I didn’t because I was done looking at it, but anecdotally I think the rankings would change fairly significantly.

My team, Memphis, would be ranked lower for sure due to academics (9th) and endowment (8 or 9th…don’t remember) dragging them down. UCF would face a similar fate while Cincinnati and HOU would rise due to being in the mid to upper range in most rankings.

After looking at this too long, if I were the L8 I’d go
BYU, Cincy, MEM, UCF/HOU in that order. I’m biased. I think the TX schools may block HOU/SMU and the non-TX schools would welcome that after the Longhorns running the show. Could be wrong though. Maybe they consider UCF too far. Maybe they want both Florida schools and HOU and MEM are left out.

I DO believe 4 is too small a number. Leaving schools like UCF, HOU, and/or MEM out there with Boise etc leaves too much competition/meat on the bone. You could still fall behind the leftover conference. The 8 have to strip mine the lower tier. Leave no doubt. I think 6 does that, while 4 does not. However, I doubt they go 6 at least not right away

I disagree. The Big 12 needs to keep the distance to the Pac 12 and ACC narrow, not to widen the difference vs. the AAC. A gap is a gap. The power teams are only looking for the first gap to separate themselves.

You’re takes never make any sense. I’ve seen several posts from you about “trying to keep P5 status”, “keeping the gap narrow”, “don’t dilute the brand”, etc. I get the perspective, in a way you’re correct that is the ideal. But ignores the reality facing the hateful 8. That reality is the remaining schools are going to second tier status if they don’t find a life boat to another conference. There will be no power 5, but instead a Power 4.

There is nobody that exists that is either willing or able to come to the Big 12 to fill the roles of Texas and OU. It just isn’t happening. Instead, the conference must do what it should’ve done in 2016, expand with schools that can grow and elevate their profiles, expand the conferences recruiting and media grounds, and create some identity to the conference.

In my opinion, the Big 12 should utilize their centrality and look both and East and west. Revenue and profit will rule the day. That may mean only expanding to 10 and keeping the pie smaller. Or it may mean expanding to 14/16 to kill the MWC and AAC and firmly establish the Big 12 as the “tweener” conference relative to the G5 and P4.

(08-17-2021 09:00 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  ... That reality is the remaining schools are going to second tier status if they don’t find a life boat to another conference. There will be no power 5, but instead a Power 4.

... In my opinion, the Big 12 should utilize their centrality and look both and East and west. Revenue and profit will rule the day. That may mean only expanding to 10 and keeping the pie smaller. Or it may mean expanding to 14/16 to kill the MWC and AAC and firmly establish the Big 12 as the “tweener” conference relative to the G5 and P4.

If what a conference "needs to do" is outside the range of the feasible, that's not a strategy, it's just wishful thinking.

Holding onto a status of being widely seen and discussed as one of the Power football conference would be great, but since it's not feasible, it's not going to drive decision making.

However, we have been used to the P5 / Go5 structure since the start of the CFP, and the "fact" that there is are two tiers is just something we've gotten used to. There could indeed be three tiers, with the Big12 not seen as part of the P4, but also not seen as just in a mass with the rest.

In other words, the old basketball concepts of high major, mid-major and low major schools, except applied to conferences.

The "Group of Five" may well be no more after the CFP12 comes in, but that doesn't mean there is automatically a "Group of Six".

First, obviously the Big12 remains a "power" Basketball conference, alongside the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, PAC-12 and SEC, a tier above the other "multi-bid" conferences and two above the mostly autobid-only conferences.

The second opportunity to avoid being pooled with the current Go5 is in the CFP12 system.

The CFP4 contract terms do not specify which conferences get the big individual payout and which conferences split a payout, it defines them by which conferences have a contract with a NY6 bowl. If, as is in the starting Rose Bowl bargaining position, the Quarterfinal bowls have their own media contracts, and they do not have the "outside of CFP rotation" NY6 exhibition bowls any more, then the payments to the conferences of participating schools will be going to CFP participants.

So, what if the P4 have "primary" bowl affiliations and the Big12 has a "secondary" bowl affiliation, in case it's champion is one of the top four champions ... the contract can specify one payment for "the conference(s)" with a primary affiliation, another lower payment for "the conference(s)" with a secondary affiliation, and a payment to be divided among the conferences without a CFP12 QF host affiliation.

Then over time, the Big12 would hope to solidify that intermediate position by having its champion regularly hosting a first round game, and occasionally challenging for a first round bye, while the #6 conference champion would more often be seeded as an away school in the first round.

A third opportunity to avoid being pooled with the current Go5 conferences is in the "power conference" scheduling requirements of the power conference schools. With "Power Five" quotas already in place, shifting those quotas to "Power Four" quotas would be constraining to a number of P4 schools, especially smaller stadium schools typically lower down in their conference football standings. If the Big Ten, PAC-12 and ACC all agree to retain those quotas as "P5" quotas, that retains more scheduling flexibility for those schools, while again putting the Big12 in a distinct tier relative to the current Go5.

There may be more ... but just as the AAC "P6" effort was not really about getting the AAC to be widely acknowledged as a "power" conference, but rather about getting the AAC seen as in a tier of its own above the balance of the Go5, the real game for the Big12 is to be seen to be in a tier of its own, between the power conferences and the group of five.

And the Big12 starts in a substantially better position to achieve that goal.

If you take one in Florida, then you have to take two.

If you take two in Florida, then you have to take four overall.

I don't see any way around that.

(08-17-2021 09:00 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 05:19 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 04:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  That’s a lot of work on those rankings.

Depending on subjective weighting you can get it to say a lot of things but the top five I generally agree on in no specific order.

A better ranking, and one I thought about, may be to take negative points after the 5th place team (6th=-1, etc…). I didn’t because I was done looking at it, but anecdotally I think the rankings would change fairly significantly.

My team, Memphis, would be ranked lower for sure due to academics (9th) and endowment (8 or 9th…don’t remember) dragging them down. UCF would face a similar fate while Cincinnati and HOU would rise due to being in the mid to upper range in most rankings.

After looking at this too long, if I were the L8 I’d go
BYU, Cincy, MEM, UCF/HOU in that order. I’m biased. I think the TX schools may block HOU/SMU and the non-TX schools would welcome that after the Longhorns running the show. Could be wrong though. Maybe they consider UCF too far. Maybe they want both Florida schools and HOU and MEM are left out.

I DO believe 4 is too small a number. Leaving schools like UCF, HOU, and/or MEM out there with Boise etc leaves too much competition/meat on the bone. You could still fall behind the leftover conference. The 8 have to strip mine the lower tier. Leave no doubt. I think 6 does that, while 4 does not. However, I doubt they go 6 at least not right away

I disagree. The Big 12 needs to keep the distance to the Pac 12 and ACC narrow, not to widen the difference vs. the AAC. A gap is a gap. The power teams are only looking for the first gap to separate themselves.

You’re takes never make any sense. I’ve seen several posts from you about “trying to keep P5 status”, “keeping the gap narrow”, “don’t dilute the brand”, etc. I get the perspective, in a way you’re correct that is the ideal. But ignores the reality facing the hateful 8. That reality is the remaining schools are going to second tier status if they don’t find a life boat to another conference. There will be no power 5, but instead a Power 4.

There is nobody that exists that is either willing or able to come to the Big 12 to fill the roles of Texas and OU. It just isn’t happening. Instead, the conference must do what it should’ve done in 2016, expand with schools that can grow and elevate their profiles, expand the conferences recruiting and media grounds, and create some identity to the conference.

In my opinion, the Big 12 should utilize their centrality and look both and East and west. Revenue and profit will rule the day. That may mean only expanding to 10 and keeping the pie smaller. Or it may mean expanding to 14/16 to kill the MWC and AAC and firmly establish the Big 12 as the “tweener” conference relative to the G5 and P4.

You're saying the R8 are already no better than AAC status and can't remain P5. Adding too many AAC or MWC teams guarantees that. The Big East stayed BCS until the final raids left them with only 3 continuing members.

(08-17-2021 09:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  There may be more ... but just as the AAC "P6" effort was not really about getting the AAC to be widely acknowledged as a "power" conference, but rather about getting the AAC seen as in a tier of its own above the balance of the Go5, the real game for the Big12 is to be seen to be in a tier of its own, between the power conferences and the group of five.

And the Big12 starts in a substantially better position to achieve that goal.

If there is a 6+6 playoff, then adding at least three of the AAC's best football teams, and making the gap between the Big 12 and AAC as large as possible, will let the Big 12 be close to assured that their champ will be one of the six playoff champs every year.

Now if the Big 12 presidents decide that's not their goal, but rather the goal is to divide the pie into as few slices as possible, then maybe they'll add only two teams. Maybe only one will be from the AAC. If they do that, then there's a possibility AAC football will be close to even with the Big 12.

So there's the choice for the Big 12 presidents: Either fewer teams and bigger slices of the pie for everyone, or more teams and a larger gap between Big 12 football and AAC football.