My personal opinion, is that only people on this board continue to obsess over Big XII expansion.
Your'e getting amusing there, tute79. I read in another forum somewhere the other day someone saying only the 'the Dude' was talking about expansion while everyone else had their minds focused elsewhere. It was not a declaration of endearment, rather a commentary about posts delivering unsubstantiated rumors.
Wait till the bowl season ends, with new rumors and leaks emerging, and chatter is bound to pick up. In the meantime, the Dude can have his platform, and a few here can speculate, advocate, rant, and waste time...but why damper the fun?
There are not 2 schools out there that the conference desires, and expansion wil only hurt the current 10 teams in the pocketbook (diluting the existing TV $$$ total).
Bowlsby says they are not considering expansion.... why can't we take his word for it ?
That's the line. Substitute the name Bowlsby for Tranghese (and the number 10 for whatever number) and such could have been said about the Big East in 2002 and multiple other years before and after.
Though these conferences are not announcing meetings with expansion placed on the formal agendas as a prime topic, it doesn't mean the subject matter is neglected.
I agree with the basic point, though. Nothing has been added since Bowlsby arrived with the B12. He's the B12's 'status quo' public face. That's their decision to dwell at ten. But if the conference ends up complaining in the future that they are being hurt in the selection processes for playoff placements due to not having a CCG, then I would suggest they keep the whining amongst themselves. The Big12 is outside the 'norm' on this, so the pressure would seem more to be for the B12 to adjust to the methodologies of the other power 5 conferences, rather than making unique accommodations and exceptions in expectations for the one out of sync. And if the B12 uses the argument they have not added because nobody good enough is available to be added, that message should not fly. If the conference cannot attract better, GoRs' aside of which the B12 has one themselves, then such should not be cited as a strength of the conference. Failure to make proactive moves when opportunities were there is not a good excuse in the playoff discussions. And if they cite they had loss choice schools to three other power conferences a couple of years back; that's more about vulnerability then, rather than being a useful argument to deliver that they have peaked on strength.
The same should apply to Notre Dame if they complain in the future they were overlooked due to being fb independent and not involved with a CCG. Of course, such would have to come from a two-loss season, because with anything less than that, ND would otherwise have so many forces trying to push them in. Aside from the strength of schedule arguments and criteria, 13-0 vs 12-0 should be a weighed factor at some level among multiple content for assessing. And the CCG game (usually #13) is an added 'pressure game', and deserves to have meaning.
I don't see the B12 as any kind of victim. Save that for an undefeated Fresno State or a Northern Illinois team who have considerably less system control. Reading posts upwards, I basically agree with Cutter's general premise as it related to undefeated seasons. If so much empahsis is to be placed on being undefeated, then one additional win needs to be a plus, but in context.
Maybe Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas could become........