Looking at the big picture down the road, the major 16 team conferences will be like the NFL, about sixteen teams in AFC/NFC and new winners each year. The other conferences will be the minor teams. Things change forever and 16 teams is now the trend. The B12 can either get with the program or sit on the pot.
***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
Uhhhh...please show me where I said that it was destined to fail. I can go back and even say where I thought that it probably would succeed. BUT my point is that so far...as of yet...a 16 team conference HAS NOT worked. Just saying you don't rush into things which I believe is how the Big12 is acting. IF they can get teams that add value...like FSU...Clemson...Notre Dame... etc you jump on it because you may never get another shot at that. BUT you don't add Louisville just to add a team at this point because all they do is water down the revenues. WHEN or IF they have a plan for 16 then yes you add a Louisville to fill because they can't all be FSU's that we add.
How much value to the Pac 12 is Colorado adding right now?
Trend? No conference is there yet.
Being reactionary to the Big Ten is a bad idea. Need to think it all through and I believe the conference has done/is doing that. The ACC was reactionary last year and it's done nothing for them.
In either case, at the end of the day I think the Big Ten brand is diluted and will suffer even if they break into the southeast.
This is the correct answer, but I will never understand why the networks value conference championships so highly. Outside of the SEC championship this year and a couple years back, the games have been pretty dull. The two best teams from the conference rarely play each other. There are some memorable upsets I suppose.
This creates more drama. A cliffhanger. The only drama we have this year in B12 is will KSU lose their last two games?
They're at 13 for next season as of right now, as opposed to 11 and no conference championship game had they not been "reactionary".
If the ACC hadn't been "reactionary" for several decades poaching the Big East they'd be...the Big East.
Adding Syracuse and Pitt didn't suddenly make them the top dog, but adding VTech, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, etc over the years has been what's keeping them in the conversation of a top 4 or top 5 conference. It's the reason ND is on board, it's the reason there's still a chance they end up above the Big 12 in the pecking order somehow.
Exactly. Stanford vs UCLA? Please.
Nebraska vs Wisconsin. Yawn.
If we still had 12 it would be K-State vs. Oklahoma would be good because they probably would not have played each other this year.
I like 10 teams. I watched the competition in almost every game. it was exciting. However, I look at the records and we the B12 in going nowhere fast as a conference unless someone is undefeated. Adding a couple of gimmes may help this. Even Clones and JHawks will not be pushover dates for OU in the future. The bye week this week for us is stupid and will be fixed if we reach 12 or more teams. I think it is interesting that OU's streak may be broken this year of conference championships. Having a B12 network seems highly desirable at this point. Looks like ND will be back in play.
Nebraska vs. Wisc is only a yawn because the #1 and #4 teams in the conference are ineligible and put an average Wisc team in the title game. #3 OSU vs #12 Neb would have been very interesting and the title game would be on the line for a half dozen teams waiting on that result.
Pac 12 game is a dud though.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
Okay...
Your implication is very clear; you believe a 16-team conference will fail. As I and others have pointed out, this is rather ridiculous because you're making a generalization based on a sample size of ONE...let alone the fact that we're talking about an entirely different set of schools, of entirely different sizes, in an entirely different geographic region with entirely different populations, and in an entirely different time with an entirely different set of influencing factors. It's as apples-to-oranges of a comparison that one can make.
I'm not saying that your worries have no basis at all, but hanging your hat on the WAC's dissolution as compelling evidence that all 16-member conferences are likely to fail is totally unfounded.
Computers rank Big 12 teams higher than voters 99% of the time. It happens to the Pac 12 too but not as frequently. The nation doesn't care about SOS or isn't smart enough to account for it, almost certainly both.
Big 12 needs more manageable schedules (take a week off your 8 game schedule midseason against an FCS like the SEC does instead of beating up each other 9 games), more national exposure (perhaps by moving into FLA and east), better TV slots, and a championship game for the exposure if nothing else. Do those things and the human perception increases dramatically and our computer strength only takes a slight hit.
You have failed the reading comprehension portion of this test. You just posted 6 quotes of mine and none of them say that I believe that the 16 team format is destined to fail. Here's a quote for you:
You have missed the point entirely. Are you saying the 16 team conferences will work? If so, all I'm saying is there is no evidence of this. I'm using historical examples as evidence not to say that it can't work, just that it hasn't so don't act like the 16 team conferences are the holy grail. There is a possibility that they won't work. Do we want to be a part of that fallout? These are things to think about not just blindly run into 16 teams thinking they can't fail. Read...comprehend....count to 10... then post.I'm not disputing the fact that the NCAA football landscape is continually evolving. I'm just saying that there is no guarantee that the 16 team conferences will succeed. And the only time it was tried it failed for the same reasons that will exist in today's world. They could work...and probably will. But I wouldn't be an early adopter. Pac12 tried and they got stuck with Colorado
16 teams will work if its the right teams. Hell, 20 will work if its the right teams (at 20 you're basically 2 separate conferences flying under the same banner just working together for cash purposes). With the wrong teams, 8,10,12,16,20 wont work. Clearly the WAC16 was a failure because none of the teams could bring in enough money to support massive travel. But at the same time, the WAC just failed as a much smaller conference too. The big east was a fairly small football conference for some time, it has failed as well. Why? Because it doesnt bring in enough money. The big 12 failed over the last couple years before stabilizing. Why? Largely money issues (and disagreements thereof). How did it stabilize? Offering a better payday to the schools it brought in.
I think the big 12 can work as 14-16 if it expands and develops a national footprint, assembling some great brands nationwide, and most importantly, brings in enough money to keep its elements happy cashing checks.
I think the big 12 can work as 14-16 if it expands and develops a national footprint, assembling some great brands nationwide, and most importantly, brings in enough money to keep its elements happy cashing checks.
Last edited:
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
Care to explain what you mean by the below, then?
To answer your question...
I'm not saying this at all. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. MY point is that only a fool makes any kind of prediction based on the experience of a single, totally different conference that experimented with 16 members almost 20 years ago.
I like 10 teams. But if you do add FSU and Clemson, I'm fine with that....
...."the big 12 should be a difficult fraternity to get into....."
...."the big 12 should be a difficult fraternity to get into....."
The Big 12 can work at 10 if it keeps everyone happy with the pay checks. Now, 10 might not be enough to do that, but if it is, there is no danger in staying at that level. Just adding teams for the sake of adding teams, as so many are suggesting, does NOTHING to increase stability if they don't increase pay outs. The Big 12 didn't lose schools because it wasn't proactive in adding more, the Big 12 lost schools because of how far behind it was in terms of getting TV pay outs, and the sour relationships that existed (for a myriad of reasons) between several member schools.
Yet people keep insisting that just adding schools will solve everything, or that you're doomed if you don't. As long as schools are making the money they want to make, and have good relationships with each other, then it doesn't matter if there are 20 teams in that league, or 8.
I'm not making any predictions...again...reading comprehension fail. I'm only saying we don't need to rush into things...not sure how I can say that any simpler for you. Moving on....
I'd love to see the Big 10 and SEC both jump to 16 right now. Because I can't imagine them going beyond 16. So if they do that while the Grant of Rights is still around and Big XII schools are locked up the Big XII can just sit at 10 for the next decade while those conferences slowly learn that 16 doesn't work. And we wouldn't have to worry about the Big XII falling apart because the worst case would be 4 schools bolting for the Pac-12, which wouldn't be enough to dissolve the conference (and GOR agreement).
- Status
