NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 5:22 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3385 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202 ... 226  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 231
sec03 wrote:
The power group shall move from scholarships to comprehensive cost-of-living packages plus healthy stipends--they won't call it salaries yet.


A scholarship is technically a salary anyways, just the compensation for playing is in the form of school tuition credit which changes depending on the player (same in a company - wouldn't pay an analyst the same as a vice president even though they "play" for the same "team").

sec03 wrote:
they'll have to keep the title IX commitments


This could get VERY interesting.

sec03 wrote:
There will be a few major schools dropping out/down due to not having the revenue to maintain such extensive packages for all their scholarship athletes. Those with big ambitions to move up shall have more incentives for second thoughts based on the inability to find stable funds for it.


Probably mostly private schools will drop down, but I don't expect to see too many in the Power-5. As far as teams moving up, if the 65 power schools allow any to move up then it will be schools to replace schools that drop or schools that legitimately enhance the top group with market, talent, etc.

sec03 wrote:
More professionalizing in major college sports is the future. Shall we see one day in the not so distant future whereby there are private owners that carry a university's name?


This would be the end of me watching college sports. In all fairness, America is the only country that puts any weight into university athletics. College athletics being as vital as it is to our sport's culture is so unique to our country that I hope we don't lose it more than we already have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:11 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 34
I'd link but there are many new Big 12 expansion "updates" from various reputable sources with a simple google search.

Anyway, WVU and KSU A.D.s make it crystal clear that there is no desire to expand because: a) ten is fine b) there's nobody good enough to expand with. The public statements were made in response to media questions and those were likely asked due to BYU A.D. expressing a desire to join the Big 12 days ago.

My take is that the Big 12 is over in 2026. If they can't (or won't) expand now then who are they kidding thinking they can later? And if they can't expand later who are they kidding if they think other P5's won't expand later? Of course the SEC is going to add more teams. Ditto Big Ten and likely the others too.

This 10 team nonsense is laughable. 4 of the teams are in the same state and of those 4 only 2 are actually cared about. Speaking of nobody caring does anyone in America (including Iowa State fans) think anyone cares about Iowa State? I'll throw Kansas State in that same boat. So, of 10, 6 are cared about. Congrats, you have a conference of 6 teams that somebody in America would admit to caring about. But it doesn't stop there...

Of those 6, ALL 6!!!! could make more money in a different P5.

To recap...

Big 12 isn't going to expand (and is public about it)
Other P5's will
Other P5's will ask Big 12 schools when they do
Those Big 12 schools would make more if they say yes
They will say yes
There is no more Big 12

Am I reading to much into this??? Also, why is new conference member West Virginia and irrelevant conference member Kansas State speaking for the conference? If I was Oklahoma's A.D. I would laugh at either one of those schools going public with anything Big 12 related. Since when has either one added a dime to the conference? And now they both want to tell to America what the conference is going to do for the next 10 years? This would be like Doink the Clown telling America the 10 year plan for the WWF. This would be like the owner of the Jacksonville Jags telling Cowboy fans what's good for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:43 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
Most likely Texas/OU didn't want to respond, as most people know they don't want to expand.

Having one of the smaller conference members, like K State or WVU shows that their is agreement amoung all member to not expand.

I don't think you give K State enough credit, they are national relevant, more so than many in the ACC, they just suffer from a bad market.

Clearly most people see the writing on the wall as you have. THIS VERSION OF THE BIG12 WILL BE GONE in 2026.

Texas/OU will leave and likely take Tech/OSU with them. Kansas will be rescued too, if by the PAC12 then K State could also tagalong.

WVU could find a home in the ACC after they get raided.

But even with all those departures the Big 12 will survive. TCU/Baylor and Iowa State will add anyone of worth in the AAC/MWC and continue on with school like SMU/Houston.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:12 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 231
If/when the XII dissolves, I see (possibly):

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma would head to the PAC
Kansas would head to the B1G or PAC (I'd say 90/10 chance, respectively)
West Virginia would head to the ACC
Kansas St would head to the PAC in 2 situations: (1) as a tag-a-long with the Texoma-4 + Kansas or a school like New Mexico or Colorado St

I could see TCU, Baylor, and Iowa St (maybe Kansas St if they're still left) would create a conference with other schools like Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Colorado St, New Mexico, BYU, Boise St, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1176
The way the bylaws and GoR read, I thought expansion would require suspending or dissolving the current GoR, then expand/renegotiate, and then vote to continue the GoR, or extend it, or rewrite it entirely. In other words, it would be a real pain if not a unanimous (or favorable without Texas and/or OU) vote. It's too bolted to the current media deal. And the schools they would do this for don't want to be in the conference.

I think that's the gridlock. BYU's got revenue-sharing problems of their own...if they want in, they have to share. Kind of (ok, very) hypocritical when you think about it, but who's got the power? It's not in Provo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:24 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 783
Location: Columbus, OH
To answer Bigshotbob, the Big 12 will no longer be a Power 5 conference in 2025--there will be a conference out there that calls itself the Big 12 but they will be a "group of 5 (6)" league. TCU, Baylor, and Iowa St will all be members and possibly WVU and the Kansas schools. The rest of the league will either be ACC refugees--should that league be raided to the point of near extinction, and the rest will be AAC and MWC schools. The Big 12 is going to fall from the ranks of the elite conferences just as the SWC did--longhorn arrogance will once again be the cause of death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
Maybe the B12 is being wise in not messing with adding UCF (and USF). Thank goodness Texas, OU, Kansas, etc., have their standards.

Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel, a few days back wrote a piece advocating the SEC dump Ole Miss and Mississippi State and add UCF and USF as replacements. I am not going to facilitate his hit counts by posting a link. But if anyone bothers to read, also find one of the Ole Miss fan websites showing the massive empty seats in a game UCF was hosting UConn.
Mr. Bianchi's writings followed the remarks of UCF fb coach George O'Leary who compared the Power 5 to something about the Confederacy with some negative comments aimed at the SEC. Wonder if George ever cleaned up that resume that got him fired from Notre Dame?

If a new super-conference develops and "dumping" becomes a new mantra in a new era, Mr. Bianchi and Mr. O'Leary need to be assured the SEC shall NOT replace the departed with a directional school on the I-4 corridor. I shall not reflect on the demographics, for political correctness reasons, why their #2 enrollment population numbers are not an acceptable demand for inclusiveness. The SEC never went after Miami-Dade Community College either decades back.

BYU recently conveyed they would like to join the B12. They are not showing outward nastiness about it or attacking the Power 5.
On the other hand, UCF-related figures want schools dumped in the SEC to make room for them. UCF better STFU before UF's savvy and influential President explains to them what an "ace jewel" really means.


Last edited by sec03 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
fighting muskie wrote:
The Big 12 is going to fall from the ranks of the elite conferences just as the SWC did--longhorn arrogance will once again be the cause of death.

The SWC failed because people were caught cheating, and people were tattling on each other for cheating. It left a lot of bad feelings.

The SWC failed because it was a conference based in the state of Texas+Arkansas. Arkansas and Texas were invited to join the SEC and Texas declined. Texas also was in talks to join the PAC10 and declined.

When finally it was apparent that a merger had to happen (due to TV money and the impending BCS) between the SWC/Big8 the Big 8 was in a better position to take the best from the SWC and Texas fought to get Tech/Baylor also invited.

The SWC failed because Houston was leaving for CUSA and TCU/SMU/Rice didn't think they could poach schools from the WAC.

Texas cannot be blamed for the SWC failing. And if you seriously look at the failing of the Big 12 (and not just the lightly vailed attacked thrown at big bad Texas) you'd see that Texas held this conference together at least 3 times and wanted to pioneer a conference network before the Big Ten network (but school like A&M/Nebraska refused as they liked selling their 3rd tier rights locally and they thought it would fail) and that anything Texas did (or was accused of doing) prior to the LHN, was done by all the same power players (NU, MU, KU, CU, A&M, OU) and of those only Texas/OU/KU hung around and tried to make this conference work (by doing things like moving to equal revenue sharing, which BTW 100% of the schools who left all voted against).

The Big 12 not expanding now has to do with the smaller schools, not wanting to allow UT/OU a loop hole to get out of the GOR, and all schools except UT/OU not wanting to take a paycut (as both UT/OU have already taken theirs, though UT/OU don't want a CCG so it kinda evens out).

You can blame Texas for their "arrogance" but that didn't kill the conference. Nebraska, A&M, and Mizzou killed the conference, the schools that thought they were elite were mad when they weren't recognized as such and held grudges that they were perceived as below UT/OU.

The Big 12's unfortunate geographic location between the top 3 power conferences and lack of readily available replacements killed the conference. Had the conference been in the East/Midwest/South then it might have stood a chance, but once B1G/Nebraska showed the conference was weak it had no chance.

If you lose your 3 of your top 6 schools you have to be very lucky to survive. (Imagine the 11 team B1G losing Penn St, Wisconsin, and Michigan State or the PAC12 losing UCLA, Stanford, and Washington)

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:21 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2708
Location: Phoenix Arizona
You guys are ridiculous in assuming the Big 12 is any less stable compared to the other power leagues.

First up LSU is making all kinds of noise concerning the issues with the very bloated SEC scheduling unbalances. Everyone is just assuming the mightily SEC is very stable, and maybe should wait and see how the cable networks work out in the future for the SEC as well as the new playoff format. Will the Big Ten continue to make large profits off of unsuspecting customers that do not understand the bundling issues of paying for something you really do not want or need. Will new technologies replace the need for cable to some degree?

Maybe LSU and BYU could be the east and west division of the Big 12? Nope it will not happen because while the Big 12 round robin football and basketball will continue to build strong rivalries, the other bloated leagues will continue to fracture due to scheduling issues Yes there is money and strength in SEC football currently, however, will the new playoff be as a favorable to the SEC as the old BCS with top two teams selected by biased coaches etc. While the SEC opts to continue with 8 conference games and play breathers FCS teams in the last two weeks of regular season, the Pac 12 and Big 12 will be playing tough conference competition. This will reflect in the selection committees' thoughts on which team make it to the four team playoff. Dream on SEC and Arkansas coach if you believe the SEC will receive two at large bids per year on a regular basis.

This is not your daddy's BCS system which highly favored the SEC football image in the voting coaches polls. Yes LSU you have a right to grip about the current scheduling issues in the SEC and it will impact you chances of reaching the four team playoff.

Less not forget the mighty Big Ten taking on two bottom dweller of the old Big East and ACC in reaching that bloated cable ready 14 member size. Arguably the ACC and Big East were the weakest of the six old BCS leagues. Already many long time Midwest fans are starting to squirm at the thoughts of the money grab in eastern markets. Time will tell if this strategy pays off for the Big Ten. After all the Big Ten is next up in contract negotiations and is the bubble going to burst on TV contracts? Will the east pro TV audience embrace Big Ten college sports when they did not care about the more local Big East college teams. This is especially true of college football which continues to drive the money train.

I will not discuss the ACC which has basically become the Big East 2. We all know what happened with that league.

So back to the Big 12. If the cable networks make it and even thrive then Texas LHN makes it as well. Why does Texas need the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac 12?

If there is no Big 12 in 2026, there will like wise not be a Big Ten, SEC, or Pac 12 as we know it today. Maybe a super conference of one group could be in our future and then I could see the Big 12 and any of the other power leagues going away as well.

The only way bigger is better is there is one super league which could very well occur in the distance future or maybe has already in the works with the new alliance of the power 64 plus Notre Dame group of schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:46 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 413
tkalmus wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
The Big 12 is going to fall from the ranks of the elite conferences just as the SWC did--longhorn arrogance will once again be the cause of death.

You can blame Texas for their "arrogance" but that didn't kill the conference. Nebraska, A&M, and Mizzou killed the conference, the schools that thought they were elite were mad when they weren't recognized as such and held grudges that they were perceived as below UT/OU.

The truth may be between the two thoughts. Certainly Texas took some independent initiatives that did not set well with a number of colleagues from other schools in the conference. Whether Texas appropriately weighed the risks or really cared in terms of the potential reactions of a number of other schools in the conference is something UT officials were due to address. At some level, arrogance could have hindered the perceived need to encompass the sensitivities and concerns of others.

On the other side, there were 12 members of the conference and now 10. If it is one school - one vote, each had input and a vote in formulating conference rules, practices, and selecting conference governance. And if Texas has been operating in a rogue capacity running roughshod over other members as to conference financial undertakings, influence, and favoritism, then it has been the other conference members that allowed it to happen. A school saying--it's all Texas fault--when the majority of the conference has been going along with it or allowed it to happen is a bit disingenuous.

If Texas really is the sole barrier why the B12 has not expanded beyond 10 at this point, it indicates the other 9 are unwilling to confront the Longhorns on the matter. If those schools fear losing Texas if they act collectively against Texas' wishes, then they have deferred to Texas to have power over them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:49 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 66
lash wrote:
You guys are ridiculous in assuming the Big 12 is any less stable compared to the other power leagues.

First up LSU is making all kinds of noise concerning the issues with the very bloated SEC scheduling unbalances. Everyone is just assuming the mightily SEC is very stable, and maybe should wait and see how the cable networks work out in the future for the SEC as well as the new playoff format. Will the Big Ten continue to make large profits off of unsuspecting customers that do not understand the bundling issues of paying for something you really do not want or need. Will new technologies replace the need for cable to some degree?

Maybe LSU and BYU could be the east and west division of the Big 12? Nope it will not happen because while the Big 12 round robin football and basketball will continue to build strong rivalries, the other bloated leagues will continue to fracture due to scheduling issues Yes there is money and strength in SEC football currently, however, will the new playoff be as a favorable to the SEC as the old BCS with top two teams selected by biased coaches etc. While the SEC opts to continue with 8 conference games and play breathers FCS teams in the last two weeks of regular season, the Pac 12 and Big 12 will be playing tough conference competition. This will reflect in the selection committees' thoughts on which team make it to the four team playoff. Dream on SEC and Arkansas coach if you believe the SEC will receive two at large bids per year on a regular basis.

This is not your daddy's BCS system which highly favored the SEC football image in the voting coaches polls. Yes LSU you have a right to grip about the current scheduling issues in the SEC and it will impact you chances of reaching the four team playoff.

Less not forget the mighty Big Ten taking on two bottom dweller of the old Big East and ACC in reaching that bloated cable ready 14 member size. Arguably the ACC and Big East were the weakest of the six old BCS leagues. Already many long time Midwest fans are starting to squirm at the thoughts of the money grab in eastern markets. Time will tell if this strategy pays off for the Big Ten. After all the Big Ten is next up in contract negotiations and is the bubble going to burst on TV contracts? Will the east pro TV audience embrace Big Ten college sports when they did not care about the more local Big East college teams. This is especially true of college football which continues to drive the money train.

I will not discuss the ACC which has basically become the Big East 2. We all know what happened with that league.

So back to the Big 12. If the cable networks make it and even thrive then Texas LHN makes it as well. Why does Texas need the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac 12?

If there is no Big 12 in 2026, there will like wise not be a Big Ten, SEC, or Pac 12 as we know it today. Maybe a super conference of one group could be in our future and then I could see the Big 12 and any of the other power leagues going away as well.

The only way bigger is better is there is one super league which could very well occur in the distance future or maybe has already in the works with the new alliance of the power 64 plus Notre Dame group of schools.



In regards to the last two weeks of scheduling in the Big 12 vs the SEC, I would have to disagree with you in your assumption of the SEC playing weaker FCS schools. Stack the last two weeks of the Big 12 against the SEC and you will see the SEC's usual contenders playing Auburn Vs Bama, LSU vs Arkansas, Florida vs FSU, Georgia vs Georgia Tech, and South Carolina vs Clemson. The last week of the season in the Big 12 is also the same as the SEC Championship game. If an SEC team is looking to get into the playoff (most likely one or two of the above teams), and they play in the SEC title game, they probably played decent if not excellent competition in those last two games.

As far as LSU is concerned, no they don't like having to play Florida every year in addition to a very rugged SEC West. But that is the only thing they are upset with. If they left the SEC, they would be saying goodbye to the very fertile recruiting grounds of Florida, Alabama and Georgia. Texas offers a lot in recruiting, but not more than those three states, plus LSU already recruits the state of Texas with some degree of success.

I'm not sure the Big 12 is more stable than the ACC. Stability requires a foundation. Right now the Big 12's foundation is 10 teams compared to the ACC's 14. If conference expansion were to happen again, and say just for argument's sake that the Pac 12 were to successfully lure away the Texhoma 4, while the SEC and Big 10 were to invite two members each from the ACC, which conference would still be alive? In all honesty, that is how I believe the next round of conference expansion will go; probably leading to some sort of merger between what is left of the ACC and Big 12. In this scenario, the ACC could still survive, even w/o the merger. The Big 12 could not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:27 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
hendu1976fl wrote:

As far as LSU is concerned, no they don't like having to play Florida every year in addition to a very rugged SEC West. But that is the only thing they are upset with. If they left the SEC, they would be saying goodbye to the very fertile recruiting grounds of Florida, Alabama and Georgia. Texas offers a lot in recruiting, but not more than those three states, plus LSU already recruits the state of Texas with some degree of success.


Agree with the premises. It's not the first time LSU has whined. They were doing some grandstanding, but when it came down to it, LSU wanted to keep UF as their cross-division rival. That's a huge money game for both with national airing and they know it. The LSU President concurred on the 6-1-1 model and I have not seen them complain since. Nick Saban did not get everything his way either as some others. In any conference, there are going to be variations in schedule strength. Even round-robin is impacted by home-away timing. Somebody has to travel further than others.
Aside from those with instate OOC rival games, the SEC wanted to protect certain (permanent) cross-division rivalry games. In addition to UF-LSU, there are UGA-Auburn, and Tenn.-Alabama. LSU may comparatively have it more difficult some years, but certainly not all years. The SEC is using South Carolina--Texas A&M as the kickoff for the SEC network this upcoming season. SC and Ta&m have never played each other in fb but are new, permanent cross-division rivals. Kentucky and Mississippi State wanted to maintain their cross-division game as well as Vandy and Ole Miss with each other. Since Mizzou plays in the SEC-east, it was logical to re-assign Arkansas to play bordering Mizzou. That could turn into another big rivalry game to feature. So the permanent cross-division rivalry games involved a mixture of tradition, locations, matching relative strength and size, and intents regarding showcasing.
If the SEC did rotate both cross-division games, that's not going to render equal schedules-of-strength for everyone. In some cases, it could be much more exacerbating certain years.
When the SEC was at 12 and initially had the 5 divisional games, two permanent cross-overs, and the one rotating cross-over, they were later prompted to go to the 5-1-2 model while still at 12. With the initial model, Auburn was complaining they had UGA and UF every year which was tougher than most. Yet, Auburn had made a big issue that they must play UGA and UF, traditional big rival games, every year when the divisions were established. Individual coaches are going to sound disgruntled at times about how tough they have it in-conference. That's part of a common strategy and is not unique to the SEC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:35 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1176
tkalmus wrote:
You can blame Texas for their "arrogance" but that didn't kill the conference. Nebraska, A&M, and Mizzou killed the conference, the schools that thought they were elite were mad when they weren't recognized as such and held grudges that they were perceived as below UT/OU.


In hindsight, I'd have stuck a fork in the conference once Colorado took their PAC 10 invitation to a vote, and it only failed by a bit. At least Texas didn't take it that far. UC knew this show wasn't going to last. They humored it, put in some time, saw exactly what they expected to see, and punched out. Heck, those meetings that summer when Colorado and Nebraska left, sounded like UC had made its mind up years ago. No "heated" moments like Missouri had to suffer.

To some extent, Colorado was the kind of school the Big XII always needed to keep. Big, academically reputable, extensive academic recruiting territory...UC marched to the beat of its academics more so than Heartland culture and athletics. It indulged the culture piece the first time when it passed on the PAC, but not the second time. Nobody thinks of the Big XII as a good collection of academic institutions. The sad thing is, it very much was. If it had gone down the route of something similar to the CIC from an AgSci perspective, and kept the egos in check, it would have been a more durable, sustainable model than what it was.

Kansas seems like a Colorado type, which I don't find surprising they come up as a logical next step for the Big Ten now with their "eastern trophies" in the bank.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
You can blame Texas for their "arrogance" but that didn't kill the conference. Nebraska, A&M, and Mizzou killed the conference, the schools that thought they were elite were mad when they weren't recognized as such and held grudges that they were perceived as below UT/OU.


In hindsight, I'd have stuck a fork in the conference once Colorado took their PAC 10 invitation to a vote, and it only failed by a bit. At least Texas didn't take it that far. UC knew this show wasn't going to last. They humored it, put in some time, saw exactly what they expected to see, and punched out. Heck, those meetings that summer when Colorado and Nebraska left, sounded like UC had made its mind up years ago. No "heated" moments like Missouri had to suffer.

To some extent, Colorado was the kind of school the Big XII always needed to keep. Big, academically reputable, extensive academic recruiting territory...UC marched to the beat of its academics more so than Heartland culture and athletics. It indulged the culture piece the first time when it passed on the PAC, but not the second time. Nobody thinks of the Big XII as a good collection of academic institutions. The sad thing is, it very much was. If it had gone down the route of something similar to the CIC from an AgSci perspective, and kept the egos in check, it would have been a more durable, sustainable model than what it was.

Kansas seems like a Colorado type, which I don't find surprising they come up as a logical next step for the Big Ten now with their "eastern trophies" in the bank.

I see where you are coming from, but Colorado wasn't close to the rest of the conference in many ways than just geography. If only Colorado has left they could have easily been replaced by a school like BYU.

Colorado wasn't the lynch pin of the conference. UT/OU and Nebraska were. Nebraska leaving is what started is what showed the weakness in the Big12, and physically made the conference weaker.

That opened the door for the PAC16, and for A&M to start talking to the SEC.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:44 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1176
tkalmus wrote:
I see where you are coming from, but Colorado wasn't close to the rest of the conference in many ways than just geography. If only Colorado has left they could have easily been replaced by a school like BYU.

Colorado wasn't the lynch pin of the conference. UT/OU and Nebraska were. Nebraska leaving is what started is what showed the weakness in the Big12, and physically made the conference weaker.

That opened the door for the PAC16, and for A&M to start talking to the SEC.


I think UC's differences cemented the sort of institutional personalities that could exist in that conference. No disagreement about Colorado not being the heart of the conference, but if UC didn't see it being worth their while, almost emphatically, I think it started clearing the way for the rest. You either dealt with the UT/OU political clout, or you didn't. UC wasn't going to anymore...but, they kind of felt that way almost 15 years earlier, too. The others had a bit more tolerance.

When Perlman discussed how Nebraska secured its Big Ten spot, I thought he said the conference knew Colorado was gone, which I took to mean that regardless of a PAC-16 cluster or not, the PAC was going to expand, and that expansion included at least Colorado. Who the other one or five schools were was up to those Big XII institutions. It was Nebraska, Texas, and Missouri who were then the ones targeted for wandering eyes/commitment issues at the summer meetings, and while I agree Nebraska was probably the catalyst, I think both UNL and UC upgrading together pretty much did it for all. A mover and a minor member both moving up is painful. I don't doubt for a second Missouri got some extra courage institutionally from two of its longtime rivals peeling off. UM wasn't a major player, but they were valued elsewhere by someone better.

I know it's splitting hairs, but I think the kind of "free pass" Colorado got when they announced and left, like it was always on Nebraska, or A&M and Mizzou thereafter; it really wasn't. And I doubt the Big XII could have even found a school that would have properly replaced what Colorado brought to it. BYU would have fractured the footprint, Air Force (assuming they even were to agree) was too small and would have been a punching bag, and others like UNM, CSU, Tulane...didn't budge the needle at all. I don't know if anyone could have made up them academically (other than Rice or Tulane). Nobody filled in all the boxes they checked: big (30K+), AAU, public, sizable state, a school by a top-25 media market. Good luck with that. And, Colorado's one of those states now, kind of like Missouri: undervalued and under-appreciated, but both populous, diverse culturally (and politically), and a gateway state. Losing UC, like losing Missouri, hurt that conference in an almost irreparable way, and I think the understated importance of those two programs is part of that issue. WVU athletically might have balanced the loss of UC...it didn't academically or institutionally. Not even close.

I kind of always thought UC and Washington were similar in certain respects. Boulder's no Seattle (and vice-versa), but when things are good in their respective place, they can be among the most recognizable programs out there. If/when UC "comes back to life," people are going to see just how good of a score the PAC made. And I think the B1G would even be jealous (since they wanted them, too).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3385 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202 ... 226  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








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

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

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