(08-04-2022 10:56 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:03 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 08:46 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 08:37 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  And those original B12 schools give a crap about UCF or UC? Please you are a schedule filler, nothing more. That makes you no better than the scorn you guys throw at Rutgers in the BIG. Infact you are still worse. Once again you are joining a conference in decline. UC may put up a good showing, but it is once again joining a wounded P conference that is on the express elevator to the G leagues. There is exactly one school who may be happy to see UC in the B12. That is WV because maybe UC is just a long road trip away.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Ok State fans are excited to play UC & UCF. UC & UCF are winning teams that have made investments to win located in great recruiting territory with good coaches. UC was in the Playoff last year - I think almost every Team in the country wants a chance to play a Playoff team. Given the choice of following a rich team or a winning team, I will pick a winning team every time. Again, I don't get a cut of the $$.

BTW - it takes a lot of nerve to call UC & UCF "schedule filler" as a Rutgers fan.

The Big 12 is all-in on UC, UCF, Houston, and BYU quickly surpassing many others outside of the P2. The old notion they are not in the peer group died with the P5 era- UCF, Houston, and UC have more going for them in this new era than a brand name school, not program, like Cal for example.

Cal couldn't keep up even when peers of the other P5s. If they are off-brand, outside of P2, they'll fade even more in the west. The culture around Cal types are not conducive to doing-more-with-less that is needed in the best of the rest conference.

The P5 era is dead. You're either in the P2, or you're fighting for position to survive, no matter how much you used to be peers with some of the P2. Being bullish on schools accustomed to climbing despite making 1/4 the P5 is a better bet than brand schools.

Which is why the four additions are likely higher in the PAC and ACC wish list than some more tenured Big 12 members, and why the Big 12 has more interest in schools like SDSU, USF, and Memphis than some PAC and ACC schools, although social capital still important to perception when building the 3rd conference, and it preferred to just cull P5's.... "calling up" G5 as needed when they out-preform the Oregon St types, or BC/Cuse types.

I think the Big 12 would be all in on Boise State as well. They bring a name into the Big 12 with a winning record since 1999. None of the 4 corner schools can claimed. Boise State at times P5 schools are afraid to play them. A lot of people think it is time for them to join one of the P5 conferences and they deserved it. Raiding the PAC 12 only dilute the fan interests.

Boise built themselves a brand and have respectable ratings. I have doubts as to whether that lasts, as all similar programs that had staying power were better located to recruits. The PAC really should be the ones adding them if they are serious about surviving.

This is something I agree with both you and David when it comes to Boise State. If the Big XII decides to expand by four (two in the east; two in the west), Boise State should absolutely be one of the four schools, especially if the league is looking to have a league with contiguous states. (This would mean that the Four Corners schools aren't an option due to them deciding to staying in the PAC.) The only problem with that is even though football drives the bus to some degree, a school's overall value (especially in terms of academics) should be taken into account as well. So to me, it would make more sense to add a school like Colorado State.

Maybe a combo of Boise State and Colorado State out west would work? You'd essentially be saying to Colorado and the rest of the PAC that you're dead serious about competing in the Denver area for viewers while taking one of the more successful G5 programs off the table.

(08-15-2022 02:28 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It took the Big 12 around a decade to add Cincinnati and Central Florida to help West Virginia escape their island and that was only because they lost Oklahoma and Texas and had to backfill.

It took around two decades before the Big 10 added Maryland and Rutgers to help Penn State escape their island as the only Eastern team (they weren't on as big of an island with Ohio State bordering them but with Nebraska joining the conference they were getting more western rather than eastern).

If UCLA and USC are expecting more western teams, they shouldn't be holding their breath.

State College to Cbus, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Bloomington, etc is hardly an island. Certainly not comparable to the W. Cast.

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 08:11 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Yes, I agree with that. UC will have essentially the same amount of travel in the Big 12 as they do in the American. Same travel, more money, teams that the fan base cares more about makes sense.

USC & UCLA will travel significantly more, are much richer schools than UC will ever dream to be & will play less interesting teams overall to their fanbase. Who wants USC vs Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Maryland, Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois???

Depending on the age of the fan we are talking about, one of these nine is far different from the other eight, having been a Dynasty program within the past thirty years and twice in the living memory of many college sports fans.

I'm not convinced Nebraska has become Minnesota (who was a power prior to the mid-60s with 4 MNCs from 1936-1960). Nebraska still owns their state and parts of surrounding states and has resources.

I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

(08-15-2022 06:57 PM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Depending on the age of the fan we are talking about, one of these nine is far different from the other eight, having been a Dynasty program within the past thirty years and twice in the living memory of many college sports fans.

I'm not convinced Nebraska has become Minnesota (who was a power prior to the mid-60s with 4 MNCs from 1936-1960). Nebraska still owns their state and parts of surrounding states and has resources.

I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

Good point--out of the lower half of the Big Ten, in any given year somebody's going to be ranked.

(08-15-2022 06:57 PM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Depending on the age of the fan we are talking about, one of these nine is far different from the other eight, having been a Dynasty program within the past thirty years and twice in the living memory of many college sports fans.

I'm not convinced Nebraska has become Minnesota (who was a power prior to the mid-60s with 4 MNCs from 1936-1960). Nebraska still owns their state and parts of surrounding states and has resources.

I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

Minnesota has also looked good recently, but for some reason Purdue and MN are usually included in the B1G “basement” which is just silly.

(08-15-2022 02:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 10:56 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:03 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 08:46 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Maybe I am wrong, but I think Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Ok State fans are excited to play UC & UCF. UC & UCF are winning teams that have made investments to win located in great recruiting territory with good coaches. UC was in the Playoff last year - I think almost every Team in the country wants a chance to play a Playoff team. Given the choice of following a rich team or a winning team, I will pick a winning team every time. Again, I don't get a cut of the $$.

BTW - it takes a lot of nerve to call UC & UCF "schedule filler" as a Rutgers fan.

The Big 12 is all-in on UC, UCF, Houston, and BYU quickly surpassing many others outside of the P2. The old notion they are not in the peer group died with the P5 era- UCF, Houston, and UC have more going for them in this new era than a brand name school, not program, like Cal for example.

Cal couldn't keep up even when peers of the other P5s. If they are off-brand, outside of P2, they'll fade even more in the west. The culture around Cal types are not conducive to doing-more-with-less that is needed in the best of the rest conference.

The P5 era is dead. You're either in the P2, or you're fighting for position to survive, no matter how much you used to be peers with some of the P2. Being bullish on schools accustomed to climbing despite making 1/4 the P5 is a better bet than brand schools.

Which is why the four additions are likely higher in the PAC and ACC wish list than some more tenured Big 12 members, and why the Big 12 has more interest in schools like SDSU, USF, and Memphis than some PAC and ACC schools, although social capital still important to perception when building the 3rd conference, and it preferred to just cull P5's.... "calling up" G5 as needed when they out-preform the Oregon St types, or BC/Cuse types.

I think the Big 12 would be all in on Boise State as well. They bring a name into the Big 12 with a winning record since 1999. None of the 4 corner schools can claimed. Boise State at times P5 schools are afraid to play them. A lot of people think it is time for them to join one of the P5 conferences and they deserved it. Raiding the PAC 12 only dilute the fan interests.

Boise built themselves a brand and have respectable ratings. I have doubts as to whether that lasts, as all similar programs that had staying power were better located to recruits. The PAC really should be the ones adding them if they are serious about surviving.

This is something I agree with both you and David when it comes to Boise State. If the Big XII decides to expand by four (two in the east; two in the west), Boise State should absolutely be one of the four schools, especially if the league is looking to have a league with contiguous states. (This would mean that the Four Corners schools aren't an option due to them deciding to staying in the PAC.) The only problem with that is even though football drives the bus to some degree, a school's overall value (especially in terms of academics) should be taken into account as well. So to me, it would make more sense to add a school like Colorado State.

Maybe a combo of Boise State and Colorado State out west would work? You'd essentially be saying to Colorado and the rest of the PAC that you're dead serious about competing in the Denver area for viewers while taking one of the more successful G5 programs off the table.

I don’t see the Big 12 doing either Boise or CSU.

BSU makes more sense for PAC. They already have BSU regional peers in Oregon St and WSU, and need inventory (as well as on field results)

If the PAC schools decide to delay death of PAC at their peril, the Big will look east if they do add. USF and Memphis in preparation for when ACC loses schools to P2. The PAC schools the Big 12 wants can be had later in this scenario

(08-15-2022 07:15 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 06:57 PM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not convinced Nebraska has become Minnesota (who was a power prior to the mid-60s with 4 MNCs from 1936-1960). Nebraska still owns their state and parts of surrounding states and has resources.

I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

Minnesota has also looked good recently, but for some reason Purdue and MN are usually included in the B1G “basement” which is just silly.

Reputation. Just like a lot of SEC schools will have a reputation for being basement dwellers (Kentucky for example). Then again, if schools respected Purdue, maybe they don't beat Iowa and Michigan State and those other schools. Does Illinois beat Wisconsin back in 2019 if Wisconsin respected them? I'd rather teams not respect my school. I hope Ohio State and Michigan not respect Penn State this year. Let them learn the hard way. If they play like PSU can beat them, it will be harder for Penn State to win. If they act like we're Rutgers, it will be easier. Does Rutgers always suck? Maybe that's another stereotype. They did win 5 games last year.

(08-15-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 08:11 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 08:03 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 05:55 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  USC & UCLA will regret the move within 3 years. Maybe UCLA will be saved from themselves by the State of California. The money will just be wasted on administrators and travel.

Oh you UC fans. Somehow UCLA/USC to the BIG for a $94m annual payout will fail, but UC sending all its teams to play in the Greater Texas League with special trips to Provo for what $25m is an excellent move.

Yes, I agree with that. UC will have essentially the same amount of travel in the Big 12 as they do in the American. Same travel, more money, teams that the fan base cares more about makes sense.

USC & UCLA will travel significantly more, are much richer schools than UC will ever dream to be & will play less interesting teams overall to their fanbase. Who wants USC vs Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Maryland, Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois???

Depending on the age of the fan we are talking about, one of these nine is far different from the other eight, having been a Dynasty program within the past thirty years and twice in the living memory of many college sports fans.

I'm not convinced Nebraska has become Minnesota (who was a power prior to the mid-60s with 4 MNCs from 1936-1960). Nebraska still owns their state and parts of surrounding states and has resources.

and a big part of it is the portion of the college football viewership who grew up knowing that Minnesota was a big deal, versus those who grew up knowing that Nebraska was a big deal. If it was just the early 70's dynasty years, that would be one thing, but three undefeated seasons and IIRC national championships in four years in the 90s still echoes in a viewership like CFB that trends older than pro football viewership.


It is over twenty years ago now, so it's not like the 21st century powerhouse programs... but it's also not like playing Rutgers or Indiana ("wait, Indiana plays football too? Huh, imagine that!")

(08-15-2022 07:15 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 06:57 PM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not convinced Nebraska has become Minnesota (who was a power prior to the mid-60s with 4 MNCs from 1936-1960). Nebraska still owns their state and parts of surrounding states and has resources.

I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

Minnesota has also looked good recently, but for some reason Purdue and MN are usually included in the B1G “basement” which is just silly.

The last time Minnesota won a share of the Big 10 title was 1967, which they shared with Purdue and Indiana. That was also the last time for IU. Purdue took about 30 years, but only has that one since 1967. The other 8 pre-2010 Big 10 teams have more recent titles and multiple ones since 1967.

For those of you too young, IU went to the Rose Bowl, losing to USC and OJ Simpson. I am old enough to remember watching that game.

(08-16-2022 12:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:15 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 06:57 PM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  I think it's a fair statement (lumping those schools together) from a national fan interest standpoint. Or lack thereof. There will be a short-term "hey this is new" bump...but I expect it will wane fairly rapidly. The B1G is going to have to build a group of western teams beyond the two way out on the island.

It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

Minnesota has also looked good recently, but for some reason Purdue and MN are usually included in the B1G “basement” which is just silly.

The last time Minnesota won a share of the Big 10 title was 1967, which they shared with Purdue and Indiana. That was also the last time for IU. Purdue took about 30 years, but only has that one since 1967. The other 8 pre-2010 Big 10 teams have more recent titles and multiple ones since 1967.

For those of you too young, IU went to the Rose Bowl, losing to USC and OJ Simpson. I am old enough to remember watching that game.

Purdue won the B1G and went to the Rose Bowl vs Washington w Drew Brees in 00/01.


edit; ALSO, RE basketball, within the B1G itself, PU is the #1 BBall school, bar none. I'm talking in the B1G itself, not in March. We don't do well in the Tourney, it is what it is.

Regardless, in the B1G;
1. Most B1G Conf Titles (24) - (IU @ 22, WIS @ 20, OSU @ 18, !LL @ 17, MSU @ 16, UM @ 15)
2. First school to 1000 in-conference wins (only one so far, happen Feb 5 of this year v UM)
3. All-time winning record vs every other B1G school (only school in B1G that can claim that)
4. #1 in overall all-time winning percentage (tied w ILL)
5. #2 in overall all-time wins (IU has 1865 vs our 1855)

We the best. We pwn the whole conference on the yearly. And John(ny) Wooden went to Purdue and lead us to a Helms Natty, so now we get the annual John Wooden Classic between UCLA and Purdue. Just thought I'd throw all that out there :)

And our President is the one that initiated and led the formation of the damn B1G in 1895, so hate on The Mighty Boilermakers at your own peril. Neil Armstrong to the B1G itself // The Moon to conference realignment - it all starts in West Lafayette IN. Hammer Down!

(08-16-2022 12:39 AM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:15 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 06:57 PM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not fair, because you cherry picked all the less valuable schools. Sure, USC vs the bottom 8 Big Ten programs isn't that attractive. But you left off USC vs PEnn STate, Ohio State, Michigan, MIchigan State and Wisconsin.

You're getting half of those games in any given year, 2-3 plus UCLA. And it's not like USC-Arizona or USC-Oregon State is dramatically more interesting to a national audience than USC-Purdue or USC-Maryland. It's USC either pounding a P5 doormat, or struggling to defeat a P5 doormat and raising questions of when and whether Texas Tennessee Miami I mean USC will return to glory.

Hey! Purdue beat two schools while they were ranked Top 5 last year (@ IA and MSU), and TN in Nashville Bowl while finishing 9-4.

We back baby! Spoilermakers forevah.

Minnesota has also looked good recently, but for some reason Purdue and MN are usually included in the B1G “basement” which is just silly.

The last time Minnesota won a share of the Big 10 title was 1967, which they shared with Purdue and Indiana. That was also the last time for IU. Purdue took about 30 years, but only has that one since 1967. The other 8 pre-2010 Big 10 teams have more recent titles and multiple ones since 1967.

For those of you too young, IU went to the Rose Bowl, losing to USC and OJ Simpson. I am old enough to remember watching that game.

Purdue won the B1G and went to the Rose Bowl vs Washington w Drew Brees in 00/01.


edit; ALSO, RE basketball, within the B1G itself, PU is the #1 BBall school, bar none. I'm talking in the B1G itself, not in March. We don't do well in the Tourney, it is what it is.

Regardless, in the B1G;
1. Most B1G Conf Titles (24) - (IU @ 22, WIS @ 20, OSU @ 18, !LL @ 17, MSU @ 16, UM @ 15)
2. First school to 1000 in-conference wins (only one so far, happen Feb 5 of this year v UM)
3. All-time winning record vs every other B1G school (only school in B1G that can claim that)
4. #1 in overall all-time winning percentage (tied w ILL)
5. #2 in overall all-time wins (IU has 1865 vs our 1855)

We the best. We pwn the whole conference on the yearly. And John(ny) Wooden went to Purdue and lead us to a Helms Natty, so now we get the annual John Wooden Classic between UCLA and Purdue. Just thought I'd throw all that out there :)

And our President is the one that initiated and led the formation of the damn B1G in 1895, so hate on The Mighty Boilermakers at your own peril. Neil Armstrong to the B1G itself // The Moon to conference realignment - it all starts in West Lafayette IN. Hammer Down!

That is what I was referring to when I said it took Purdue about 30 years.

(08-15-2022 08:09 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 02:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 10:56 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:03 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  The Big 12 is all-in on UC, UCF, Houston, and BYU quickly surpassing many others outside of the P2. The old notion they are not in the peer group died with the P5 era- UCF, Houston, and UC have more going for them in this new era than a brand name school, not program, like Cal for example.

Cal couldn't keep up even when peers of the other P5s. If they are off-brand, outside of P2, they'll fade even more in the west. The culture around Cal types are not conducive to doing-more-with-less that is needed in the best of the rest conference.

The P5 era is dead. You're either in the P2, or you're fighting for position to survive, no matter how much you used to be peers with some of the P2. Being bullish on schools accustomed to climbing despite making 1/4 the P5 is a better bet than brand schools.

Which is why the four additions are likely higher in the PAC and ACC wish list than some more tenured Big 12 members, and why the Big 12 has more interest in schools like SDSU, USF, and Memphis than some PAC and ACC schools, although social capital still important to perception when building the 3rd conference, and it preferred to just cull P5's.... "calling up" G5 as needed when they out-preform the Oregon St types, or BC/Cuse types.

I think the Big 12 would be all in on Boise State as well. They bring a name into the Big 12 with a winning record since 1999. None of the 4 corner schools can claimed. Boise State at times P5 schools are afraid to play them. A lot of people think it is time for them to join one of the P5 conferences and they deserved it. Raiding the PAC 12 only dilute the fan interests.

Boise built themselves a brand and have respectable ratings. I have doubts as to whether that lasts, as all similar programs that had staying power were better located to recruits. The PAC really should be the ones adding them if they are serious about surviving.

This is something I agree with both you and David when it comes to Boise State. If the Big XII decides to expand by four (two in the east; two in the west), Boise State should absolutely be one of the four schools, especially if the league is looking to have a league with contiguous states. (This would mean that the Four Corners schools aren't an option due to them deciding to staying in the PAC.) The only problem with that is even though football drives the bus to some degree, a school's overall value (especially in terms of academics) should be taken into account as well. So to me, it would make more sense to add a school like Colorado State.

Maybe a combo of Boise State and Colorado State out west would work? You'd essentially be saying to Colorado and the rest of the PAC that you're dead serious about competing in the Denver area for viewers while taking one of the more successful G5 programs off the table.

I don’t see the Big 12 doing either Boise or CSU.

BSU makes more sense for PAC. They already have BSU regional peers in Oregon St and WSU, and need inventory (as well as on field results)

If the PAC schools decide to delay death of PAC at their peril, the Big will look east if they do add. USF and Memphis in preparation for when ACC loses schools to P2. The PAC schools the Big 12 wants can be had later in this scenario

Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just imagining a scenario where the Four Corner schools stay put and the Big XII adds CSU and Boise in the west in order to encroach on the PAC's territory. It most likely won't happen, but of course, we also said the same thing about USC and UCLA going to the B1G. So I've learned to never say never.