I like the extra money we are getting, but I would rather go back to 12 (or even 14). I know this is a loser's mentality, but with the current 10 team league we will be hard-pressed to get to any bowl anytime soon.
***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-shou...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Interesting comments from OU's president. most notable:
Interesting comments from OU's president. most notable:
Crap. Here comes the Cincinnati, Houston, BYU, Boise State, UConn, Colorado State, shoulda added Louisville, et al. crew again
I've suspected something like this. The worst sign that this conference is not going to last is that we just sit by like happy idiots as we have one person with Big 12 connections on the committee.
Forget if we get 2 more teams or if we add a CCG. How about not having 2x or 3x less representation on the committee than every other league. It's a 13 member committee and there are 5 major conferences. Every other P5 conference has at least 2 member with clear ties, we have the Texas Tech AD and zilch after that.
The old BCS formula is going to favor the B12 more than this committee every single time unless we shake up the committee makeup. The computers loved the B12 and REALLY loved it after we went to 9 game schedule, just that 1/3 of the old equation was enough to guarantee we didn't get screwed.
just for fun:
East: Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland, WVU, OSU, Indiana
Great Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Purdue, NW, Illinois
Midwest: Minnesota, Iowa, ISU, Nebraska, KSU, KU
South: Texas, Oklahoma, OKSt, TCU, Baylor, Tech
Play your own division and 4 from one other that rotates for 9 games. Winner of those two to title game vs winner of the other two. Basketball would be a mess unless they made it two 12 team leagues with a scheduling agreement for others. ACC is already a mess with just 15 teams how unbalanced the schedules are.
Boren says that the Big 12 needs to be choosy and that the new additions need to add value. I would love for a reporter to ask him which two teams he thinks can add value to the Big 12 right now? Perhaps he is thinking of poaching someone from the other bloated P5 conferences.
Last edited:
Basketball doesn't drive the action but the ACC basketball schedule is kind of silly how much easier some schedules can be than others. I think ACC regular season champion kind of needs to be analyzed yearly to see if it matters and their tournament is probably more prestigious some years as long as it's the current set up.
I think the ship maybe sailed on FSU/Clemson with FSU getting things turned around and the committee can now nullify how bad the ACC might be certain years where the BCS ranking used to sharpen the focus on bad conferences.
That'd be an easily evaded question but the answer could ONLY really be current P5 teams, right?
Unless one's goal is to water down the FB strength of the conference and get an easier FB schedule so that one's team has an easier path to the conference title...
Another question for Boren would be, if the Big 12 added two more teams, would he support 9 conference games, or 8 conference games...
Thank heavens!! Another chance to land Louisville!! Anything to close the gap between the state of Iowa and West Virginia. (sorry, couldn't resist!)
There are a couple others you could look at not as immediate powerhouses but as longer term investments. UCF for example, with its giant student body is creating a huge alumni base. Elevate them to a major stage and after a few years they could be something big.
Its simple truth that the conference has practically no ties on the committee compared to others. Bias is human nature.
Yup. And it was pretty damn clear they were just looking for any reason to get the picks they did. They had no desire to have a small audience team like TCU or Baylor in there and once they had an opportunity they took it. They used the championship game thing as their excuse, but they would have found another if the big 12 had that.
Even if Boren is right about the money (which is unclear), it's short sighted.
Assume that the Big 12 media contract is worth $100 million (for the ease of math here; it doesn't matter what the real number is). If Boren is right, adding two teams bumps the contract's value to $120 million. So far, so good. Get Cincinnati and Memphis on the phone right now!
But when the contract is to be renegotiated, ESPN and FOX are going to be computing the value of having Cincinnati and Memphis in the conference. So instead of getting a $140 million contract for a 10-school league ($14 mil/school), it'll be $150 million for 12 schools ($12.5 mil/school).
Again, the numbers are just placeholders, but the point is that diluting the value of the conference now--even if the current contract would be unaffected--is bad news as soon as we go back to the negotiating table, so it's a short-sighted argument from Boren.
Last edited:
The hope would be that whoever you grab has growth potential. You dont just grab anyone. You look for a school that while they may not be worth as much now, with increased revenue from being in the big 12 and from being on the higher stage could itself become a bigger draw. Thats why you do this now, while things are stable and you have time for that growth, as Boren suggested. IIRC we have about 10 years left on the tv contract and GOR. We need to make sure the conference is on good footing for that point in time or no matter what happens with the money now, we could be in trouble if some decide to opt out then.
Let's assume that there is a school that has the potential to grow into even an average Big 12-sized fan base. (I doubt that one is available.) If the Big 12 adds them now, it's a gamble that they picked the right one and that they actually fulfill their potential. Adding UCF and having them pump out a few 4-8 football and 14-17 basketball seasons isn't gonna do much.
And even then, all you are is right back where you started! They hit the average mark? Great, they just added nothing to the other schools in the conference*. So now you need to scour the mid-majors and find a school that you are confident will be an above average Big 12 institution in 10 years. And if you're lucky enough to find one? You have to find another! Because you can't just stop at 11 (what's the point?).
The whole thing is foolish. Adding any schools right now would be a rash decision that I think would set in motion the death of the Big 12. I think the Big 12's best move is to stick with 10 members, consider a football championship game, and let the quality of its play continue to speak for itself in terms of contract negotiations. I think the ACC would be the next major conference to fall if any conference actually did. We might just keep playing on with five major conferences for decades.
*Other than conference championship game money, which is going to be possible for a 10-team Big 12 anyway.
- Status
