NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:40 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping
College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5931 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 392, 393, 394, 395, 396  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2226
Note: the above article comes from BYU.

At the moment the Big XII is surviving quite nicely, THANK YOU.

I believe last year, they distributed more money to member schools than ACC or PAC-12.
Oklahoma was #1 seed in the CFP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 730
Location: Fiskville, Texas
tute79 wrote:
Note: the above article comes from BYU.

At the moment the Big XII is surviving quite nicely, THANK YOU.

I believe last year, they distributed more money to member schools than ACC or PAC-12.
Oklahoma was #1 seed in the CFP.


I didn't bother reading the article.....I have read plenty of lopsided articles from brainwashed BYU supporters.

BYU knows that the Big 12 is their ONLY option. They will try every angle they can find to try and pry the door open, except changing their own behavior and issues. BYU has shown many times...that they only care about BYU....putting them in a conference and expecting them to be a team player...would prove to be a bad decision. They would be a big problem child and eventually leave...like they have done in the past.

BYU just isn't worth it. For fb only....I would much rather have Navy, Army or Air Force....OR a combination of those three. When was the last time you heard of any of those Academies getting into trouble or making huge waves in their communities. The Big 12 needs schools that will strengthen the bonds of the conference. BYU doesn't fit that bill.

BYU's only claim to fame...their theoretical National Championship....is just more BYU hype. They didn't even play a single school ranked in the top 20 that year. And their strength of schedule was horrible.

BYU needs to stay Independent....that fits them the best.

_________________
Fan of:
State of Texas
Southwest Conference
Big XII


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:57 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1334
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
mozilla wrote:
tute79 wrote:
Note: the above article comes from BYU.

At the moment the Big XII is surviving quite nicely, THANK YOU.

I believe last year, they distributed more money to member schools than ACC or PAC-12.
Oklahoma was #1 seed in the CFP.


I didn't bother reading the article.....I have read plenty of lopsided articles from brainwashed BYU supporters.

BYU knows that the Big 12 is their ONLY option. They will try every angle they can find to try and pry the door open, except changing their own behavior and issues. BYU has shown many times...that they only care about BYU....putting them in a conference and expecting them to be a team player...would prove to be a bad decision. They would be a big problem child and eventually leave...like they have done in the past.

BYU just isn't worth it. For fb only....I would much rather have Navy, Army or Air Force....OR a combination of those three. When was the last time you heard of any of those Academies getting into trouble or making huge waves in their communities. The Big 12 needs schools that will strengthen the bonds of the conference. BYU doesn't fit that bill.

BYU's only claim to fame...their theoretical National Championship....is just more BYU hype. They didn't even play a single school ranked in the top 20 that year. And their strength of schedule was horrible.

BYU needs to stay Independent....that fits them the best.


What's funnier is Pac-12 blogs talking about blowing that up right now. Kind of inevitable.

There is a catch: when you have something like concussion issues in football threatening to, perhaps, cause a drop in participation and threaten some programs... that kind of thing always hits the West Coast first. I dare say it's happening, too. I don't really know, IOW, if anyone really benefits from that information.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:39 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2226
The concussion issue is just undeniable.

Some of it can be reduced by "behavior modification".... heavily penalizing spearing people with the helmet in some situations.

But to stop the momentum of a 250 lb. charging RB, it takes some REAL FORCE. Often the only option is to launch oneself, which means leading with the head and shoulder.

Don't know how you fundamentally change that without switching to flag football. SERIOUSLY. So you cover every skill player with flags on his belt, helmet, elbows ? It would look ridiculous, but flags on belt only are too hard for "Tackler" to get to.... then would you need flags on every defender, so they can be tackled after an INT or fumble recovery ? Don't think flag football is the answer, never mind the fact many people would never watch it (like the NFL "no blitz "Pro Bowl .... ugh !!!)
Two-hand touch ? Would require too many replays....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:56 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:30 pm
Posts: 3
mozilla wrote:


I don't know what factors you use to decide if a school is a rival or not(UCF and USF have only played 9 times)....but, here are UT's biggest rivals(from the point of view of a Longhorn, RedRaider and a Texan, ie: me): with game totals

1. Oklahoma 112
2. Arkansas 78
3. aTm 118
4. Tech 67
5. Baylor 107
6. Rice 94
7. TCU 88
8. SMU 73

Texas wants to play these schools. Texas fans want to play these schools. Oklahoma is our biggest rival...which made aTm mad. Arkansas was our second rival...which made aTm mad. Tech was encroaching on aTm's spot at 3....which made aTm mad. Tech was becoming aTm's biggest rival, since they thought UT was snubbing them....which again....made aTm mad. aTm was becoming fully disgruntled....so, they left. I say good riddance....and welcome back to the flock TCU.


Look at your list and the programs Texas has voluntarily given up playing. It includes programs that Texas has a lot longer with, than it has had with Texas Tech. Texas Tech fans love to say Texas is a rival, but Texas fans don’t see Tech that way at all. That has always been the case.

Now, if Texas ever changes conferences it will probably want to have another Texas program in the conference, that could potentially be Tech, or it could be Houston. Both programs come with risks for Texas, so I would actually prefer taking along another UT system school like UTSA or UTEP, both are in massive markets. If Texas has to support another Texas program, it may as well be one from the UT system.


mozilla wrote:


You said...."if UT can easily give up playing A&M".
UT didn't give up on anything. aTm left the conference. UT didn't have a word to say about it. It was aTm's decision. ...and the people in Austin or UT respect aTm's decision on the subject. They have the right to play in whatever conference they want. And to be truthful...I am glad they are gone. TCU is a much better conference mate. aTm was becoming a big cry baby(which is a discussion for another time). With aTm, Nebraska, and Arkansas....off the schedule....it is that much more important to Texas...to have Baylor, TCU and Tech on their schedule. Which is why they won't want to give up on these other three schools, without replacing one with Rice, SMU or maybe even UofH. For about 100 years or so....Texas has played their state of Texas partners....they DON'T want to give that up.


When Texas A&M left the Big 12, they wanted to keep the rivalry game with Texas going. It was Texas that said no. To me, that implies that it was Texas that gave up game. And now years later, there are some fans (mostly old ones who remember the game) that miss it, but the younger fans (on both sides) hardly give it a thought. Personally, I think that the loss of the Texas – Texas A&M game was a tragedy. You can’t build that kind of rivalry quickly, but at the same time if it has to be given up for the good of one (or both schools) then so be it. We can’t let emotions cloud what are cold, hard, business decisions. But times change. As you yourself point out, that game is part of past and that’s that. But, if it can happen for this game (a true rivalry game, by any definition!) why can’t it happen to the Tech/TCU/Baylor game/s?



Frankly, I was not too excited with the addition of TCU to the Big 12. It’s a small school with very little national appeal or following. I realise that at the time it was critical that the Big 12 survive so TCU was added. But, I think adding WVU, and Louisville would have been better. The Big 12 is too Texas centric, and too much like the old SWC, and we all know what a disaster that was!



I don’t see why playing Baylor, Tech, and TCU should remain “important” to Texas. I also don’t see why anyone would think that Texas is so committed to playing these programs that it will not ever give them up. What does Texas lose, if it stops playing Tech/TCU/Baylor? Waco is hardly a big market, and no more a recruiting hot bed than Lubbock is. TCU is in DFW, where Texas already plays OU. Regardless of whether it plays Tech or now, Texas will still be the flagship program in the state, and a program that will attract its share of the states top recruits.



If Texas changes conferences, that conference will likely expand to 16 teams in 2 divisions. In 2018, Texas will play 8 football games in state as a member of the Big 12. Now suppose Texas moves to a conference with 16 teams, i.e. 2 divisions of 8 each. This means a conference schedule of 7 divisional games, plus 2 cross-divisional games, plus 3 non-conference games (one of which will be OU, assuming OU and Texas head to different conferences). Of these games in any given season 4/5 conference games will be in Austin, plus 2 non-con will be in Texas (v OU, and 1 of the other 2 non-con games) that’s 6-7 games, in Texas. Giving up 1-2 games in Texas is hardly critical disaster.



Now suppose Texas heads to a conference with OU and 1 other Texas program. In this case, Texas is guaranteed 7-9 games in Texas each year. I just don’t see how changing conferences and not playing Baylor/TT/TCU will have a negative impact on Texas. Texas does not need those programs for its own survival and growth.

Your own view of Tech’s “importance” to Texas is of course colored by the fact that you attended Tech, so you cannot imagine Tech not being glued to Texas ever. Keep in mind that’s what Houston thought too! Until Texas did not support their inclusion in the newly formed Big 12 when the SWC died. Tech will never replace A&M as a rival, just as it could not replace Arkansas. Texas had a rivalry of sorts developing with Nebraska, and it could have become something special if they had remained in the conference. Tech has played Texas for 67 years, but it can hardly be called a rivalry. At least on the Longhorn side, the game does not arouse the kind of passion, hatred that playing OU does, or playing A&M did.

I think because continued association with Texas is perhaps critical for Texas Tech, Tech fans assume (or hope) mistakenly, that the reverse is also true. Its not!

mozilla wrote:

Something else you may want to pay attention to.....There isn't 1 school that has left the Big12....that has scored a fb game against the conference again. Not Colorado, Nebraska, aTm, or Missouri. It is a decision by the conference to not give those schools any kind of a sniff at a schedule spot. And I, totally agree with that decision. They left....so, good bye.


Well, that may have been the case in the past, but OU is clearly does not seem to bound by it. They are scheduling a home and home with Nebraska for 2021, 22, 29, and 30. Texas has also played Arkansas with a home and home after Arkansas left the SWC.


mozilla wrote:

Texas has worked hard to keep their schedule strong since aTm and Missouri left. (in 6 years of scheduling)Playing Ole Miss twice, BYU twice, UCLA, Notre Dame twice, California twice, USC twice(counting 2018), Maryland twice(2018), ....and regional schools like New Mexico, New Mexico State, N. Texas, Rice, UTEP, and Tulsa(2018). Texas' scheduling is fine without aTm. We have moved on.


True, Texas has always played a reasonably challenging schedule. It’s also true that Texas does not need A&M on its schedule. Maybe a home and home in 20 years might be in order, as just another non-conference game. By then, the memory of the heated rivalry game that it once was (a game around which families in Texas, built their Thanksgiving!) will have faded into a distant mist.

mozilla wrote:

If you want marque match ups from the Go5 group....the number 1 school the Big 12 should focus on is Navy. Navy is near WVU and has a strong history playing some of the best schools in the country.


While I don’t objects to Texas playing G5 schools occasionally as non-conference games, I just don’t want Texas to be conference partners with any G5 programs. I just do not like the idea of the Longhorns being in the same conference as G5 programs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:10 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 730
Location: Fiskville, Texas
Wow, there is so much to disagree with here....not certain where to start??

First, you list USF and UCF as rivals when they have only played 9 times. But, Texas vs Texas Tech isn't a rival...when they have been playing for 67 years??

Then, you suggest that Texas brings UTSA and UTEP in a conference with them....but, later say you don't want UT in a conference with any Go5 school.

You may think the SWC was a disaster but, I disagree 100%. The SWC was an outstanding conference with a line up of excellent institutions.

Sorry to say...but, you sound more like an Aggie. Especially, with bringing up the Texas vs aTm game so much. And, continually saying that Texas has given up on games....when schools have left the Big 12. If a school leaves a conference....how does Texas have anything to say about it. aTm left...and was replaced with another school. So, that spot in the schedule has already been filled. You can't just add an extra game to the schedule.

Arkansas was never in the Big 12. And, you keep saying that Texas has VOLUNTARILY given up on playing people. WTF? When someone leaves a conference....that school has new schools that fill in their schedule....what exactly would you have Texas do? Force schools to play them as an extra game?

The University of Texas has everything the way they want it....they make a ton of money, their stadium is always very full, they are improving facilities....and you want them to jeopardize that for what?

Who cares about aTm? They aren't in the Big12 any longer....so, why bring them up? Texas has a full schedule playing the schools in their conference and great OOC games. Isn't that enough for you? It really sounds like you have some serious beef with state of Texas schools....which really makes you sound like an aggie.

All I can say is....if you don't like the Big 12 or schools from Texas...then go watch a different conference.

_________________
Fan of:
State of Texas
Southwest Conference
Big XII


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:30 pm
Posts: 3
Quote:
Wow, there is so much to disagree with here....not certain where to start??
First, you list USF and UCF as rivals when they have only played 9 times. But, Texas vs Texas Tech isn't a rival...when they have been playing for 67 years??


I don’t recall ever saying that I see UCF/USF as rivals. Maybe fans of those schools see it that way, I don’t really care.

You can play a program for a lot longer than 67 years and still not consider them a rival. To me a rival is someone who arouses passion and hatred at the same time. OU is rival, Arkansas was a rival, A&M was a rival. Texas Tech is not (never has been, never will be) a rival.

BTW Techs history with A&M was just as long as it was Texas, yet A&M dropped them without a 2nd thought. Why can’t you accept that Texas may also be willing/able to drop Tech as well?

Whats so critical about continuing to play Tech, that Texas just cannot thrive without playing Tech?

Quote:
Then, you suggest that Texas brings UTSA and UTEP in a conference with them....but, later say you don't want UT in a conference with any Go5 school.


You are right, I did say that I don’t like the idea of UT being conference mates with G5. However in the case of UTSA/UTEP I am willing to make an exception. They are members of the UT-System, with whom Texas already has an academic relationship. Not quite the same situation as any other G5 program.

Plus helping build up other UT-System programs will also bring benefits to Texas itself, that building up say UCF/USF or even Tech for that matter, will not.

Quote:
You may think the SWC was a disaster but, I disagree 100%. The SWC was an outstanding conference with a line up of excellent institutions.


What the heck are you talking about? Cheating and backstabbing were rampant.

The conference had a team get the death penalty for its cheating practices! The conference had zero appeal outside the state of Texas. It needed to die!

And if, as you say, the conference was so successful with such fine institutions, why did Texas, A&M, Baylor, and Tech choose to leave it? Why did they dump programs with whom they had decades of playing history?

By you definition of rivalry (i.e. the length of time programs have played each other), all the old SWC schools were rivals of Tech? Why did Tech give up those 'rivalries'?

What’s so special about Tech that Texas will absolutely never give up on Tech?

Quote:
Sorry to say...but, you sound more like an Aggie. Especially, with bringing up the Texas vs aTm game so much. And, continually saying that Texas has given up on games....when schools have left the Big 12. If a school leaves a conference....how does Texas have anything to say about it. aTm left...and was replaced with another school. So, that spot in the schedule has already been filled. You can't just add an extra game to the schedule.


I am not an aggy, but you can believe what you want. My point is still valid though. I bring up the Texas – A&M game as an example of what was lost when realignment took place.

As well, to illustrate how Texas did not accommodate A&M’s desire to keep the game going as non-conference game.

Prior to the formation of the Big 12 Texas played OU every year a non-conference game. Why could Texas A&M not be made an annual non-conference game? FSU plays Florida as an annual non-conference game. It’s not without precedence for Texas to play a non-conference rivalry game!

In the end, it was Texas’ choice to give up what by any definition of the ‘rivalry’, was a real rivalry. It had history (a lot longer than the history Texas has with Tech), and real heated passion (something that is totally lacking with regards to Tech!)

Again what is special about Tech/Baylor/TCU, that Texas will not turn its back on these programs? If the past is any indicator, Texas should have absolutely no problem leaving Tech/Baylor/TCU behind.

Quote:
Arkansas was never in the Big 12. And, you keep saying that Texas has VOLUNTARILY given up on playing people. WTF? When someone leaves a conference....that school has new schools that fill in their schedule....what exactly would you have Texas do? Force schools to play them as an extra game?


True, Arkansas was never in the Big 12. I just wanted to use that as an example that Texas has played programs that were once in the same conference.

There is no Big 12 policy/conspiracy to not play programs that have left the conference. Just ask Nebrasks, OU has scheduled them for 4 games in next 12 years!

Quote:
The University of Texas has everything the way they want it....they make a ton of money, their stadium is always very full, they are improving facilities....and you want them to jeopardize that for what?


Why would any of this be jeopardized if Texas moved to another conference? What if the other conference offered a ton more revenue?

Quote:
Who cares about aTm? They aren't in the Big12 any longer....so, why bring them up? Texas has a full schedule playing the schools in their conference and great OOC games. Isn't that enough for you? It really sounds like you have some serious beef with state of Texas schools....which really makes you sound like an aggie.


Agreed, A&M Is part of past. I brought them up as an example to show how Texas is not committed to any program in Texas.

Nor should Texas be committed to any in-state program, particularly if remaining committed means loss of potential revenue, exposure, and a better overall deal.

Quote:
All I can say is....if you don't like the Big 12 or schools from Texas...then go watch a different conference.


True, I don’t care about any Big 12 program. But, I watch Big 12 games that have Texas playing, because I care for Texas!

I don’t even care if another Big 12 program loses to a non-conference opponent, unless that loss may have a negative impact on Texas.

And I was ecstatic when OU lost in the playoffs. The only Big 12 team I want winning any national championships is Texas!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:48 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:35 am
Posts: 4
If you are looking at long term success :

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2 ... ccess-last


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: Phoenix Arizona
bearcat1 wrote:
If you are looking at long term success :

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2 ... ccess-last" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that Cincinnati would make a great fit for the Big 12 for many reasons including athletic success which is one of the major weighted factors the Big 12 used last year with evaluation criteria of expansion candidates.

The University of Cincinnati academics which is one of the other major weighted factors in potential expansion candidates are not bad as well. Cincinnati is a good bridge to the Big 12 eastern member West Virginia and coveted eastern time zone schools for noon starts in football. This hits the other major weighted factor of TV markets and benefits for TV.

The Big 12 could expand to 11 schools similar to how the Big Ten scheduled for years with 11 schools and avoid the guaranteed rematch in football each year.

11 basketball schools could allow the Big 12 to schedule a 20 game round robin schedule which would make additional revenue that will compete once the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten start a 20 game conference schedule. Basketball may not be the top bread winner as football, it not chump change either and provides any major conference major TV exposure during the winner sports season.

If the Big 12 wanted 12 schools for football and avoid the issues of travel and other issues with politics, BYU was willing to join as a football only member. This would save on revenue sharing as BYU would only be an associate member and ease the concerns of BYU political views as not having full voting rights in the league.

The conference would continue with full round robing in basketball with 11 members and 20 game league schedule and could easily split into north/south divisions for football preventing rematches of major rival football schools.

North: West Virginia, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, BYU (fb only)

South: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 730
Location: Fiskville, Texas
It makes no sense to try and fix the WVU outlier issue with Cincy....and then turn right around and add another outlier....even for fb only. Especially, a school that is a perennial problem child.

BYU isn't as good in fb as people like to think. It's all hype. They don't play tough competition frequently and their imaginary National Championship season was a complete joke.

Navy would be a much stronger ally. And, Navy would further legitimize WVU's place in the conference.

Please don't fix one problem...and immediately cause another one. The Big 12 does not need to be spread across the whole of the US.

_________________
Fan of:
State of Texas
Southwest Conference
Big XII


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:35 am
Posts: 4
A few other metrics about Cincinnati most don't know.

Current year enrollment :44,000
Living alumni: approx. 275,000
Endowment: $1.3 Billion.

See how those compare to current Big 12 schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 730
Location: Fiskville, Texas
bearcat1 wrote:
A few other metrics about Cincinnati most don't know.

Current year enrollment :44,000
Living alumni: approx. 275,000
Endowment: $1.3 Billion.

See how those compare to current Big 12 schools.


I don't think anyone has suggested that Cincy would be a bad add to the conference.

Are they the BEST add.....well, that could be argued.

_________________
Fan of:
State of Texas
Southwest Conference
Big XII


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 168
mozilla wrote:
bearcat1 wrote:
A few other metrics about Cincinnati most don't know.

Current year enrollment :44,000
Living alumni: approx. 275,000
Endowment: $1.3 Billion.

See how those compare to current Big 12 schools.


I don't think anyone has suggested that Cincy would be a bad add to the conference.

Are they the BEST add.....well, that could be argued.

Moz,
There's no clarity what the B12 intends to do for
the long-term. It is doubtful they know beyond the next several years.
Option 1. Do nothing; and anticipate that could survive
for years beyond 2023/24.

Option 2. Wait and see who splits as the current GoR
expires. Two leave? Four or more leave? Do a backfill depending on who and how many leave?
Nobody leaves? Just renew a GoR. Maybe add a couple then.

Option 3. Add before anyone else leaves under current agreement. They already rejected this under two years ago. What will make them change their minds? New money and from where?

I like most of your analysis, but the B12 situation is so
ambiguous, yet ultra-conservative in behavior, speculation
has no direction coupled with almost nil B12 vibes.
As is, the B12 is doing well, looking at athletics alone. Money is still quite good.

You appreciably empasized an excellent point. That is,
why attempt to resolve one outlier problem, then create another? One would expect this was a serious factor when they discussed propects in the recent past. Yet,
they chatted with schools from SDSU to UConn. PR, then rejections?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: Phoenix Arizona
mozilla wrote:
It makes no sense to try and fix the WVU outlier issue with Cincy....and then turn right around and add another outlier....even for fb only. Especially, a school that is a perennial problem child.

BYU isn't as good in fb as people like to think. It's all hype. They don't play tough competition frequently and their imaginary National Championship season was a complete joke.

Navy would be a much stronger ally. And, Navy would further legitimize WVU's place in the conference.

Please don't fix one problem...and immediately cause another one. The Big 12 does not need to be spread across the whole of the US.

WVU does not need fixing as the school is OK with being the only school in the east. Its the Big 12 that needs to be fixed by having 12 or more schools. Pick the two schools as it just a matter of time before we hear the crying of the top two teams playing and the loser being left out of the four team playoff with a rematch. It could have occurred this year when Oklahoma had to play TCU for a second time. The Big 12 is beating each other up with 9 round robin in football and double round robin in the other major revenue sport of men basketball.

If you do not like Cincinnati as a candidate then pick Rice and Tulane. The issue is not WVU and the Big 12 for being the smallest power league. Perception is a huge issue in major college sports and sometimes perception will kill a league.

Just ask the old Big East for remaining status quo while it closet competitor the ACC were considering expansion and looking long term regardless if its two major flagship schools North Carolina and Duke were OK with status quo and having 9 schools. What condition would the ACC be in if they let NC and Duke get the way and remained with 9 schools and the best basketball league.

When the Big 12 GOR is up and WVU gets an opportunity to leave, the school may not be the issue any longer with the Big 12 if nothing is done with perception. Again WVU is not the Big 12 problem and perception is the Big 12 biggest issue.

The Big 12 strengths are ironically its major weakness as well with Oklahoma and Texas believing they will always have options and not having a strong leader to ensure the league grows by getting the votes necessary last year when the league had the power and revenue to expand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 730
Location: Fiskville, Texas
Mesa Lejos wrote:
Moz,
There's no clarity what the B12 intends to do for
the long-term. It is doubtful they know beyond the next several years.
Option 1. Do nothing; and anticipate that could survive
for years beyond 2023/24.

Option 2. Wait and see who splits as the current GoR
expires. Two leave? Four or more leave? Do a backfill depending on who and how many leave?
Nobody leaves? Just renew a GoR. Maybe add a couple then.

Option 3. Add before anyone else leaves under current agreement. They already rejected this under two years ago. What will make them change their minds? New money and from where?

I like most of your analysis, but the B12 situation is so
ambiguous, yet ultra-conservative in behavior, speculation
has no direction coupled with almost nil B12 vibes.
As is, the B12 is doing well, looking at athletics alone. Money is still quite good.

You appreciably empasized an excellent point. That is,
why attempt to resolve one outlier problem, then create another? One would expect this was a serious factor when they discussed propects in the recent past. Yet,
they chatted with schools from SDSU to UConn. PR, then rejections?


Thanks for your post Mesa....and, I agree with you.

The Big 12 has been very quiet. And, to be truthful....I don't mind them playing it close to the vest. The FBS is an ever changing situation....and just because one option looks good now...doesn't mean that in 5 years....that same option will look as good in the rear view mirror. And, anytime the Big 12 opens their mouth...there are idiots out there that get too caught up in whatever they perceive that the conference is doing. And the last thing the Big 12 needs is morons judging them before they actually make a decision.

The conference added two excellent institutions in West Virginia and TCU. I have no problem with them letting both schools get comfortable for a while before they look to add any others, if that is the prudent choice. And the only people that will know for certain that it IS the prudent choice...are the ones making the choice....ie: the Presidents of the Universities, themselves. All we can do as fans...is discuss the options and try to make sense of them.

And, in the meantime....the conference can shop the shelves of candidates to find the exact school or schools that will help the conference.

I don't pay much attention to perceptions....because those can change at the drop of a hat. So, if that is the over ridding concern for some people...then, they will always be ready and willing to complain about wavering opinions. And, they won't ever be happy and ready to look forward. Looking forward is much more important than looking backwards.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with West Virginia. Outstanding school and outstanding athletic department. The problem is....and listen carefully Lash....they are too far away...and that jeopardizes their long term spot in the conference. We, as the Big 12, need to do more to help them fit into the footprint and keep them in the conference. Lock them into the conference. And to do that.....there needs to be one or two schools much closer to them....ie: Cincy and/or Navy.

Again, Cincy for all sports and Navy for fb only would be smart.
Or, Cincy and Tulane.
Or, Navy for fb only and Tulane.
All three of those options would make sense.

If, WVU is against Navy and Cincy....no problem....the conference can go another direction.
Like, Tulane and Rice.

Any of these options would help round out the conference.
Things the Big 12 can't or shouldn't do....is add schools that are way out of the footprint, or, bring in problem schools.

_________________
Fan of:
State of Texas
Southwest Conference
Big XII


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5931 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 392, 393, 394, 395, 396  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 












Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

NCAA Store - Food Travel Ideas

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group