*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[CrossCyed]

Oklahoma saw that the LHN was what prevented the move to the Pac-12. So, naturally, they are starting up their own network so that it'll be easier for them to join another conference.

I've never said Texas wouldn't join the PAC. But I sincerely believe they don't want to go independent.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I've been asked repeated to provide "evidence" that UT and OU will eventually bolt the conference. Hoops, CrossCyed, and other "Bevo Believers" seem to think that because UT couldn't come to an agreement with the Pac-12, and the P12 presidents turned OU down, their leaders came to Jesus and realized that the B12 is the best home for them.

Think about 15 months ago: if I had told you that TAMU and MU would be leaving the Big 12 in less than 2 years, the Bevo Believers (and probably most others) would have said I was crazy. The arguments:

1. TAMU looked at the SEC, and decided against it. Besides, they need UT to survive. So they're just as committed to the conference as the other TX schools.

2. Nobody wants Missouri. They got shot down by the Big 10, and they'd be stupid to try and move again. They're just not that desirable.

3. The Big 12 just signed a big new TV revenue deal, so money's no reason to leave now.

4. We just upped the buyout, so it's (almost) impossible for anyone to leave now.

Every one of these argument would have made rational sense in summer 2010. And every one of them would be dead wrong.

Maybe that means that all players in this saga are irrational. Maybe it means that we're not privvy to the information that these decisions are based on. Either way, we're not going to see in advance the circumstances that cause the Big 12 to fall apart...if they occur.

Wow. Nice way to NOT answer my question. I said that UT and OU were not leaving last year FOR THE SAME REASONS I say today that have NOTHING to do with the above and nothing to do with Missouri and A&M. The grant of rights just makes it more stable. I also said before this began that Missouri and A&M leaving would NOT implode the conference.

This is my blog I posted on August 16. I was wrong about the ACC, but so far I have not been wrong about the Big 12. But I know the Big 12 much better and have followed this conference closely.

http://hoopstournament.blogspot.com/

 

[im4cyclones]

I've been asked repeated to provide "evidence" that UT and OU will eventually bolt the conference. Hoops, CrossCyed, and other "Bevo Believers" seem to think that because UT couldn't come to an agreement with the Pac-12, and the P12 presidents turned OU down, their leaders came to Jesus and realized that the B12 is the best home for them.

Think about 15 months ago: if I had told you that TAMU and MU would be leaving the Big 12 in less than 2 years, the Bevo Believers (and probably most others) would have said I was crazy. The arguments:

1. TAMU looked at the SEC, and decided against it. Besides, they need UT to survive. So they're just as committed to the conference as the other TX schools.

2. Nobody wants Missouri. They got shot down by the Big 10, and they'd be stupid to try and move again. They're just not that desirable.

3. The Big 12 just signed a big new TV revenue deal, so money's no reason to leave now.

4. We just upped the buyout, so it's (almost) impossible for anyone to leave now.

Every one of these argument would have made rational sense in summer 2010. And every one of them would be dead wrong.

Maybe that means that all players in this saga are irrational. Maybe it means that we're not privvy to the information that these decisions are based on. Either way, we're not going to see in advance the circumstances that cause the Big 12 to fall apart...if they occur.

I still think this holds true. The SEC has SETTLED on Mizzou. Do you really think they would take Mizzou if there was no agreement to expand outside the footprint?

Which is more likely? The Presidents sat around last year and came up with a list of desired schools and had Mizzou at the top. The A&M mess was really a smokescreen to get the team they coveted all along... a 3-4 Mizzou powerhouse!

OR

The Presidents were sitting around AFTER accepting A&M and needed a 14th team. Presidents wouldn't allow expansion within the conference which eliminated the best teams, leaving Mizzou or West Virginia. After an intense game of eenie-meanie-miny-moe, they picked Mizzou. Kentucky and Vanderbilt Presidents were especially happy as they will now have some they can beat up on.

Yep, you are wanted all right. All the cute girls were already gone so you were picked to go home and get rammed by a line of frat boys. But at least you were wanted!

 

[HoopsTournament]

Oklahoma saw that the LHN was what prevented the move to the Pac-12. So, naturally, they are starting up their own network so that it'll be easier for them to join another conference.

I've never said Texas wouldn't join the PAC. But I sincerely believe they don't want to go independent.

OU starting their own network makes it less likely for OU to leave.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Wow. Nice way to NOT answer my question.

I'm not sure I can. If you question is "what evidence do you have that UT and OU will bail out on this conference in the next 4-5 years?" I really can't say. I don't live under DeLoss Dodd's desk. (Ask Chip Brown.)

My point is that even when we ALL thought that the major problems have been dealt with and this conference was on solid footing, that belief turned out to be wrong. Will it be wrong again? I have no idea.

But if you care about the Big 12, it probably pays to be a little skeptical and insist that your university leaders remain vigilent. That lack of vigilence (from all leaders) put the conference in this situation.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

But if you care about the Big 12, it probably pays to be a little skeptical and insist that your university leaders remain vigilent. That lack of vigilence (from all leaders) put the conference in this situation.

Uh, no.

 

[CrossCyed]

Mizzoulander, can you at least admit that Missouri was one of the major players in the instability that you are now citing as a reason to leave? It's akin to saying, that, yeah, Texas, Nebraska and the like started the fire, but Missouri left a bunch of oily rags sitting around beforehand.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I'm not sure I can. If you question is "what evidence do you have that UT and OU will bail out on this conference in the next 4-5 years?" I really can't say. I don't live under DeLoss Dodd's desk. (Ask Chip Brown.)

My point is that even when we ALL thought that the major problems have been dealt with and this conference was on solid footing, that belief turned out to be wrong. Will it be wrong again? I have no idea.

But if you care about the Big 12, it probably pays to be a little skeptical and insist that your university leaders remain vigilent. That lack of vigilence (from all leaders) put the conference in this situation.

I don't believe it turned out to be wrong. MU and A&M decided to leave. NO ONE else did. The other 8 are STILL on solid footing. MU were unstable last year. They remained unstable. NOTHING CHANGED.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I'm not sure I can. If you question is "what evidence do you have that UT and OU will bail out on this conference in the next 4-5 years?" I really can't say. I don't live under DeLoss Dodd's desk. (Ask Chip Brown.)

My point is that even when we ALL thought that the major problems have been dealt with and this conference was on solid footing, that belief turned out to be wrong. Will it be wrong again? I have no idea.

But if you care about the Big 12, it probably pays to be a little skeptical and insist that your university leaders remain vigilent. That lack of vigilence (from all leaders) put the conference in this situation.

I have given you many reasons why the Big 12 will be around for a long time and you have given NO VALID REASONS why it won't. Not saying to predict the future, but to give a reason why. Everything you said are things are conditions that no longer exist.

 

[Mizzoulander]

I don't believe it turned out to be wrong. MU and A&M decided to leave. NO ONE else did. The other 8 are STILL on solid footing. MU were unstable last year. They remained unstable. NOTHING CHANGED.

Seriously...we're drifting into Baghdad Bob territory here. Are you saying there is only stability...or complete IMPLOSION?! Surely there are degrees of stability...

You cannot lose members and consider yourself a stable conference, even if you consider those members to be whiny little babies whom you'll be better off without. You don't think the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12 have member conflicts? Why don't 1/4 of their members leave?

Stable conferences don't put out stuff like this:

And you still think the Big 12 is a healthy, stable place for MU? | Campus Corner

You don't make yourself a into stable conference by having 2 teams with enormous leverage, 3 teams that are dependent on those with leverage, and 4 teams with no better options (5 if WVU signs on).

You make it sound like as long as there is somebody to keep the league office's lights on and collect the checks, then the Big 12 is stable.

I nominate Hoops for Big East Commissioner! :smile:

 

[jbhtexas]

You don't think the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12 have member conflicts? Why don't 1/4 of their members leave?

Because they don't have anywhere to go that makes logical sense?

You don't make yourself a into stable conference by having 2 teams with enormous leverage, 3 teams that are dependent on those with leverage, and 4 teams with no better options (5 if WVU signs on).

Adjust those numbers a little bit and you would easily be describing the SEC and Big Ten. Those two conferences just have maybe 3-4 more teams in the first category.

 

[boone7247]

This year’s realignment is all about short man syndrome. aTm was tired of being the little brother to UT and so they finally decided to do something about it. Then Mizzou afraid that they would be left at the small kids table lifted its skirt to high to take it back.

Yes OU explored their options but ultimately ran back to the table knowing it couldn't get in the Pac 12 and that B12 would be its best option. Mizzou however, left its skirt in the air to long and there was no running back.

Don't get me wrong I would have liked Mizzou to stay, for many reasons, but they have a serious inferiority complex and going to the SEC and getting their brains beat in isn't going to help it. However, them leaving the conference should stabilize the B12 for a few years, it has turned into addition by subtraction, in my opinion.

The B12 should be stable unless B1G comes after teams, which I am not sold they will do. ND is poised to be independent and UT is poised to have its own network. So those two don’t seem like fits, and they would be the only trigger for the B1G to come after a B12 team. Other than UT what school in the B12 is B1G material other than ISU and ISU isn’t getting that invite.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Mizzoulander, can you at least admit that Missouri was one of the major players in the instability that you are now citing as a reason to leave? It's akin to saying, that, yeah, Texas, Nebraska and the like started the fire, but Missouri left a bunch of oily rags sitting around beforehand.

Tough question...can I answer "yes" and "no"? :smile:

I believe that MU was BADLY played by the B1G in the last round of expansion. From a PR standpoint, it was a merciless beatdown. They never answered the speculation about what they wanted to do. They just repeated the same things over and over again.

The result was that we looked desperate to leave, and that contributed to the instability.

But a major player? No, I really don't. Here's why:

- It's not MU's fault that the MO governor expressed his desire to go to the Big 10. True or not, you can't just throw that out there. Don't blame the university for that.

- It's clear now that NU was working to leave even before the announcement came out the the Big 10 was expanding.

- The Big 12 never functioned as well as it could or should have. Norm Stewart was among many who were skeptical after the union began. He said something to the effect of, "If you invite somebody to move into your house, they should probably wait a while before they start rearranging the furniture."

As I've said, every school is partly responsible for the condition of the Big 12. I don't believe they sought to undermine it, but they all acted in their own short term best interests without a greater sense of what they wanted to build. That's on Mizzou, too.

 

[boone7247]

Tough question...can I answer "yes" and "no"? :smile:

I believe that MU was BADLY played by the B1G in the last round of expansion. From a PR standpoint, it was a merciless beatdown. They never answered the speculation about what they wanted to do. They just repeated the same things over and over again.

The result was that we looked desperate to leave, and that contributed to the instability.

But a major player? No, I really don't. Here's why:

- It's not MU's fault that the MO governor expressed his desire to go to the Big 10. True or not, you can't just throw that out there. Don't blame the university for that.

- It's clear now that NU was working to leave even before the announcement came out the the Big 10 was expanding.

- The Big 12 never functioned as well as it could or should have. Norm Stewart was among many who were skeptical after the union began. He said something to the effect of, "If you invite somebody to move into your house, they should probably wait a while before they start rearranging the furniture."

As I've said, every school is partly responsible for the condition of the Big 12. I don't believe they sought to undermine it, but they all acted in their own short term best interests without a greater sense of what they wanted to build. That's on Mizzou, too.

IMO Mizzou tried to use the leverage it had in the SEC to get concession out of OU and UT. But Mizzou being what Mizzou is, couldn't keep its mouth shut and then its fan base, StL mainly, decided the SEC was better, and now it finally got squeezed into making a bad decision for its future. Like I just said Mizzou has an inferiority complex, for whatever reason they think they are going to get left at the altar. Which would not have happened, they are two good of school and command to many TVs to get left out. For Christ sake ISU, the one school that should be scared to death of losing the B12 stayed quiet, yes we might not have had any options but whatever they did do for contingent plans they did behind closed doors. Basically Mizzou needs to learn to keep its skirt down, its legs together, and its mouth shut publically, and if the school can't learn to do that then get the **** out!

So yes Mizzou was instable for two straight years, and created a lot of problems for the conference, when it didn't have to. So go to the SEC enjoy playing in the Easter division, and call us back in 10 years when you finally realize you made a bad decision.

 

[HoopsTournament]

Seriously...we're drifting into Baghdad Bob territory here. Are you saying there is only stability...or complete IMPLOSION?! Surely there are degrees of stability...

You cannot lose members and consider yourself a stable conference, even if you consider those members to be whiny little babies whom you'll be better off without. You don't think the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12 have member conflicts? Why don't 1/4 of their members leave?

Stable conferences don't put out stuff like this:

And you still think the Big 12 is a healthy, stable place for MU? | Campus Corner

You don't make yourself a into stable conference by having 2 teams with enormous leverage, 3 teams that are dependent on those with leverage, and 4 teams with no better options (5 if WVU signs on).

You make it sound like as long as there is somebody to keep the league office's lights on and collect the checks, then the Big 12 is stable.

I nominate Hoops for Big East Commissioner! :smile:

Keep rationalizing Mizzou's exit. Mizzou contributed to the instability of the conference and Mizzou leaving increases stability of the conference. You leaving will contribute to the stability of the thread.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

I really don't have a problem with TAMU leaving. The SEC is a great regional and cultural fit for TAMU.

Missouri, however, is a different story. No cultural fit, no regional fit, no natural rivals. Long term they will regret it. Plus it kills their chances to go to the B1G.

 

[Triggermv]

I get tired of all this debating of whether or not Mizzou should leave. Has anyone learned any new information today like when the Big 12 board meeting even is?

 

[Cyclophile1]

Seriously...we're drifting into Baghdad Bob territory here. Are you saying there is only stability...or complete IMPLOSION?! Surely there are degrees of stability...

You cannot lose members and consider yourself a stable conference, even if you consider those members to be whiny little babies whom you'll be better off without. You don't think the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12 have member conflicts? Why don't 1/4 of their members leave?

Stable conferences don't put out stuff like this:

And you still think the Big 12 is a healthy, stable place for MU? | Campus Corner

You don't make yourself a into stable conference by having 2 teams with enormous leverage, 3 teams that are dependent on those with leverage, and 4 teams with no better options (5 if WVU signs on).

You make it sound like as long as there is somebody to keep the league office's lights on and collect the checks, then the Big 12 is stable.

I nominate Hoops for Big East Commissioner! :smile:

A lot of the problems of the past that frankly A&M, Nebraska and OU are responsible for - which played such a major role in the unequal playing field and exacerbating the difference between the HAVES and HAVE-NOTs - are being dealt with.

What remains now for A&M and for MU is the emotional situations driving the decision-making. A&M is mainly all angry about really being relegated BELOW Texas which is just too much for their proud fanbase to deal with. The fact that Texas is now an 800 lb. gorilla REALLY pisses off Aggy, and is envy at the spoils of war won by Texas.

MU is clearly dealing with an inferiority complex as well, but one borne out of their politcal ineptitude, allowing the BigTen to reject them publicly. SEC is the prime football league hands down, and MU is really relishing the idea that the SEC is interested now that gentleman's agreement regarding geography has been discussed and held to. It's pretty clear that the SEC really desires Clemson and Florida State. With those two out of the picture and no other real FBS "brands" being willing to go through the turmoil to become #14, it comes down to markets. What is says is that WVA doesn't deliver enough new eyeballs or subscribers, and only dilutes the league academically. I think MU helps preserve the PER TEAM television contract, while WVA falls shorter on this front despite being the better football prgoram. It's only a possibility if MU is willing to take an SEC East spot -it's clear they did not have the votes to get in as a West team.

The rhetoric about instability was just a hypocritical, lame smokescreen to cover up their butthurt over the BigTen rejection. MU is one of the primary instigators - if not THE instigator - in the past 2 years realignment drama that goes back to 2008-2009 when the BigTen announced they were exploring and begain their process. Citing "lack of stability" as rationale for leaving is really the height of hypocrisy for MU.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that MU leaving OU and Texas for Alabama, Florida, Auburn and Tennessee. A&M which is one of a three headed hydra of the Big12-2 moves over and bring their huge ego with them as well. I don't understand trading out 2 800 lb gorillas for four or five of them. Doesn't make sense. Of course, that's the over-riding theme in all this for both A&M and MU - it's irrational at it's core. We all know that's a big part of being a fan - being a fan is primarily an emotional thing, but it doesn't mean that school administrators should be following the lead of the fans, which appears to be the case for A&M and now for MU.

To me and the MU fans I know in K.C., it seems knee-jerk and really lacks sense.

 

[HoopsTournament]

Seriously...we're drifting into Baghdad Bob territory here. Are you saying there is only stability...or complete IMPLOSION?! Surely there are degrees of stability...

You cannot lose members and consider yourself a stable conference, even if you consider those members to be whiny little babies whom you'll be better off without. You don't think the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12 have member conflicts? Why don't 1/4 of their members leave?

Stable conferences don't put out stuff like this:

And you still think the Big 12 is a healthy, stable place for MU? | Campus Corner

You don't make yourself a into stable conference by having 2 teams with enormous leverage, 3 teams that are dependent on those with leverage, and 4 teams with no better options (5 if WVU signs on).

You make it sound like as long as there is somebody to keep the league office's lights on and collect the checks, then the Big 12 is stable.

I nominate Hoops for Big East Commissioner! :smile:

1. There are degrees of stability. Stability of the most essential members of the conference (OU and UT) and stability of the non-essential members (MU and A&M). The first two are stable and that is why the conference is stable. My reasons for saying so are the same today as they were before this realignment mess started.

2. You can lose unstable members from an unstable conference and become more stable because the rest of the schools are COMMITTED to the conference. That is the MAIN criteria to stability - COMMITMENT of the REMAINING schools. So yes, you can lose schools and become more stable because the ALL of the unstable schools are gone.

3. Media is the one that put that out. The conference didn't. Once again, you are mistaking the conference for the media. Internal officials have opinions, but that is not a statement by the conference. Also, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that the person is wrong.

4. EVERY conference has teams with enormous leverage, teams dependent on them and teams with no leverage. You are blind if you don't think that. In fact, ALABAMA welcomes you to the SEC EAST.

Keep trying. This is fun because it is so easy to poke holes in every one of your arguments.

 

[Mizzoulander]

I really don't have a problem with TAMU leaving. The SEC is a great regional and cultural fit for TAMU.

Missouri, however, is a different story. No cultural fit, no regional fit, no natural rivals. Long term they will regret it. Plus it kills their chances to go to the B1G.

I don't get the whole "cultural" fit idea within conferences. Does Iowa share any culture with Texas? Not that I can see. And yet they manage to co-exist in the same conference. How about Minnesota and Pennsylvania? Not really. Oregon and Arizona? Nope.

I think we feel it's "different" in the SEC because we view the schools as being so similar. Missouri is a border state...it has some commonalities with the East, the South, and the West of the US.

ISU has thrived in the MVC/Big 8/Big 12 for decades without a "natural" rival. They certainly don't mind that their rival is in a different conference.

As for regional fit, Missouri borders 3 SEC states. And 3 B1G states. And 3 Big 12 states.

How many Big 12 states does WVU share a border with? Both moves will work out fine.