Sec03, it is sometimes difficult to look back with comparison of directions that conference take in expansion because decisions with expansion occurs for many reasons and those goals change and the same situation that may have provoked expansion at that time have totally changed in today thinking. It may help with the spin factor to prove our point however are not always accurate to just refer to what happened in the past and assume the same situation exist today or would occur in the same manner today.

For example, the Pac 12 is not going to expand to 16 and that ship has sailed. Many Pac 10 schools did not want to expand at all and the idea of possibly becoming a super conference with Texas and Oklahoma actually helped the new Pac 10 Commissioner gain traction to actually get the conference to consider expansion. I believe if the new Pac 10 Commissioner just had a goal of expanding to 12 schools and taking Colorado and Utah would have never got off the ground. That option was always there for the taking and until the possibility of a Pac 16 got everyone in the west finally interested with expansion, the Pac 10 finally settled on 12 schools. This idea was not considered until the Pac 16 idea was floated around. I know because I live and follow the Pac 12 very closely. There were always the rumors of Pac 10 expanding to 12 however they did not come from inside the Pac 10 until the new commissioner proposed the Pac 16 idea which got everyone finally interested in expansion.

Otherwise 10 schools were working great for Pac 10 round robin football and basketball and the California schools did not have to worry about ensuring each school would get to play each other every year in football. University of Washington is not very happy to miss out on playing in LA every year in this new 12 league model. It impacts requiting in a negative way.

The alliance with the Pac 12 and Big Ten is more in line with the new thinking of how to manage the larger conferences without trying to become a 16 super type league where 14 or 16 member bloated conferences cause all kinds of scheduling issues. The SEC is prime example by having Missouri play in the east division. Missouri may provide the SEC some TV households it surly going to cause major headaches in scheduling issues. These issues will not go away and the Big East with 16 basketball school is proof of the constant grumbling of unfairness with these oversized bloated leagues. Enjoy the extra cash SEC because you will need it to pay for headache pain relievers over the next few years.

Another example of changes in situations is Texas could not join the ACC if it wanted to do that in today situation because of the signing off of the tier rights for TV. While I am not sure Texas actually approached the ACC or the ACC approached Texas about membership, it was before the tier rights were singed which basically changed the Big 12 overnight to a much more stable league. Had the Tier rights signing occurred more early in the process, I am not sure Colorado would have jumped so quickly to the Pac 12.

Back to the ACC.

Why do ACC guys jump on other threads and no one post on ACC threads of ACC benefits if the ACC is so wonderful and secure?

I am not one that gives the ACC a free ride simple because everyone on the board apparently likes the ACC for some reason. I likewise do not give the Pac 12 a free ride especially in basketball. Right now they stink in basketball and the ACC stinks in football.

With the Big East most likely finally being pushed out of the BCS club by AQ changing the BCS format, someone is going to have to be the new whipping boy.

Unfairly the Big East took many hits over the years with BCS when in fact and it is a fact the Big East was actually better performance compared to the ACC. The BCS is the measuring stick for college conference SOS.

This unfair treatment of the Big East reflected in the media perception, talking heads on TV, and ability to negotiate TV contracts were likewise impacted by this negative press or exposure.

I will say this if the ACC and Big 12 continue to perform the same type of football success over the next few years, the Big 12 will be the much more desired league for any school wanting to play with the big boys of college football.

The ACC is on the clock to improve in football and they best step up in the next few years or could be very vulnerable to future raids including raids by the Big 12.

The ACC's real problem is that there is a "cultural identity" issue within it. This was how USC came to leave it and GT came to it. FSU and Miami have often toyed with the SEC, whether administratively (to which, I think UMFL turned down the SEC and FSU was blocked by UF) or by fan identity. But in the "Big East acquisition," the additions of UMFL, BC, and VT (which was to have been 'Cuse) came by way of the clout in NC, fracturing and isolating some of the southern members by leaving them at the mercy of recruiting against the SEC while expecting to compete by recruiting outside of its geographic footprint in the North Atlantic, against northern ACC schools, the remaining eastern Big East programs, and the Big Ten.

The issue with any of those ACC schools suffering from wanderlust? Visability in the SEC. Viability in the B12 or B1G. The ACC can (and will) survive without FSU, VT, GT, or Clemson. Adding programs like UConn, Rutgers, Cincy...they'll find similarly-minded programs to the NC-northward schools that really want to be in the ACC, care about football, but understand other sports' importance to their identity.

For the B12, this is about BYU, UL, and AFA. BYU may be playing "tough to get" because they were supposed to be members of the Pac back in 1978 and the B12 back in the 90's before CA and TX academically political and governmental interference took them out. BYU's exclusion is said to be what fractured Colorado's relationship to their old conference. There's history there. There's also history with AFA, and the email leak only shows that those within the power seats in the B12 (OU and TX) still crush on the fly-boys. To me, BYU and AFA are what the B12 want. UL and either UC or USF is what they'll get. Or another TX school (ahem, Rice).

Good discussion.

In the around '90 era days, near the time right after Ark. was added to the SEC, and later SC; FSU and Miami were approached by then, SEC Commish Kramer. FSU had an ACC invitation at the time, and school, including the faculty, opted for the ACC. Some claimed it was an easier path to championships, or they preferred the ACC academic profiles. In the case of Miami, the contact showed too great of a divide. Rumors had Miami having an arrogant stance, but call it Miami was less interested and took the BE route for certain reasons. At the time, the SEC saw Miami's Title IX sports for the SEC as lacking, and their top to bottom sports not highly consistent with SEC offerings at the time.

As to the ACC, Swofford and company have intended to have a conference along the entire east coast, moving away further from the middle atlantic foundation. Clemson, GT, and FSU were proponents of expansion, which was absorbing certain former BE schools. If some of the deep south ACC schools do ultimately leave, it's not by design. With TV tycoons at play for the future, who knows what changes may happen.

Cutter, agree largely on your list of prospects for the future Big12. A couple may not ultimately work out; and one or so, the B12 may pass on. If the BCS really goes, it shall impact in certain ways per choices or whether or not to expand.

Lash, I agree about the 16 member, mega conference stuff. I believe the big conferences are resisting it, and indeed, scheduling is at the core, along with assessing the value of doing so. The playoff model that Delany, Slive, and company may come up with, might be huge in defining the direction expansion takes.

UMFL's administration saw itself as an ACC school. The man they tapped to direct the athletics early on in the 80's made it known that's where they saw themselves and wanted to be. I don't doubt those SEC talks were spicy, as Miami didn't sit in the seat of power at that time and the SEC had no problem reminding the little rising star of a diva of their place, just as Miami had no problem calling the SEC people out as rubes and rednecks. There was a lot of pressure on the ACC to expand even before they eventually tapped FSU. When the Penn State/Big Ten talks publicly surfaced, out came the crazy, and the rest is history.

With BYU and the B12, this squabble is about identity. TX and OU want a compliant "underling." BYU will not (and should not) conform. If the B12 can't sink the put on BYU this time, they never will as a conference with this configuration.

I'm back to defend my alma mater...for the nth time. I don't understand how an internal disagreement between the Big 12 members on whether or not to expand to 11 or 12 and divide the revenue pie so to speak (which is not a TX/OU problem, they gave up more money by adopting equal revenue sharing than anyone else will give up by adding another member or two) and whether or not to restart the CCG (which TX and OU are against since they play in it the most but schools like ISU/BU want since it means more money and will rarely impact them) and how to do the divisions (the TX/OK schools especially UT/OU want to stay together but everyone else wants them split up) and who's the best choice for 11 (Lville or BYU) or 12 (the other one, Cinncy to go with Lville/WVU in the Eastern wing, or a Western/TX school like Boise/Houston to make divisions easy with BYU) is TX and OU wanting another "underling". That's 2 votes out of 10 which can't block anything, TCU was added to the conference with a unanimous official vote, but according to "my guy" Chip Brown the unofficial vote which need 3/4th majority was exactly 3/4ths with TX and BU voting no.

BYU to the Big 12 is extremely complex, they want/wanted a ton of leeway with the TV rights including rebroadcast rights of all BYU games (home and away) and the no sports on Sundays thing is still a big issue (Big 12 Championships track/swim/baseball/basketball/tennis/golf take place over 2-3 days and often fall on Fri Sat AND Sun) and that doesn't even mention the fact that travel cost will go up for everyone since they are not close to any current conference members and the Big 12 just added West Virginia who is on the complete other side of the country.

IF the Big 12 decides to expand to 11/12 and that the no sports on Sundays thing isn't a deal breaker, and BYU takes the same TV deal that the LHN, OU Regional, and KU basketball deal gets, then it still wouldn't be a slam dunk/no brainer that BYU is the best candidate for the Big 12.

I get the whole heavy is the crown thing but sometimes the mindless TX bashing is so uncalled for.

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

I agree with you in regards to the original post being a BYU related post. BYU passed on the Big 12, not due to any Big 12 issues, but because they wanted to have full control over their finances. Sure, the Big 12 money might be better, but one can't blame BYU for wanting to stick to the indy plan for at least a few years to see how it works out. With the agreements on Tier 3 broadcast rights, maybe BYU would be more comfortable now, able to use BYU TV for themselves.

At this point, BYU will just have to wait it out to see what the final plan is for the BCS. If it goes to a 6 school +1 with Rose (B10 vs P12), SEC vs opponent, ACC or B12 vs opponent...then it's a different game. At this point, based on the membership losses, I'm still thinking that the Power 5 will find a way to push the Big East out, since without Pitt, Syracuse and WVU, the Big East is now comprised of almost entirely CUSA schools, 2 MWC schools, 1 MAC school, 1 FCS upgrade in Uconn and only ONE former BCS level school, Rutgers, who just lost the coach got the program out of it's longtime spot as worst in the Big East (excluding Temple who was kicked out).

If that's the case, and they go with the 6 school, 3 game model with the top 2 playing, BYU will always be left out. Always. They'd have to be undefeated to buck that trend. But if they join the Big 12 with Louisville, and you have Oklahoma and Texas split in different divisions, BYU can make the Big 12 title game with a win sending them to the +1 first rounds. Best part is, it doesn't have to be sexy: they could have 2 losses but win the division, beat Texas in the B12 championship, and they MIGHT advance to the FBS Championship Game (+1) if the balls bounce the right way. In a 0-1 loss year, they'd be a near lock to make that final.

It's not THAT much different than things are now, but it is a minor boost to their chances.

On the other side, if the Big East is included, which seems unlikely, since it means not a single 2nd school from the SEC or Big Ten, who tend to get 2 BCS bids now some years, then BYU could slot into that conference.


On paper, it still makes sense: Big 12 adds UL in the east, BYU in the west.

But it's not Texas' fault BYU passed on the Big 12. Pretty shocking when you think of it, where any CUSA, MWC, WAc, SB, MAC, Big East school would join the Big 12 in a second, yet BYU passed.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I still think BYU to any major conference is not going to happen unless Salt Lake changes their thinking on a number of issues. They are just not that big enough of a draw to warrant the current headaches.

Indeed, with the Sunday issue being the biggest. If the Big 12 can get a better TV contract by having a network move the basketball championship to Sunday, or if the network wants to move some football games to Sunday for any reason, then BYU would have to give in. The basketball side is easy: I'm sure an agreement could be in place that if BYU made the final, the game would be moved to Saturdays, but BYU would have to be willing to cover any financial losses for the conference.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Unless your name is Notre Dame (and maybe even if it is) you can forget BCS inclusion as an independent. Holmoe and Willingham know that, but do they carry enough clout to pursue Big 12 membership?

It is more than the basketball finals - it is other sports as well. The no Sunday rule is just a big, continual headache that will never go away.

For a school like Notre Dame (if they had that rule), it would be worth it. For BYU, nope.

Can we all please stop putting BYU on a pedestal because the school went independent. This was not by choice because it will be a cold day in your know where before any religous affiliated school ever get admitted to the liberal Pac 12. This was BYU true hope of remaining with Utah and that ship has long sailed.

BYU has not where to go except possibly to the far flung and what has become a joke of football conference the new Big East.

BYU is not and never will be “the Notre Dame of the west”.

Speaking of Notre Dame, unless Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, maybe Texas and Oklahoma are getting it right if they are in fact pushing to keep the Big 12 at 10 members.

If the Pac 12 could turn back the clock, maybe they would be at 10 today and just as well off in the process and BYU would have Utah in the MWC.

Can we give Utah and Colorado back to the their old leagues? Or better stated replace both with say Texas and Oklahoma. Oh well guess not!

I personally have always preferred a 10 member league and is much better aligned that any of this so called larger conferences with 12 and especially a ridiculous 14 bloated membership size. Is everyone just trying to recreate the same issues the Big East created which by the way did not have a choice in the matter. The SEC and especially the ACC actually had a choice and yet expanded to an unwieldy size anyway.

With that said the only other option that could be a real compromise for everyone and that the Big 12 expand to 11 members and just take Louisville.

By expanding to 11, the Big 12 would appear or could market the fact it is waiting on a decision from Notre Dame too join a league. Regardless if this is an actual true statement.

The Big 12 could avoid the messing issues that always appears to follow just about every conference with a conference championship game in football.. The Pac 12 may have taken the CCG to a new low level this year by having UCLA play in the title game. We all have seen the empty stadium of the ACC until this year when the CCG was moved to Charlotte. What happens when Miami and FSU are back in football, will the game move back to Jacksonville.

We all can ‘t forget about the wonderful rematch Big 10 CCG that just could not live up to the regular season matchup. Does anyone think Michigan State should have got to go to the Rose Bowl anyway regardless of the CCG results?

Finally how about that mighty SEC game that should have actually had a rematch in SEC CCG of LSU and Alabama and saved all of us national college football fans having to watch an SEC rematch in the BCS title game determined by the coaches voting poll.

Yup those made for TV college football championship games are sure living up to their billing. Can we please have more of them including the Big East far flung idea coast to coast just to play one.

Hey Big 12, maybe keeping at 10 is a good thing or if you want to expand, do us all a favor a stop at 11 with Louisville and spare us all another CCG.

Thank you Big 12.

I drew out a Longhorn apologist! Squeeeeeeee!!

BYU wants to sit at the B12 table in the same kind of chairs as Texas and Oklahoma, both of which needlessly almost killed an entire conference rich with tradition out of ugly old greed. I don't sit on BYU's side. I just get a kick out of the thought of three very high-maintenance programs sitting down and discussing deals when one doesn't have full permission to talk out of turn. BYU and the B12 is a match made in heaven, or hell, whichever. I can't stand the personalities, but I think it will make for a better conference, and an upgrade from TAMU (no joke).

I do wonder how that rumor about Tulane got kicked up some time back. Are/were there actual talks between the conference and this school, or is this more of a logical guess based on the possibility that UL and Cincy would feel better protected keeping their programs in the east rather than the heartland, and Tulane's past as a former "have" sitting in NOLA?

lash, BYU passed on the Big 12. They had somewhere else to go other than the Big East or remain Indy. They chose Indy over the big east.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3kosz3

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I am not a fan of re-matches, but LSU and 'Bama were the two best teams last year using traditional criteria. The pollsters got it right even if both were from the same division of the same conference. By the sytem, which does have its controversy, such shall happen at times, but not all the time.

So, if a revised playoff model is going to guarantee at least one entry for every elite conference (be it 4 or 5 conferences), then rankings and placement could still be compromised certain years. Hypothetically, what if a given year, Alabama, LSU, and Florida are ranked 1, 2, & 3 in polls?
Which takes us back to the question of equivalence in numbers, if the conference champion is placed for all elite conferences in a playoff. When the BE had 8 fb members, and others as many as 12 for the BCS system, that did not settle well with many.

If the B12 is not going to have a CCG to determine their league champion, that's their choice, and to many, depleting a major obstacle in the process.

The question is criteria. Either use the polls cleanly even if political favorites remain at play; or try to have the processes of getting there as similar and consistent as possible, recognizing strengths of conferences vary, as well as strengths of schedules.

I don't see a perfect way. Changes are reactionary, often to resolve last year's problems only to create new ones. And, as long as playoffs and bowls are sought together, with given certain bowl alliances, controversy shall not stop. And, the system has to promise Notre Dame their own unique avenue with a promised slice of the pie even when they don't go.
Rather than a true national champion, perhaps shoot for a Champion of the Big Conferences that have found a way to reach it with consistent and objective criteria. The system is way off from reaching that.

OK, my bad.....wrong thread....but did reference the B12.

B12 title game was moved to Sat. night a few years ago. I don't think Sun play is that big a deal, or they wouldn't have talked, Texas and the 9 know that there's no way that BYU would cave on Sun. play, yet they were still talkinga bout them joining. They wanted all the perks of their longhorn network(BYUtv) and to keep extra money to themselves.

Tk, it's still all texas' fault

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]