UVA or one of the UNC schools. Otherwise I think the Big 12 would look at anyone else in the ACC. I don't think it would be one of the Big East schools that came in 2003 because if he grew up in ACC land he wouldn't have much attachment to them imo.
*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
UVA or one of the UNC schools. Otherwise I think the Big 12 would look at anyone else in the ACC. I don't think it would be one of the Big East schools that came in 2003 because if he grew up in ACC land he wouldn't have much attachment to them imo.
If the Big 12 lands FSU, they will have significantly increased their footprint. Getting into WVa is a nice addition on its own. Had to give up Colorado and Nebraska along the way.
The SEC expanded and got themselves into Texas and Missouri, significantly expanding their footprint.
The Pac-12 got themselves into Colorado and Utah. That's a fairly significant increase in footprint.
And then...the Big Ten got themselves into Nebraska. Congrats to Jim Delaney...
The SEC expanded and got themselves into Texas and Missouri, significantly expanding their footprint.
The Pac-12 got themselves into Colorado and Utah. That's a fairly significant increase in footprint.
And then...the Big Ten got themselves into Nebraska. Congrats to Jim Delaney...
Last edited:
I agree with that but remember how many people on here would have loved a B1G invite a year or two ago? We shouldn't gloat until the B12 actually does do something and two significant schools join.
Lets not forget that the B10 already has 1/3 of all the population of the US covered in there footprint. So it isn't like they needed more viewers, they went after what they thought was the best brand available at the time.
Visit the US Census website and check how that population distribution looks in about 20-30 years. There's a reason why Delaney was talking to UT and TAMU...
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
You tryin' to say that people won't be flocking to Nebraska?
The worst part of realignment is that I check CF every 5 minutes to see what is new. It is an addiction that I cannot stop. Is there anything new now? Has someone posted a new link now? What about now? I hate it but I can't stop. Must.... know.... now....
What about now? Anything new?
What about now? Anything new?
I like 12 or 16 better, but could probably live with that 14 on a temporary basis. With 12, how about these divisions with one or two cross over rivals (ours would be KU and/or KSU):
west east
OU FSU
UT CU
Tech WVU
OSU ISU
KU TCU
KSU BU
I like it because it would ensure we play in Texas and in SC/Florida every year for recruiting purposes. KSU or KU would be our annual rival game to keep (or possibly make 2 protected rivals if we keep a 9 game schedule). Avoiding OU/UT/OSU division gives us a shot at a championship game.
Alternatively, we could go to pods in a 12 team conference:
Pod 1
UT
OU
OSU
Pod 2
FSU
Clemson
WV
Pod 3
KU
KSU
ISU
Pod 4
BU
TTU
TCU
Each Pod would play everyone in their own Pod in a given year and all teams in 2 of the other Pods. That is an 8 game conference schedule, but that would allow FSU to keep their Miami and Florida match ups and if ND joined for all sports but FB with the agreement to play 6 Big 12 teams per year, I don't think the TV people would mind. Now, Pod 1 and 2 are clearly better in the above. So, the rotation could ensure that Pod 1 and 2 are never in the same division for purposes of selecting the conference championship participants (Pod 3 and 4 would switch divisions every couple of years).
west east
OU FSU
UT CU
Tech WVU
OSU ISU
KU TCU
KSU BU
I like it because it would ensure we play in Texas and in SC/Florida every year for recruiting purposes. KSU or KU would be our annual rival game to keep (or possibly make 2 protected rivals if we keep a 9 game schedule). Avoiding OU/UT/OSU division gives us a shot at a championship game.
Alternatively, we could go to pods in a 12 team conference:
Pod 1
UT
OU
OSU
Pod 2
FSU
Clemson
WV
Pod 3
KU
KSU
ISU
Pod 4
BU
TTU
TCU
Each Pod would play everyone in their own Pod in a given year and all teams in 2 of the other Pods. That is an 8 game conference schedule, but that would allow FSU to keep their Miami and Florida match ups and if ND joined for all sports but FB with the agreement to play 6 Big 12 teams per year, I don't think the TV people would mind. Now, Pod 1 and 2 are clearly better in the above. So, the rotation could ensure that Pod 1 and 2 are never in the same division for purposes of selecting the conference championship participants (Pod 3 and 4 would switch divisions every couple of years).
They might if that radical Mexican group successfully recaptures all the land lost to the US in the mid 1800's. Just in case, I'm hanging on to my land in ND...
Exactly what I've been doing. I'm so excited about the prospects of some of these schools joining plus deprived of football.. its bad.
Umm. I thought that the Big 10 was very concerned about how the population in their geographic footprint continues to shrink as the population is shifting south...
The more I think about this, the more I think that this might actually happen. The more I also realize that Barron's memo was reactionary and not very well researched. If the difference is only $2.9 million per team per year as stated in Barron's memo, then there is no way that FSU, Clemson or others join the Big 12. But, I think that rational thought shows that the spread will be much higher.
The only thing certain for now is the ACC deal, which pays $17.1 million annually for Tier 1-3 and the conference championships (which is also locked in longer than any other conference) and the $20 million ACC buy out number, and the Big 12 Tier 2 at $90 million per year.
Here is what is in flux and makes the Big 12 very attractive to FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech and others in the ACC/Big East:
The Big 12 is rumored to have negotiated a deal that pays $20 million per team for Tier 1 and 2 (with $90 million locked in on Tier 2, that would be $110 million per year on Tier 1), but the deal is not finzalized yet. For the Fox Tier 2 deal inked by the Big 12, the initial announcement had the deal at only $60 million per year, a number announced by numerous outlets including the Sports Business Journal. However, when the deal was finalized a few months later it was for $90 million per year. The same possiblity exists for the Big 12's Tier 1 deal, which could be $1-2 million more per team per year at the end of the day. Plus, the Big 12 Tier 1 deal that was floated and the Tier 2 deal already signed both run 3 years shorter than the ACC deal. Since all these deals are backloaded (the ACC won't make $17 million per year per team until 2021 according to Wetzel), it is likely that the $20 million per team number could be greatly increased if the Big 12 is simply willing to extend those deals out as long as the ACC deal. If Wetzel is correct and you look at the numbers side by side on a year by year basis, I would put a major wager down that the gap will wind up much larger than $2.9 million annually per team. That does not even consider any possible "look-in" simply as a result of adding FSU, Clemson or others that would likely also increase the per team payout somewhat.
If FSU and at least one other came on board, the Big 12 would have a conference championship game to sell. That is likely at least $2-3 million more per team in TV rights money alone. The Big 12 traditionally sold its tickets to the Championship game much better than the ACC does, which would create more cash for its members.
If FSU and lets say Clemson came on board, you don't think that Fox would be willing to shell out some additional cash for the Tier 2 rights to Seminole and Tiger games that they have zero rights to show currently to make the deal happen? Conservatively, I think their addition would be worth at least $1-2 million per team from Fox on Tier 2.
Conservatively, FSU would make around $5-7 million per year on their Tier 3 rights (in line with OU). Clemson and other potential ACC teams would not likely make that much, but Tier 3 is probably still a $2-3 million asset for the candidates we'd be interested in.
We don't have a finazlied picture of the 4 team playoff payout and qualification structure. However, almost no matter which direction it goes, the Big 12 is likely to be a proportional winner and the ACC a proportional loser compared to the current BCS system. The Big 12 would have placed the second most teams in the 4 team playoff (only slightly behind the SEC) while the ACC would have placed the least teams of any BCS conference over the past 10 years under most models.
The travel is going to increase for FSU simply by staying in the ACC with the additions of Syracuse and Pitt. On the other hand, the change to the Big 12, especially with 1-3 Eastern partners would not be as significant as Barron indicated (or maybe already has retracted). FSU is not as far from the Texas state line as many in the media seem to think, and BC is farther away than any team in the Big 12.
I would imagine that if FSU is willing to jump, the Big 12 is likely to cover most or all of the $20 million ACC buy out in grants and/or loans.
At the end of the day, FSU could be looking at a $10-15 million per year decision (depending upon the playoff) over the next 13 years. That is $130-195 million dollars. Can FSU really afford to throw that kind of cash out the window when they are running at a deficit currently and UF, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Alabama are going to be swimming in money when the new SEC deal and SEC network are announced? Can every Big 12 school (Texas included), really afford not to solidify themselves as a top 4 conference and throw away $3-6 million in conference revenue per year per team that adding FSU and one other ACC school would likely bring in for them?
I am going to be lazy and not look this up, but I highly doubt the population is shrinking, it may be growing at a lesser rate than other areas, I can buy that. But I don't believe that Ohio, Pensylvania, Michigan, Indiana, & Illinois are going to suddenly become North Dakota. Also I didn't say they wouldn't add additional teams that would expand their footprint.
Divisional Alignment, Competitive Balance Style
So let's say that Florida State and Clemson join the Big 12. The conference would then need to determine divisions. Remember how the Big 10 did it? They took historical records of each program to determine competitive balance.
The Big 12 can do the same.
Listed below are the winning percentages and overall records of each program since the 1996 season (the inception of the Big 12). Schools not in the Big 12 for this time period are in italics.
Texas: 75.1% (154-51)
Oklahoma: 72.2% (151-58)
TCU: 71.4% (140-56)
Florida State: 71.0% (137-56)*
West Virginia: 66.7% (132-66)
Kansas State: 65.0% (130-70)
Texas Tech: 62.3% (124-75)
Clemson: 59.0% (118-82)
Oklahoma State: 58.2% (113-81)
Kansas: 42.6% (80-108)
Iowa State: 39.6% (76-116)
Baylor: 31.9% (59-126)
*A total of 12 wins in 2006 and 2007 were vacated.
The goal is to get both division's average winning percentage as close to the overall conference's as possible. I'm going to just ignore TCU's (it skews very high), but I'll factor in the other new schools'. The average of those 11 percentages is 58.5%.
The first thing to consider with divisions is likely that two Texas schools would be in each, as schools would want this for recruiting purposes. Seeing that one is first in wins and one is last, while the other two are middle of the road (considering TCU's inflation), it's a fair bet that UT/BU and TCU/TTU would be paired. We'll call UT and BU "Division A" and TCU/TTU "Division B" for now.
As Oklahoma has the next highest winning percentage and is also the next biggest brand, it's very unlikely that they would be with UT in Division A. I know those schools have said otherwise in the past, but it just doesn't make sense that way. Oklahoma is in Division B. This would also necessitate a protected crossover rivalry game between the divisions. Because OU and UT would be protected rivals, the Bedlam Game would only be saved by placing Oklahoma State in Division B as well.
Let's see where we are now:
Division A:
Baylor - 31.9%
Texas - 75.1%
Division B:
Oklahoma - 72.2%
Oklahoma State - 58.2%
TCU - 71.4%
Texas Tech - 62.3%
Florida State: 71.0% (137-56)*
West Virginia: 66.7% (132-66)
Kansas State: 65.0% (130-70)
Clemson: 59.0% (118-82)
Kansas: 42.6% (80-108)
Iowa State: 39.6% (76-116)
It doesn't make much logical sense to put the two lowest winning percentages in the same division, especially with the way that Division B is trending (some pretty high numbers there). Iowa State should belong in that division. Those four schools (excluding TCU) now have an average percentage of 58.1%, extremely close to the average. To keep it right on par, Clemson, who's right on the average, can round out Division B. That leaves four schools for Division A.
So, let's see where we ended up. Remember our goal is that 58.5% average:
Division A:
Baylor - 31.9%
Florida State - 71.0%
Kansas - 42.6%
Kansas State - 65.0%
Texas - 75.1%
West Virginia - 66.7%
Division A average winning percentage: 58.7%
Division B:
Clemson - 59.0%
Iowa State - 39.6%
Oklahoma - 72.2%
Oklahoma State - 58.2%
TCU
Texas Tech - 62.3%
Division B average winning percentage (excluding TCU): 58.3%
Protected rivalries would include Texas-Oklahoma and Baylor-TCU (among others, obviously). Each division ends up with two Texas schools, as well as exactly 4 "old" school and 2 "new" ones.
Yeah, I think that'd do it.
So let's say that Florida State and Clemson join the Big 12. The conference would then need to determine divisions. Remember how the Big 10 did it? They took historical records of each program to determine competitive balance.
The Big 12 can do the same.
Listed below are the winning percentages and overall records of each program since the 1996 season (the inception of the Big 12). Schools not in the Big 12 for this time period are in italics.
Texas: 75.1% (154-51)
Oklahoma: 72.2% (151-58)
TCU: 71.4% (140-56)
Florida State: 71.0% (137-56)*
West Virginia: 66.7% (132-66)
Kansas State: 65.0% (130-70)
Texas Tech: 62.3% (124-75)
Clemson: 59.0% (118-82)
Oklahoma State: 58.2% (113-81)
Kansas: 42.6% (80-108)
Iowa State: 39.6% (76-116)
Baylor: 31.9% (59-126)
*A total of 12 wins in 2006 and 2007 were vacated.
The goal is to get both division's average winning percentage as close to the overall conference's as possible. I'm going to just ignore TCU's (it skews very high), but I'll factor in the other new schools'. The average of those 11 percentages is 58.5%.
The first thing to consider with divisions is likely that two Texas schools would be in each, as schools would want this for recruiting purposes. Seeing that one is first in wins and one is last, while the other two are middle of the road (considering TCU's inflation), it's a fair bet that UT/BU and TCU/TTU would be paired. We'll call UT and BU "Division A" and TCU/TTU "Division B" for now.
As Oklahoma has the next highest winning percentage and is also the next biggest brand, it's very unlikely that they would be with UT in Division A. I know those schools have said otherwise in the past, but it just doesn't make sense that way. Oklahoma is in Division B. This would also necessitate a protected crossover rivalry game between the divisions. Because OU and UT would be protected rivals, the Bedlam Game would only be saved by placing Oklahoma State in Division B as well.
Let's see where we are now:
Division A:
Baylor - 31.9%
Texas - 75.1%
Division B:
Oklahoma - 72.2%
Oklahoma State - 58.2%
TCU - 71.4%
Texas Tech - 62.3%
Florida State: 71.0% (137-56)*
West Virginia: 66.7% (132-66)
Kansas State: 65.0% (130-70)
Clemson: 59.0% (118-82)
Kansas: 42.6% (80-108)
Iowa State: 39.6% (76-116)
It doesn't make much logical sense to put the two lowest winning percentages in the same division, especially with the way that Division B is trending (some pretty high numbers there). Iowa State should belong in that division. Those four schools (excluding TCU) now have an average percentage of 58.1%, extremely close to the average. To keep it right on par, Clemson, who's right on the average, can round out Division B. That leaves four schools for Division A.
So, let's see where we ended up. Remember our goal is that 58.5% average:
Division A:
Baylor - 31.9%
Florida State - 71.0%
Kansas - 42.6%
Kansas State - 65.0%
Texas - 75.1%
West Virginia - 66.7%
Division A average winning percentage: 58.7%
Division B:
Clemson - 59.0%
Iowa State - 39.6%
Oklahoma - 72.2%
Oklahoma State - 58.2%
TCU
Texas Tech - 62.3%
Division B average winning percentage (excluding TCU): 58.3%
Protected rivalries would include Texas-Oklahoma and Baylor-TCU (among others, obviously). Each division ends up with two Texas schools, as well as exactly 4 "old" school and 2 "new" ones.
Yeah, I think that'd do it.
Last edited:
Now that make a massive amount of sense. Well done, may you receive a plethora of rep, cf coupons, and credits.
That does make sense. But I absolutely hate protected rivalries. It is a set up for having an unbalanced/unfair schedule and puts teams on unequal footing...They make sense for obvious reasons but The Big 10 protected rivalries all over are so ******* stupid.
- Status
