We can officially close out all these FSU/Big 12 discussions I would hope:

Here's the Orlando Sentinel link on FSU AD shooting down #Big12 rumors (via @Matt_HayesSN)

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... dy-spetman

_________________


@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.

Just like I was told a week ago that Boise would never, ever consider not joining the Big East, and talk about that was stupid?

It's reasons that can seem illogical, not an actual move. If someone laid out the economic gains of Boise St. returning to the MWC and being able to hypothetically negotiate their own Tier 3 rights with a network like ESPN to generate more money for themselves than they would in the Big East, then it's a point. But if someone just throws something out there with no support, no rationale other than "the Big East is too far away", or "what about their non-revenue sports", etc, then it's lacking any logic.

If Boise St. could make the same money in the MWC, with the same chances for a "playoff spot" than in the Big East, then it's worth it. If they can't get that money in the long run, then remaining in the MWC is a colossal mistake. Colossal.

_________________


@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.

No - I made the case why economically it was not good for Boise. The added expenses of non-Football sports. That the Big East contract wouldn't make enough money to make it worthwhile.

I was told that there was no way in heck that Boise wouldn't make enough to make it worth while.

Who knows, Boise could still go to the Big East. But it is not a slam dunk like people think it is.


And in related news, GMU in staying in the CAA, something I was ridiculed for saying was possible. Dollars and cents are important, but not the be all end all. It is about improving the situation for all sports, and the academics as well.

That's the point: Boise St. in the Big East makes MORE money for the school to cover the non-football travel costs for basketball and the money-losing sports. A lot more. MWC schools made $1.33 million WITH the strong schools (who have all left). Big East schools make only about $4 million now, but even with the new Big East contract not going to equal the $1.4 billion, the worst case scenario for the Big East is STILL and expected minimum of $7 million per school for football.

So when people claim that being in the Big East will cost Boise St. more money are incorrect. Because as we know, travel costs aren't going to cost $5-6 million extra for Boise St.

_________________


@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 wouldn't assume the Big East is going to get that much.

And again, it is not ALL about the money - there are other considerations as well.

I agree. The Big East football money would have given some added revenue, but in an atmosphere where associate membership isn't taken all that fondly, it does put BSU's ollies in a precarious spot. Not that the Mountain West was ideal: it stretched from San Diego to Ft. Worth this past year, and Boise the northern point, but the Mountain West name itself helped in recruiting.

We don't do much justice to this whole thing thinking in a way that other programs and conferences are dumb and aren't aware of all the circumstances. If Boise State is calling your conference about its track and field, it's not because they want to be there more than anything or will be a reliable long-term member. It's not like Boise State wasn't told this could happen if they hopscotched around. They gambled...and it looks like they may lose.

When Chip Brown says it, people listen based on his Big 12/SEC/Pac-16 reporting, which was excellent.

However, the important thing to remember is that this is an OPINION PIECE by him. It sounds really good because he gets it and has all the logic and facts behind why it's smart.

But "Why it's smart" doesn't mean there's any real-world discussions going on about it. (I could write something ridiculously similar on Notre Dame joining a conference, how they could make it work, and why it's financially better for them; Ditto I could write about a East Coast non-FBS conference summit designed to maximize NCAA bids and revenue for five conferences by creating one more and realigning. But it's fantasy).

However, that doesn't mean that someone at FSU isn't reading it, nodding slowly, printing it out and handing it to the president and AD saying "This is what I've been trying to tell you!"



Then there's that. Yeah, that's what I meant.



In other news, the earth continues to revolve around the sun!



I don't put much stock in any denial from anyone. There's really nothing you can say in this if you're an AD/Commish.

If you deny it, there could be truth in the denial (Butler denied reports about talks with the A-10. They were truthful in what they said -- "We haven't been in negotiations with the A-10." But it didn't mean they weren't going to the A-10 very soon).

Staying, going, trying to go but not far enough in the process, not interested in going, had no discussions... the answer is the same no matter what.

The fact is, there's really three things an AD/Commish can say about expansion/realignment:
"That report isn't true" - may mean the report is a bunch of crap, but it also may mean the report BECOMES true later.
"No Comment" - The report is going to come true, or "we want the report to come true."
"Yes, that's correct" - probably puts the negotiations in jeopardy, which is why no one ever says it.

None of those ultimately mean ANYTHING regarding the validity of realignment rumors. Conference realignment reporting on what AD's/Presidents/Commissioner's say is a lot like poker on TV only with reporters trying to do the work of the little rail cameras. No one is going to say "Well, we're going for the straight, but we don't have it yet. We'll see how it turns out" because the other guy can hear it and out-maneuver them.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

I don't know when it became fashionable to operate like a silo, independent of anything other than itself, but unfortunately, it's popular. It's also made us all look like fools.

It's also goofy of us to assume presidents, ADs, and BoR members don't look at these things in great detail over large periods of time. I know I'd like to think myself a knowledgeable armchair quarterback, I'm still an armchair quarterback. Yes, I feel more intelligent than Big East officials based from what I've read over the years, but that's my hubris and folly. I'd actually be quite nauseous at the idea that an AD would see this post. I'd be gagging if they printed this, ran to their president or closest board member and said "look at this!"

I wouldn't trust an official from a private institution. They don't answer to a tax payer. But when someone from a fully-funded public institution comes out and says "we're committed," take them for their word. It's good enough for me.

Let's put the FSU stuff to rest. Look, they're going to the SEC.

I don't see the difference between public and private. "We're committed" means "we're committed to the conference we are in, until such time as we're not in this conference anymore, then we'll be committed to a new conference." Which is blatantly obvious.

Situation changes (sometimes hourly) and there's heavy politics involved with what you say. You can't say you're looking or want in somewhere. There's a PR hit if you do.

How does ECU look openly campaigning for Big East membership? Like they're unwanted.
How did Pacific look campaigning for WCC membership in private and getting rejected dozens of time in private? They suffered no PR hit (besides the usual PR hit of being a Big West member).

You don't come out and say anything of any significance until you're calling up people and saying "hey, we're having a big press conference tomorrow."

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

It worked for A&M SECede thingy.

_________________

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]

Not all conferences approach expansion the same way. Not all schools react the same way when pondering expansion options.

The SEC was pretty open during '90 expansion and more recently. Their message to those coming in:

We are interested in having you. It's been discussed with each of our members. The votes are there. A formal invitation shall be extended when you are in the legal and financial clear with your current conference/circumstances as to your departure. The SEC will not be a party to your obligations in your declaration to leave.
Once you are free to leave, and your formal application is thus submitted and voted on, then, welcome aboard!

We saw how long it took A&M and Missouri to move, and what they had to do to move (committees to explore options, board meetings, meetings to instill authority to presidents, etc.), ALL PUBLICLY. In one year, TCU moved twice. What did they have to publicly say? Zip.

It's the same for SMU. Over the last couple of years, you saw this large mint being dumped on their athletics, but nowhere to go. Then they were gone to the Big East. Maybe the most we got from SMU was that ESPN rumor or "we'd like it if we were asked," but nothing like "it is our goal to become a member of ..." Houston, on the other hand, in a similar position, openly lobbied for betterment. State officials openly lobbied the Big XII to take them! BIG difference.

I think this is what fuels my speculation regarding Rice and Tulane. Monetary and public commitments to sports and renovations without reasoning behind it. Why? Maybe we'll know by summer's end.

Not so fast my friend,

FSU blog article with comments from FSU BOT Chairman regarding "possibility" of FSU exploring future Big 12 invite if it results in more revenue.Link at http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1364755

Tough to compare the SEC 90s expansion when we were reading the papers then (and reading one AP story when it was done) compared to scouring the internet for local papers, bloggers, and getting constant, minute-by-minute updates on twitter now.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942