NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:06 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1078
lash wrote:
The Bashin Cutter, my comment on attendance was not specifically about autonomy as autonomy will be voted on by the 65 power schools and will be consistently governed (i.e. each school could provide up to say 2,000 dollars to each football player as full cost of attendance as an example). The comment had more to do with the impacts that autonomy could cause within a conference such as the Big Ten on subjects such as home attendance to ensure home games do not continue to dwindle at the gate.


If I'm not mistaken, the Big Ten shares those gates, so if Michigan is doing super well and Indiana isn't, part of Michigan's intake is distributed to the others.

The Big Ten's kind of had the autonomy thing in its hands already. Scheduling demands, scheduling agreements, bowl agreements, etc. I think they're probably going to push for thirteen games so they can get ten conference games on the books. While some of these initiatives seem to address the concerns of "keeping butts in the seats," like more conference games, some of the others, like scheduling demands and agreements do not (do games with MAC opponents really help the schools; do students want to see these games?).

I think the issue isn't singular or specific to the Big Ten...this is happening all across college football. And I don't think it's television's fault. I look at the school administrators and conference leadership and see a clear disconnect between its spectators and its athletics. Spitting in the face of regionalism, which built this game, for larger media contracts that force expansion to include schools with literally no history with each other...all of the conferences are doing this. I suspect the autonomy matter is only going to make it worse. Like, just because Michigan and Mississippi, or TCU, play big time football, the two should make it a priority to play each other more often under a new structure? Why? What's in it for the students and local fans?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:57 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1541
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Spitting in the face of regionalism, which built this game, for larger media contracts that force expansion to include schools with literally no history with each other...all of the conferences are doing this. I suspect the autonomy matter is only going to make it worse. Like, just because Michigan and Mississippi, or TCU, play big time football, the two should make it a priority to play each other more often under a new structure? Why? What's in it for the students and local fans?

This week's SEC Network debut featuring South Carolina vs. Texas A&M is getting heavy hype in the southeast. It's two teams with no fb history but will be locked together as regular cross-division rivals for the long-term. It's a sellout in Columbia (including Texas Gov. Rick Perry in town for it, coupled with his political efforts).
Because both schools are riding high with recent success and firm expectations, it's a good selection for a conference kick-off.

But your point has merit. These conference and school officials along with their network kingmakers, fail to appreciate what interests students and loyal and traveling fans the most. The marketing centers on TV demographics, and they often get that stuff wrong because their folks that run the numbers can be clueless about tapping into passions. And loyalties become meaningless except those structured by design.

Some things missed or hope to see more of or happen:
Texas-Texas A&M ---- Stopped by a bunch of old men with grudges. Students and fans want to see it. They could work it out if the wanted to do so.
West Virginia-Pittsburgh ---- The backyard brawl got canned. In reality, both schools could really use the game.
Kansas-Missouri ---- Another tradition tainted with bitterness due to conference re-alignment.
Florida-Miami ---- Well, they are playing again some. But UF also has to accommodate FSU, so understandable given the context of scheduling.
Arkansas won't play Arkansas State; yet the Razorbacks are willing to schedule near every cupcake outside the State in the region.
Penn State-Pitt ---- Fans and students in PA would not mind seeing that every year. PSU scheduling WVU again some is a plus.
Kentucky-Indiana ---- That wasn't a bad rivalry with those two. Would be nice to see each year.
BC-UConn ---- Would make sense to be each year.
Temple-Pitt ---- They've had some good games in the past.

Now games such as Ole Miss-Memphis or Mississippi State-Southern Miss could become even less infrequent due to finding OOC Power 5 games. If such becomes the result of not scheduling types such as Jacksonville State or McNeese State, then somewhat understandable. But it may not work that way.

And these school schedule planners are not always clever predictors. A Georgia Southern can knock-off a Florida; and an Appalachian State can shock a Michigan. UM has Appy State to visit again; maybe it's about the chance for redemption. Never schedule anyone you can't afford to lose to if there's a choice.

I don't mind seeing major schools helping out a 'local' mid-major for a game per season. And with tight open dates for OOC games, seeing odd pairings here and there is understandable, but need not be a habit for a school that can show better and is simply padding a schedule with OOC cupcakes.

With the divide so great now between the 'haves' and 'have-nots', all major conference schools need to show at least 10 viable games out of 12 scheduled, whether in-conference or OOCs'.

I am not pessimistic about the B12's future. I do think they have an outlier problem as to WVU. Compared to the other major conferences, their coverage areas are less broad-based. They do have the option to expand. I don't think they are sitting there wondering when will be the time to disband. I believe they are in protective mode and generally pleased with their current revenue stream. That could change if their network partners come to the conclusion they are over-compensated. That shall prompt action--expanding. Also, if they come-up on the short end for the first few playoff years because of the lack of a CCG, they'll expand in a wink. Extending the playoffs to 8 reps in the future, could forestall B12 expansion.

As Lash referenced somewhere earlier, the B12 does not want to fall into the old Big East mindset--- failing to act affirmatively when the moment arises. This may already have happened by earlier passing on Louisville. L'ville and Cincy added with WVU would have reduced the outlier concern significantly. I'm not sure adding TCU was much more than a convenient in-footprint filler to reach 10. There's a time for conservatism, but being too rigid when your conference has a fewer number comparatively, it's best to have sustained options....just in case.


Last edited by sec03 on Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
lash wrote:
Forbes Magazine which is prides it magazine on discussions about money and wealth have the Big 12 schools making the most money at the moment of all the power leagues. We can all speculate, however, most sports financial experts that I have read or articles, do not have any type of prediction the Big 12 will slip that far behind in the future.
This contract was negotiated with Mizzou and A&M. When they renegotiate they'll lose the St Louis market, and monopoly on the State of Texas. TCU and WVU will hurt the numbers rather than help.

lash wrote:
I am guessing most believe these conference networks will make all that revenue and until the actual revenue is there, I am just not convinced the divide will be that great between each of the five power leagues to make that much of a difference. The Big Ten has many years for its network to be in place and divide is not that big of a difference to be a concern.

The Big Ten's is making money and with NYC/DC coming on board its growing, the B1G estimated a 40 million dollar per school payout in 2020 (even if they are off by 5 million that's a significant increase over every other conference). The SEC is projecting profitability in 2015 (2014 only on 1/2 a year and included startup costs) and the P12N is also projecting profitability (even w/o any addition distribution deals) in 2015 as well (though theirs is the most iffy of the 3). There is a reason the ACC is begging for a network.

lash wrote:
The area that I would be of most concern for the Big 12 or any of the Power leagues is not placing a good product on the field when the new TV contracts are up for renewal of Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports which for the most part never will hit the conference networks or individual school networks in the case of the Big 12 schools, are the area where the real money is made. Should this divide occur in any of the power leagues there would be much to be concerned on future stability.

I agree but Texas/Oklahoma will always sell. If Baylor, Tech, KSU, OSU have a good decade then it will be fine, but that's unlikely to happen IMO. Still the marketability of the B12 is less than it was while every other conference's marketability has grown. Its unlikely that 6 state schools in 3 states, plus 2 private/religious schools, and 2 outliers can match the PAC12 (10 state schools in 6 states plus 2 privates), B1G (13 state school in 11 states plus 1 private), or SEC (13 states in 11 states plus 1 private)...maybe the ACC but I doubt it (its really not a fair fight comparing the East Coast to farm land). The B1G saw this happening to them and decided that they needed to branch out East to avoid becoming the dying rust belt/farm land conference.

lash wrote:
Just reviewing all the investments the Big 12 schools are placing into football facilities and other areas of their sports programs, I do not at the moment have any reason to believe the Big 12 will not continue to be a major player for the long term in college big time sports.

The investments are long LONG overdue for many of the schools. Adding 10+ million to most of the AthDept's annual budgets also helps.

Primarily adding suites (>/=10% increase):
Kansas - Luxury Boxes/Modernization (pre50K-post55K)
Texas - End Zone Project/Modernization (pre 100K-post110K)
Oklahoma - End Zone Project/Modernization (pre80K-post85K)
TX Tech - End Zone Project (pre60K-post65K)

Not adding much:
Oklahoma St - None planned yet/rumors only (just did major upgrade in 2006/pre45K-post60K)
West Virginia - Team Areas, Concourse/Concessions (60K)

Major upgrades adding seats (<10% increase):
Iowa St - End Zone Project (pre55K-post65K)
Kansas St - Completely rebuilding stadium, multi-year project (pre50K-post60K)

Major upgrades, not adding seats:
TCU - Completely rebuilt stadium, multi-year project (pre45K-post45K)
Baylor - Brand New Stadium (old50K-new45K)

UT/OU/KU/TT/OSU/WVU are comfortable with their stadiums and are simply doing regular upgrades/maintenance to keep them up to date. These schools feel confident that they will be Power Conference schools in the future.

ISU/KSU/TCU/BU are trying to renovate their stadiums to keep up with most of the power conferences, they are less sure of their status in the new structure and want to do everything they can to make themselves more appealing so that UT/OU don't feel the need to leave them or if they do they want to be attractive to the other Big3 conferences. In Baylor/TCU and Houston/Tulane's case(40K/30K) case they've realized that while having a lower stadium capacity hurts them, its better to look good on TV with less empty seats than it is to have a quarter full 70K seat stadium like Rice/UAB.

My point is that, just because people are upgrading their stadiums does not guarantee that they'll be a P5 power. If the Texhoma 4 go West and KU/WVU abandon ship their P5 status doesn't survive just by picking up Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, NILL, BYU, CSU (if they get their stadium, if not Boise).

The Big 12's stability depends on 3-4 schools Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser degree Kansas/West Virginia.

If Texas decides to leave to conference's "Power" status is over. That being said Texas has a great setup with ESPN and the LHN (now on every major providers except DirectTV, who renegotiates the full ABC/ESPN/Disney contract in December where it will most likely get picked up, and Comcast, which is likely not happening anytime soon unless the merger with TWC somehow adds the LHN). They also have great exposure and money rolling in from the Tier 1/2 games on ABC/FOX which will likely keep up with the other P5s. The issue with Texas is mostly competition. Fans don't wants to spend a lot of money to drive from DFW, Houston, San Antonio to Austin every other Saturday to seen watch MOST of their Big 12 games, typically the home schedule has 1 good OOC game and maybe 2 good (not great) Big12 games. Moving to a bigger/better conference will not only help pads our stats (as round robin hurts conference rankings) and get us more ranked v ranked games but will also bring in more power schools that will drive ticket sales no matter how good/bad the teams are.

Oklahoma is the school, more so than Texas, that may spur the move to another conference. They are making less money than they should, and also suffer from the same issue as Texas in ticket sales and game attendance (people drive from all over OK, and even up of DFW). They almost jumped last time and I think the PAC12 won't turn them down come 2025 and OU/OSU are quietly making tons of academic upgrades in order to get OU close to AAU consideration and OSU into tier 1 research consideration.

Kansas will leave for the B1G or SEC, WVU will leave for SEC/ACC. These may not hurt (WVU is easily replaced if the rest remain, but KU could spur UT/OU to review their options).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1078
sec03 wrote:
This week's SEC Network debut featuring South Carolina vs. Texas A&M is getting heavy hype in the southeast. It's two teams with no fb history but will be locked together as regular cross-division rivals for the long-term. It's a sellout in Columbia (including Texas Gov. Rick Perry in town for it, coupled with his political efforts).
Because both schools are riding high with recent success and firm expectations, it's a good selection for a conference kick-off.

But your point has merit. These conference and school officials along with their network kingmakers, fail to appreciate what interests students and loyal and traveling fans the most. The marketing centers on TV demographics, and they often get that stuff wrong because their folks that run the numbers can be clueless about tapping into passions. And loyalties become meaningless except those structured by design.


How much money is being spent to promote this game? How much money is needed to promote USC-Clemson?

In the Big Ten, they make these stupid trophy games, like PSU-MSU. The Big Ten can try to make this game a replacement for PSU-Pitt, but it will never do it. Ironically enough, one game was really getting to become a lovely yearly special: PSU-UNL. The Big Ten severed it already. But, hey, maybe PSU will gravitate toward rivalries with UMD and Rutgers now, even if those series have always been one-sided. They won't, but I'm sure I'll be argued down by Big Ten apologists.

In the Big XII, it's not so much of a problem because of the concentration of programs over a small geographic footprint, although the losses of TAMU, Nebraska, and Missouri certainly hurt it, and Texas has made it a point to schedule someone else from the state most seasons. If I have concerns about them and their expansionary endeavors, the schools that help add to the regionalism are either added Texas weight, like the remaining non-major SWC members, or they're not viewed as "worthy" additions, like Memphis, Tulane, and MWC/old WAC schools like Wyoming and Colorado State. If the conference feels it needs the CCG and is forced to expand to attain one, I think any move they make will be looked at negatively...it's not like they're going to pluck schools away from any other major, even if adding schools like BYU, Cincinnati, or maybe Air Force (not happening) does improve the conference overall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2676
Location: Phoenix Arizona
tkalmus wrote:
lash wrote:
Forbes Magazine which is prides it magazine on discussions about money and wealth have the Big 12 schools making the most money at the moment of all the power leagues. We can all speculate, however, most sports financial experts that I have read or articles, do not have any type of prediction the Big 12 will slip that far behind in the future.
This contract was negotiated with Mizzou and A&M. When they renegotiate they'll lose the St Louis market, and monopoly on the State of Texas. TCU and WVU will hurt the numbers rather than help.

lash wrote:
I am guessing most believe these conference networks will make all that revenue and until the actual revenue is there, I am just not convinced the divide will be that great between each of the five power leagues to make that much of a difference. The Big Ten has many years for its network to be in place and divide is not that big of a difference to be a concern.

The Big Ten's is making money and with NYC/DC coming on board its growing, the B1G estimated a 40 million dollar per school payout in 2020 (even if they are off by 5 million that's a significant increase over every other conference). The SEC is projecting profitability in 2015 (2014 only on 1/2 a year and included startup costs) and the P12N is also projecting profitability (even w/o any addition distribution deals) in 2015 as well (though theirs is the most iffy of the 3). There is a reason the ACC is begging for a network.

lash wrote:
The area that I would be of most concern for the Big 12 or any of the Power leagues is not placing a good product on the field when the new TV contracts are up for renewal of Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports which for the most part never will hit the conference networks or individual school networks in the case of the Big 12 schools, are the area where the real money is made. Should this divide occur in any of the power leagues there would be much to be concerned on future stability.

I agree but Texas/Oklahoma will always sell. If Baylor, Tech, KSU, OSU have a good decade then it will be fine, but that's unlikely to happen IMO. Still the marketability of the B12 is less than it was while every other conference's marketability has grown. Its unlikely that 6 state schools in 3 states, plus 2 private/religious schools, and 2 outliers can match the PAC12 (10 state schools in 6 states plus 2 privates), B1G (13 state school in 11 states plus 1 private), or SEC (13 states in 11 states plus 1 private)...maybe the ACC but I doubt it (its really not a fair fight comparing the East Coast to farm land). The B1G saw this happening to them and decided that they needed to branch out East to avoid becoming the dying rust belt/farm land conference.

lash wrote:
Just reviewing all the investments the Big 12 schools are placing into football facilities and other areas of their sports programs, I do not at the moment have any reason to believe the Big 12 will not continue to be a major player for the long term in college big time sports.

The investments are long LONG overdue for many of the schools. Adding 10+ million to most of the AthDept's annual budgets also helps.

Primarily adding suites (>/=10% increase):
Kansas - Luxury Boxes/Modernization (pre50K-post55K)
Texas - End Zone Project/Modernization (pre 100K-post110K)
Oklahoma - End Zone Project/Modernization (pre80K-post85K)
TX Tech - End Zone Project (pre60K-post65K)

Not adding much:
Oklahoma St - None planned yet/rumors only (just did major upgrade in 2006/pre45K-post60K)
West Virginia - Team Areas, Concourse/Concessions (60K)

Major upgrades adding seats (<10% increase):
Iowa St - End Zone Project (pre55K-post65K)
Kansas St - Completely rebuilding stadium, multi-year project (pre50K-post60K)

Major upgrades, not adding seats:
TCU - Completely rebuilt stadium, multi-year project (pre45K-post45K)
Baylor - Brand New Stadium (old50K-new45K)

UT/OU/KU/TT/OSU/WVU are comfortable with their stadiums and are simply doing regular upgrades/maintenance to keep them up to date. These schools feel confident that they will be Power Conference schools in the future.

ISU/KSU/TCU/BU are trying to renovate their stadiums to keep up with most of the power conferences, they are less sure of their status in the new structure and want to do everything they can to make themselves more appealing so that UT/OU don't feel the need to leave them or if they do they want to be attractive to the other Big3 conferences. In Baylor/TCU and Houston/Tulane's case(40K/30K) case they've realized that while having a lower stadium capacity hurts them, its better to look good on TV with less empty seats than it is to have a quarter full 70K seat stadium like Rice/UAB.

My point is that, just because people are upgrading their stadiums does not guarantee that they'll be a P5 power. If the Texhoma 4 go West and KU/WVU abandon ship their P5 status doesn't survive just by picking up Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, NILL, BYU, CSU (if they get their stadium, if not Boise).

The Big 12's stability depends on 3-4 schools Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser degree Kansas/West Virginia.

If Texas decides to leave to conference's "Power" status is over. That being said Texas has a great setup with ESPN and the LHN (now on every major providers except DirectTV, who renegotiates the full ABC/ESPN/Disney contract in December where it will most likely get picked up, and Comcast, which is likely not happening anytime soon unless the merger with TWC somehow adds the LHN). They also have great exposure and money rolling in from the Tier 1/2 games on ABC/FOX which will likely keep up with the other P5s. The issue with Texas is mostly competition. Fans don't wants to spend a lot of money to drive from DFW, Houston, San Antonio to Austin every other Saturday to seen watch MOST of their Big 12 games, typically the home schedule has 1 good OOC game and maybe 2 good (not great) Big12 games. Moving to a bigger/better conference will not only help pads our stats (as round robin hurts conference rankings) and get us more ranked v ranked games but will also bring in more power schools that will drive ticket sales no matter how good/bad the teams are.

Oklahoma is the school, more so than Texas, that may spur the move to another conference. They are making less money than they should, and also suffer from the same issue as Texas in ticket sales and game attendance (people drive from all over OK, and even up of DFW). They almost jumped last time and I think the PAC12 won't turn them down come 2025 and OU/OSU are quietly making tons of academic upgrades in order to get OU close to AAU consideration and OSU into tier 1 research consideration.

Kansas will leave for the B1G or SEC, WVU will leave for SEC/ACC. These may not hurt (WVU is easily replaced if the rest remain, but KU could spur UT/OU to review their options).

tklamus, we are going to have to agree to disagree on a couple points in your post. No one can argue with the fact the Big 12 contract originally were negotiated with the University of Missouri which obviously helped with the St Louis market, however, ESPN and Fox could have easily reduced the contract with the realigned Big 12 renegotiated the new contact. The fact is the networks only wanted the necessary inventory that include 10 schools with 9 game schedule. I am sure these networks had a lot to do with the Big 12 decision to take West Virginia. It may surprise that West Virginia in the Phoenix market does very well in ratings and probably has as good or maybe better national following as the U of Missouri. The SEC picked Missouri over WVU because the state of Missouri has more cable homes and probably benefited the more regional SEC cable network.

Forbes Magazine usually takes into account current and future projections so I tend to have a lot of respect with Forbes when it comes to Money and projected wealth.

As for Oklahoma, it may come down to how well this school performs in the new playoff. I would assume some schools will receive more money based on performance similar to how the NCAA basketball revenue is shared by the individual conference.

Oklahoma would appear to have a better chance of making regular appearances in the playoffs in the Big 12 compared to the perceived more difficult SEC. This point could be disputed as Oklahoma fared much better in the old Big12 and Texas A&M has performed OK in the SEC. Regardless, the Big 12 appears to provide Oklahoma a much better path to the championship games.

I am guessing there will be more money made by one of the Five power conferences that actually make the four team playoff compared to a conference that regularly misses out or has a losing percentage once that conference school reaches the playoff.

I personally believe the playoff will have a lot to do with the image of conference and where a school will want to be associated in the future and not so much if that conference has a cable network.

If the Big 12 does well in the playoff era, I do not see the conference having instability issues which will help to keep any future ESPN and Fox contracts on par with any other league.

Any league that does not fare well in the playoff should be worried and concerned about it future since football has driven most conference realignment in the past decade. Football perception will be heavy influenced by how well any of the power leagues perform in this new system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
lash wrote:
ESPN and Fox could have easily reduced the contract with the realigned Big 12 renegotiated the new contact.

We're not too different beleive it or not. I think the Big 12 can be successful.

You just seem to downplay the money and the association angle (which I think is a mistake). Texas and Oklahoma will want more money and better schools (both athletic and academic) on the schedule...its pretty simple.

The only point in your post that I disagree with is what I quoted. They couldn't reduce the contract or Texas/Oklahoma were going to bolt for the PAC16 and then they would have to pay them even more money and ESPN would have lost UT's 3rd tier rights to Fox.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1541
An insider's tale:

R. Bowen Loftin, now Missouri Chancellor and former Texas A&M President, has a new book coming out pertaining to all the saga and political intrigue happening at the time Texas A&M decided to leave for the SEC and the related events that occurred beforehand and afterwards. The Texas actions and re-actions are generally predictable stuff, but some more revealing information about Baylor's interesting behavior. (Starr sent flowers at one point...what's with some of these guys in Texas sending out/receiving flowers to guys other than their wives, girlfriends, secretaries, and mothers?.....recall some years back some floral exchange (roses) between a former B12 Commish and a former BE Commish having to do with a congratulatory matter for holding tight about conference expansion/re-alignment; perhaps best leave flowers for birthdays, retirements, anniversaries, grief, get-well wishes, and related--not a moment in fighting-off conference expansion).
Here's a link. It will require a digital sign-up to read the full article, unless you view it from one's twitter account who's relayed the content. Also, the major San Antonio paper, has a certain related article.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/ ... 696871.php
(Aug. 18, 2014 - Brent Zwerneman - Houston Chronicle)

A University President who was instrumental in moving Texas A&M to the SEC and now is the Chancellor of a university (Mizzou) who also moved to the same conference at nearly the same time; perhaps another reason for Delany to not waste a phone call during more look-arounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:40 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
Going back a few pages I was explaining why Houston will not be invited to the Big12 while Texas is still in it, and why Texas has essentially banned UH from their schedule.

Most of it revolved around a seating issue but I couldn't find pictures or the story...until now. Take a look if you're interested.

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthr ... ost7041183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1078
tkalmus wrote:
Going back a few pages I was explaining why Houston will not be invited to the Big12 while Texas is still in it, and why Texas has essentially banned UH from their schedule.

Most of it revolved around a seating issue but I couldn't find pictures or the story...until now. Take a look if you're interested.

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthr ... ost7041183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ew. Yeah, that'll do it.

I agree that Houston's chances of Big XII membership only become legitimate once the Longhorns are out of it, but Houston's one of those schools "the establishment" need to worry about. Houston was/is a commuter school and thrived on a non-traditional base. As higher education is beginning to take the hit to enrollment, schools like Houston boom because the new flow of students fit with what Houston always had going for it. It's schools like Texas and A&M that had to change its ways to find a way to tap into that population. While Houston isn't likely stealing students from Austin or College Station, they're getting kids that went to any number of other choices. So, Houston's growing...nearly 40K...schools that big and can play the major sports game...you don't want to keep them down, even if historically, under someone else's foot was where you could usually find them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 205, 206, 207, 208, 209

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 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