New Big 12 Super Conference
- Thread starter ljhlax
- Start date
True about UNLV fans in football, but joining a bcs conference would give them a chance to upgrade their football program and should create more interest. But I really want a non-Texas team to be added that we can beat plus a good excuse for more trips to Vegas.
Intersting enough but the state of Nevada has a smaller population that Iowa. So does Utah. Of course, those states are growing but I never realized that until I just looked. It is really intersting to view population and growth. West Virginia is actually half the size of Iowa
You're kidding, right?
First, UNLV's basketball history is from 25-30 years ago, and much of that history has been tainted by NCAA violations. The only reason UNLV has been "relevant" lately has been because of Lon Kruger, a guy who isn't even coaching there anymore.
Second, if I've heard correctly, UNLV's academics make OSU and K-State look like B1G members.
Third, you keep forgetting that conference realignment is FOOTBALL DRIVEN. Basketball has virtually no influence - otherwise conferences would be lining up at KU's doorstep, which isn't happening. And while Las Vegas might be a decent market, the state of Nevada not only doesn't have a lot of TVs but isn't necessarily aligned with UNLV, either.
Basically, adding UNLV is akin to adding Memphis, which is never going to happen either.
I know some have called my thoughts laughable, but I find it laughable that people think ND is a possibility. It isn't, they've said it isn't and it doesn't make any sense with history and tradition of the school. Has anyone looked at Notre Dame's traditional schedule. How many Big 12 teams are on it? I don't know, maybe because I'm Catholic and I've been to a number of ND games over the years, but there is no way in hell it is going to happen. Oh, did I mention I'm an hour from the University and no one, I mean NO ONE around here thinks it is a possibility, let alone a good idea. Mich. Mich St. and Purdue are on NDs slate every year. Then they have the military games, BC and USC every year. So how do they fit any of those games into their schedule joining the Big 12. It makes worse sense for them to join the Big 12 than it does for Texas to want SMU, TCU or Houston to join the Big 12. BYU quickly found out the Independent money was better than anything they got previously and the Pac 12 thing wasn't happening for them. When they see Big 12 money, they are the most likely candidate. That brings us to 10. UNLV, I've repeated over and over - it doesn't make much sense on paper, but the reality of them in the Big 12 for their school and the fan base of schools in the Big 12 would far exceed what paper can predict. I know it. I've done it and I know tons of friends who have made the trip as well, and it make for a fun, low risk, low cost addition to the Big 12. So maybe I've thought too much of the possibility of SMU, Houston or TCU, but I think ONE has to come if expansion happens, if not two. Air Force to me is the most solid choice all around. Good tradition, good athletics, good academics, its a patriotic choice, and I know it is hard to see, but there are a lot of people all over the Great Plains and Mountain Region that love to watch Air Force. It is just hard because they live in places like the Dakotas, Montana, Utah and Nevada, but there is also a huge chunk already in Big 12 Country. Ask them if they would enjoy Air Force being in the Big 12 and I think you would get a clearer picture.
The other thing that shocks me is this Big East / Big 12 Merge. That just isn't happening. The Big East, ACC, and SEC would form 2 Super Conferences before the Big 12 could ever attract a Big East merge. It is written all over the schedules of the teams. Find me a traditional rivalry in the Big East with a Big 12 school. The Pitt scenario then is just as laughable as Notre Dame scenario. Pitt has traditional Rivalries with Big 10 schools, not anyone in the Big 12. I'm pretty sure they've played Iowa more times than anyone in the Big 12. So I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blinded by being too close and maybe I'm naive as to what the landscape is like west of Iowa or in the small communities of Texas, but I'll stick with my thoughts.
It isn't like I was postin what I would personally like to have happen. If I did that, ISU, Missouri, Notre Dame and Pitt would be in the Big 10. Then I could watch my favorite teams. I'd have a chance to see ISU play in person more than once a year, and my fantasies would be complete. The only problem is, that hasn't been my reality, but I do think the 16 team Big 12 Super Conference could and should be a reality if College Football is going to take a step into the realm of Super Conferences. I just have to ask it. If the country was given only 4, 16 to 20 team Super Conferences, do you honestly think ISU would be one of those 64 to 80 teams. With my ISU blinders off, I can't see us in the top 64 at all. I can see us find our way in the top 80, but it is a scary thought if we wind up 81 or 82 which is very likely. What benefits ISU is if College Football goes to Super Conferences, there are 6 of them and 96 teams. That means sucking it up a little and accepting Boise State like Academics, SMU like Program history (both good and bad), and UNLV like Attendance. If the National Powers are willing to all find their little brothers they might enjoy beating up on and bring them into the mix of their Super Conference, it doesn't stagnate the future of many mid-major programs, gives up and coming powers a chance to prove their worth, and give National Powers the chance to subtly pad their win column so they are still achieving their ultimate goal of a Nat'l Championship.
The other thing that shocks me is this Big East / Big 12 Merge. That just isn't happening. The Big East, ACC, and SEC would form 2 Super Conferences before the Big 12 could ever attract a Big East merge. It is written all over the schedules of the teams. Find me a traditional rivalry in the Big East with a Big 12 school. The Pitt scenario then is just as laughable as Notre Dame scenario. Pitt has traditional Rivalries with Big 10 schools, not anyone in the Big 12. I'm pretty sure they've played Iowa more times than anyone in the Big 12. So I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blinded by being too close and maybe I'm naive as to what the landscape is like west of Iowa or in the small communities of Texas, but I'll stick with my thoughts.
It isn't like I was postin what I would personally like to have happen. If I did that, ISU, Missouri, Notre Dame and Pitt would be in the Big 10. Then I could watch my favorite teams. I'd have a chance to see ISU play in person more than once a year, and my fantasies would be complete. The only problem is, that hasn't been my reality, but I do think the 16 team Big 12 Super Conference could and should be a reality if College Football is going to take a step into the realm of Super Conferences. I just have to ask it. If the country was given only 4, 16 to 20 team Super Conferences, do you honestly think ISU would be one of those 64 to 80 teams. With my ISU blinders off, I can't see us in the top 64 at all. I can see us find our way in the top 80, but it is a scary thought if we wind up 81 or 82 which is very likely. What benefits ISU is if College Football goes to Super Conferences, there are 6 of them and 96 teams. That means sucking it up a little and accepting Boise State like Academics, SMU like Program history (both good and bad), and UNLV like Attendance. If the National Powers are willing to all find their little brothers they might enjoy beating up on and bring them into the mix of their Super Conference, it doesn't stagnate the future of many mid-major programs, gives up and coming powers a chance to prove their worth, and give National Powers the chance to subtly pad their win column so they are still achieving their ultimate goal of a Nat'l Championship.
Rivalries don't mean squat. How many Big 10 teams did Nebraska have on their schedule? a$m recently got Arkansas back on their schedule but prior to that hadn't played since the Big 12 was formed and have only plaed 4 SEC temas in tha last 10 years with two of those games coming in bowls. How about CU? Do they have rivalries with the PAC 10?
Rivalries don't mean anything at all. The reason Big East/Big 12 merge makes sense is because it is how those two conferences survive.
And yes, with my blinders off and looking objectively I do see ISU in the top 64. And if they are not then why on earth would ISU vote to give SMU/Air Force/UNLV/Houston BCS status? That would just move those schools up on the pecking order. Are you saying we should invite SMU then three years later after SMU has established itself as a BCS program, who do you think looks better to a BCS conference trying to poach the Big 12.
Last edited:
By adding a bunch of teams that are currently not in a AQ conference you are watering down the conference and begging The schools with value to GTFO. Texas, OU & MU would be out so quick and OSU would grab OU and Tech would grab Texas and try to go with them. What you have basically done is taken the rest of us and put us in the Mountain West Conference. Nice.
It would help if you actually could back your statements up with facts. Nebraska has played Illinois 10 times, Indiana 19 times, Iowa 41 times, Michigan 6 times, Mich St 5 times, Minnesota 51 times, Penn State 13 times. Not all constitute as rivalries, but located soundly in the Geographic region with over 100 games I think makes sense for Nebraska since a couple of the Big 10, YES, are traditional rivals.
As for Colorado, Washington in 2000, Oregon in 2001, Southern Cal and UCLA in 2002, UCLA and Washington State in 2003, Washington State in 2004, Arizona State in 2006, Arizona State in 2007, Washington State in 2008 and California in 2010. I think that is pretty solid for Rivalries the past ten year. They've shown a commitment to travel West. They also played Fresno, Eastern Washington, Hawaii, and a number of other Western schools during that era. Geographically, the move to the Pac 12 made sense. They can keep the rivalry game with CSU and they gain a good potential rival in Utah.
I think aTm and Arkansas playing almost 70 games constitutes a pretty solid rivalry, and if asked I would say well above a majority of aTm fans would rather travel to LSU, Bama, Ole Miss for a game than KU, KSU or ISU anyday.
The logic is pretty simple, we expand the concept of BCS calliber to include SMU, Air Force, UNLV and Houston so that we are on solid footing. I will say it, even though it pains me and I know it will look better 10 years from now, but we are a top 64 Football program bubble team. We are NOT a top 96 Football program bubble team. Why should we take the risk when we can be proactive and advocate for a larger (and in my opinion, better) college football landscape? I'm tired of hearing how Boise St. TCU or Utah can beat any college football team on any given Saturday, but they can't survive the gauntlet of major conferences week in and week out. At least the Pac 12 gave Utah the chance to prove it. Why can't the Big 12 be a part of giving Houston, TCU, Boise State, and Air Force that chance?
Why would they GTFO when they know they have competition they can beat, they would be the first Football Super Conference and could secure a lucrative TV deal, would still be relevant nationally because of the traditions of their programs, and still be able to compete on a National Championship level (probably more easily than if they moved East or West into an already stacked conference)? When other conferences start following suit with Super Conferences they would be in a position of power to pick up stragglers that would be upgrades from the smaller schools that may not have made it very well in the Super Conference. My guess is either Houston or SMU would end up a doormat and either UNLV, Air Force or Boise State would be in the same boat. That means when things rearrange out west, we might pick up an Arizona or Arizona State, or we might get Arkansas if things go "super" East in the SEC and ACC.
Proactive means taking some chances. Some of it is going to have risk, but it could also have a lot of reward.
It's not a super conference just because you threw 16 teams together. If so, then the WAC already had a super conference and it failed. You added a bunch of teams that are currently in much smaller conferences now. That makes the conference weaker not better. You really think Texas and OU want to share the TV money with a bunch of teams you added that will not increase the amount of money that they are currently receiving?
Texas has a couple of choices. Piece together the Big 12 and hope that MU or OU don't decide they are ready to go somewhere else. Join a real future super conference (PAC, BIG, SEC). Form their own conference with ND and handpick who they want out of the Big East and Big 12.
Texas has a couple of choices. Piece together the Big 12 and hope that MU or OU don't decide they are ready to go somewhere else. Join a real future super conference (PAC, BIG, SEC). Form their own conference with ND and handpick who they want out of the Big East and Big 12.
Last edited:
You aren't saying anything proactive. Your scenario is based on pure stupidity.
Most of the teams you mentioned aren't going to add squat in revenue. Now, would Texas, OU, hell, even Iowa State want $200 million divided 10 ways, or would they want $220 million divided 16 ways.
Sorry jdoggivjc, not kidding. I didn't say I'd add UNLV as a 10th team, but would consider them if we wanted to add 3 to get to 12. Texas isn't going to go for another Texas team, and I really don't think the other conference teams would either since that would make recruiting in Texas even more competetive for Big 12 schools. I'd like to see it but realistically do you think Pitt or WVU would join the Big 12? Doesn't make much geographic sense for them or their fans to travel that far that often. I think a lot of the conference schools would like to see us back to 12 teams and two divisions, and a conference title game. I think UNLV could improve their football program very easily in the Big 12, and Big 12 fans would travel in droves to UNLV to boost their attendance. Just who would you suggest outside of Texas schools that makes geographic sense besides BYU, UNLV, Boise State and Air Force. Of those 4 I'd elimiinate Boise State
Just out of curiousity did having all four Texas teams help or hurt ISU recruiting in Texas? As I recall, we can now solidly say, if you come to ISU, you are guaranteed two games in Texas. Having Houston and TCU could potentially increase the recruiting out of Texas, not hurt it, and the last time I checked, Texas wasn't hurting on talent coming from the state. A couple more Texas schools would just mean the kids in the state would probably be MORE likely to stay in the Big 12 because their families can see them play, the Conference is still very much relevant and there are more choices of schools in the Conference to go to instead of leaping over to the SEC, Big 10, or Pac 10.
Explain to me why adding a team with 50 wins (BYU) the last five years, 61 wins (BSU) the last 5 years, a team with 55 wins (TCU) the last 5 years, 39 wins (AFA) the last 5 years, 43 wins (HU) the last 5 years, the team with the most intriguing last 20 years in of College Football (SMU), and the team located in the heart of the most entertaining city in this country (UNLV) wouldn't increase revenue. Adding the States of Utah, Nevada, regaining Colorado viewership, Solidifying Texas, and picking up (in solid fashion) the rest of the Great Plains and Mountain States wouldn't add revenue? I'm just curious what we're looking for. The east doesn't focus on College Athletics the way the west could. If the Giants and Jets are having great years, the interest in Rutgers tremendously drops. Pitt and the Steelers have good followings but they share time with each other. Outside of Pitt, the rest of the state is die hard Penn State. Part of the Reason Nebraska and BYU have rich traditions is their college teams are their NFL teams. BSU is building that same type of following. UNLV has that type of potential, and Air Force being the first Academy school in a BCS conference would draw great military support. I don't see pure stupidity. I see looking outside the box a little bit, bucking trends, but at the same time, opening the landscape for great competition and new revenue streams.
None of those schools not named BYU add anything. The Big 12 doesn't have a network. Footprint doesn't matter. Additionally, who gives a **** if you're adding schools no one cares about? Boise State? The Big 12 Presidents will NEVER allow that so get that out of your head. Boise State makes Kansas State look like an Ivy League school. BYU makes some sense. TCU adds nothing you don't already have. AFA? And what, both of their fans? HU? Again, both of their fans? SMU? They don't even have fans. UNLV? People in Vegas don't realize UNLV has a football team.
You aren't looking outside the box. You're committing conference suicide. Do you not think the Pac 12 would've picked up a school or two of those if they were actually worth squat? If there was value, they would be swooped up. There isn't value, hence them not being with the big boys.
ljhlax- You make some good points, but I still think having Houston, TCU and/or SMU in the Big 12 would hurt our recruiting in those heavily populated areas. I'd also guess that Texas and the other Texas schools wouldn't go for it for that very reason, more recruiting competition.
With the exception of BYU who is a good add and maybe afa...
the fact is RIGHT NOW if any of those schools have more than 1 loss nobody nationally will tune in and in many cases that would extend to the local crowds. Compare that to BYU, Nebraska, etc... and you start to see who adds value with their following and market, and who doesn't.
Also I do think we should keep an eye on these schools to see what type of following will develop, but they aren't here yet and you can write of any school in the existing footprint as it adds little to our contract. So write off Houston, SMU, TCU, Tulsa, Rice, UNT, UTEP, Texas State, and UTSA.
Nebraska has no "traditional rivals" except Oklahoma. Playing a team 13 times in 120 years does not constitute a rival. For crying out loud, Nebraska played Penn Stae 2 times in the last 25 years. That is not a rivalry. I would bet that you could go through and do the same thing with Nebraska and ACC teams and PAC 10 teams and Big East teams. I mean Nebraska has had Pitt and VT on their schedule twice the last 5 years does that mean they have traditional rivalries with the Big East? No it doesn't. Nebraska went to the Big Ten for money and stability. That is it.
So Colorado playing a single game with each PAC 10 team over the last decade means they are now rivlas? Sriously? It only takes on game to make a rivalry ore scheduling games with teams from the same conference makes you a rival?
I know you get sick of the little guys being accused of not being able to do it but I just saw an interview with Urban Meyer that said when he was at Utah, he wanted a playoff because he felt he could beat any team on any given day. Then when he went to Florida he didn't want a playoff. He said after one year in the SEC, he got it. Meaning it was a different world and he knew there was no way Utah would have made it through the season undefested or with one loss if they played in the SEC.
Teams like TCU Utah and Boisie have earned spots at the table. They have proved consistent success. SMU has not. Houston not so much. Besides do you really want to try and reinvent the SWAC? It didn't work the firsttime why would it work now?
