It's always been a bad logo. You highlight roman numerals that aren't embellished in any sort of way...it just looks bland. The old Big 8 logo was good. The sWc was good. Big XII? Always looked lame.

Granted, the Big East is going to have to rebrand, too. The "G" is made to look like a 6. I'm curious if the B1G is thinking about that 16 number, too, as it teases it with the Burger King font.

How about a logo for the Big 12 to have Big 12 with the 2 over strike by a red zero slash (do not enter) to look like it really is the Big 10. The do not enter is a message for other teams wanting to join.

The Big XII: "The red 'x' is for you, Louisville, as in 'we don't want you!'"


Now, as for Tulane...

Here is a little something they distributed about their "25K-30K" stadium. They goofed a bit: they keep leaving out that it's expandable to double that mark, but they mention they want to use the site as a bowl venue. At 25K?

The school went with a PR firm and the architect to do the talking.

Smoke! SMOKE!

Doesn't Tulane play in the Louisiana Superdome (about 80k) ?

If they are moving toward 25- 30k, it may be far more intimate and suitable to their needs, however it really flies in the face of Tulane dreaming of going "big time".

So I'm thinking we don't need to be discussing them anymore on a Big XII thread (or am I missing something ?)

I remember the OLD Tulane stadium they tore down some years back. For the time period, it was big, 70,000 seats or so; don't remember exactly. I believe the last event there was a rock concert. It was the host of the SUGAR BOWL for many, many years. It was in an up-scale neighborhood, with housing bordering it. It was torn down well before Katrina hit.
I expected it needed major repairs and upkeep was too much. Anyway, Tulane got intrigued with playing in the new Superdome with all it's glitter and glamour. Don't know what rent they were paying.
Tulane usually got small crowds in the Superdome unless they were playing somebody like LSU or Ole Miss, large traveling fans and attractive to local fans and alumni.

Tulane is doing what SMU and Houston did. Build smaller on/near campus stadiums. Rice Univ. renovated from a 70,000 seat stadium to a 40,000-something stadium; fewer seats, but modernized press boxes, big donor seats, screans, etc.
Northwestern and Stanford both ended up with fewer seats with modernizing.

Makes one wonder about Pitt. They demolished their old stadium & have opted to play in a NFL venue. Temple? They can't fill a third of Lincoln Financial Field unless someone such as Penn State (who fills it) is playing them.
Then there's Franklin Field in Philadelphia; not sure who is playing there anymore & what condition it is in. It's old.

Tulane gets mentioned because of their location and very respectable academics. While at one time in the SEC, they had alot of financial issues with fielding sports such as fb. A decade or so back, they were contemplating dropping fb. Their current President, very active in NCAA issues, appears very committed to bring Tulane back to sports prominence.

I don't believe there is any smoking gun for Tulane-B12, just the heaping tons of circumstantial stuff.

To add to what sec03 said, it's not just the $60m for the on-campus stadium, but the $10m for football investments (Cowen has made it publicly known this is where they need to put resources), the $10.5m for Turchin, $14m for Hertz (practice facility), Fogelman Arena will be renovated (probably $20m minimum, post-Hertz construction, as it was $50-60m before), and whatever it will cost to relocate tennis and track after the stadium.

It's an illogical build, too, the stadium is. Tad Gormley can be what this new stadium says it can, and it wouldn't cost them nearly as much to put the games there. It's the right size, too. All for luxury boxes? Really?

The Pitt stadium demo for Heinz is an interesting investment that I'm sure the university wishes it had not made. It's not that Heinz can't do what Pitt desires...the problem is getting students to go from Oakland to downtown. In Philly, the sports complexes are easier to reach by vehicle and public transit than the University City-situated Franklin Field. Temple's poor showing is getting a lot of consideration in Villanova's football upgrade viability studies, which is why they went to Chester's PPL Park.

Been to both the old Tulane Stadium and Pitt Stadium (I grew up in Pittsburgh).

Tulane Stadium was big. It originally hosted the Sugar Bowl, and was home to the Saints until the Superdome opened
(a few years late as costs escalated from a ridiculously low estimate of $40 million (that didn't include seats) to about $200 million) in mid-1970s.

Saw the Steelers play Saints on a Monday Night in 1974, I think.
Memories of Tulane Stadium. When fans got excited, the stands were rickety structures and shook like carazy !!!
I think there was a low brick wall around perimeter very close to out-of-bounds - rather dangerous.
Beer dispensing was ingenious.... the vendors in stands carried little kegs on their back (like SCUBA tanks) and poured out fresh draft beer on the spot !

Next day as we left ot fly back to Pittsburgh, saw Howard Cosell in newstand in New Orleans Airport. Most people had no idea what a big dude he was.
About 6'-4"... smoking a cigar...

Pitt Stadium was falling apart, and Pitt would have had to invest a ton of money to fix that up.
Steelers actually played there briefly in late 1960s, right before Three Rivers opened up.
Pitt Stadium was carved out of the top of a hill, and the field was partly excavated out, as I recall.
The one sideline had stands following the contour of the hillside
(sort of like how the Yale Bowl and the Michigan Big House were created by scraping dirt from the field area and piling it up under where the stands went)
The downhill side was a concrete structure, that was in dire need of maintenance.

Pitt gladly signed a lease to move to Heinz Field, and I think they get use of the Steelers practice facility which has practice fields.
Heinz Field is a few miles (a bus ride) from campus, and you have to cross the Allegheny river, but it's not THAT far.
Pittsburgh is rather compact.

The one fiasco at Heinz Field follwed a Pitt game, 5-6 classes of WPIAL football championships games, and a torrential rain.
The Steelers groundskeeper tried to sod the field quickly for a MNF game, but the new sod kept puddles on the field from being able to drain into the sub-field drain.
And it continued to rain during the game... HARD....
The feld was ridiculous, but since the Steelers won 3-0,.... alls well that ends well....
I think they actually took out the sandy base under the turf, and went to a moe suitable soil / grass mixture, and the Heinz field has gone from horrible to mediocre.
Adam Vinitieri is the only guy to manage a FG of 50+ yards in over 10 years.

To the disappointment of Lash and the few others, Florida State is not going anywhere:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-08/sports/os-florida-state-big-12-eric-barron-0608-20120608_1_eric-barron-acc-president-barron

Nice. I read this today, although old, I found the sentiments expressed above coincide nicely with this little blurb:



Spetman said FSU got $1.6m more than anticipated from the ACC, you say?

@tute re: Heinz Washout Game between Pitt and Miami...Oh man I won't EVER forget listening to that game up in NYC and hearing Boomer going off on how bad the venue was for the game and how much the NFL should pursue action against Heinz and the Steelers for it. I thought it was an amazing game...closest thing to old-timey football as it could get.

Westwolf,
Why on earth would I be disappointed in a decision that Florida State makes concerning the Big 12. If it were my decision I would have every conference limited to 10 members. The Big 12 is aligned with my personal thinking as of the moment.

On the other hand, I would not get too excited over Florida State remaining in the ACC because they found a couple million dollars lying around. This is only a drop in the bucket for what power conferences are going to make in the future.

Florida State may decide to remain in the ACC for other reasons, however, if 2 million dollars is what makes the school happy with its current digs then enjoy the neighborhood.

I do have a question for you. Why are you posting this the Big 12 thread and not on the ACC thread? To me this is much more beneficial to the ACC if Florida State wants to remain In the ACC compared to the Big 12 that keeps stating they are happy with 10 schools.

You ACC guys are trying to convince the wrong conference of your stability. It’s the ACC you need to worry about and not if the Big 12 wants to expand

A bit off topic here, but we were chatting about Tulane per the B12, then it diverged into stadiums. But that's related.

One of the nicest fields has been Mississippi State. Not talking about stadium size, which they have expanded now to over 50,000, still one of the smallest in the SEC.
However, they had an underground irrigation system way before many others experimented with it. The field was always rich green and crisp natural grass. A track encompassed the field, which provided plenty of room for on-field activities and no structural hazzards. Thus, the seating was not right upon the field; & the stadium is right on campus among classroom building, a chapel. etc.

OK, maybe the FSU rumors shall settle a bit. Something anew will get started....

Most certainly those rumors will not die. The school officials for both FSU and Clemson have used door-ajar language. B12 fans will exploit that by calling it "done deal," while ACC fans will dust it off as "formality speak." I think FSU and CU are using that language to either force further negotiations (either restructure or further expand) or maybe they're fishing for a call from the SEC.

To add to the Tulane stadium, as well as their other facilities, I wonder how much it's going to ultimately cost them to quell the NIMBYs. Not just legal fees...potential land-grabbing, too?

Lash,

Having graduated from a Div III school, I am not an ACC guy, and perhaps you are not so anti-ACC as your posts indicate. It would be preferable if we had 7-8 major conferences of 10 teams, each playing a round robin and having its champion proceed to an 8 team playoff.
But that's not the case. I'm just trying to apply common sense to all the speculation and cut through the nonsense. The way it seems is:

The Big 10 is happy with 12
So is the Pac-12, which has nowhere to go anyway
The ACC is content with 14
So is the SEC. Mike Slive made the telling comment that "14 is an extension of 12 (from a scheduling and rivalry standpoint), but 16 is not". He's right.
The Big 12 is ok with 10 for the moment but would go to 12 if it could hit a home run.
The Big East experiment is likely to fail but could limp along. Even if it blows apart, why would any of the above jump at BE members now? THey are basically second level schools.

So, my reading is no super conferences and little additional movement unless Notre Dame jumps. With the scarcity of supply, NBC is likely to re-up with ND.

I doubt FSU & Clemson are pushing the ACC to expand further as a motive. Seen nothing to substantiate that. FSU/Clemson have no particular interest in Rutgers or UCONN, the most likely additions if the ACC went to 16 anytime soon. And if it's about a south division, they'd rather have more expanded exposure than hop through Tobacco Road for a third of their schedules. It's about posturing, projecting they are being lusted for, enhancing school power, publicity, and garnering whatever added revenue from the conference and potential edge in post-season opportunities, such could muster. On the other hand, particularly in Clemson's case, school officials did not show any public displeasure for the ACC, and were consistent in conveying rumors that they were being pursued by the B12 were unsubstantiated. These schools, and conferences, don't have control of the Internet, the blogs, the chat forums, and certain media critiques, each having their respective agendas.

Westwolf, you listed some good points. While the BE does not really have any schools left that the power conferences would highly cherish to possess; depending on how re-alignment and expansion goes for the future, two to four members of the BE could get absorbed.

The B12 has been smart since the four departures and the two additions. They have focused on developing cohesion, enhancing stability, revenue incentives, and a lucrative bowl deal with the SEC.

It's not like the B12 is in a position to say, "we'll take Arkansas, Notre Dame, Illinois, and Kentucky and have an enriching, lovely flow from Lubbock to Morgantown". They probably shall expand at some point, but they also recognize they may need to take some time in doing so.

It's true that CU's administration has been more supportive of the ACC than FSU, but both have publicly aired the "best for our program" language that puts themselves apart from their conference, meaning that they do entertain the notion that they are not one with the ACC and that they can be approached.

I also don't fully buy into the ACC further expanding, either, unless it's Notre Dame. I just believe FSU and CU want something more, and faster than waiting for the first look-in window.

Regardless, I still see the B12 being the inferior conference. Maybe when the B12 formally announces they finalized their contract and releases details of who gets what I will change my tune and eat my crow and slice of humble pie. To me, Texas is still being a problem and is probably the biggest reason the B12 spring meetings produced no formal announcement of that great deal.