Pretty sure Memphis got eliminated the other day.
***Official Big 12 Expansion Thread '16***
- Thread starter cyclones500
- Start date
Pretty sure Memphis got eliminated the other day.
The Houston-Oklahoma game got a 12.8 overnight rating in the Houston market, blowing every college football game from last year in that market out of the water. Houston is the 5th largest U.S. metro and 10th largest media market. Needless to say, this bodes well for the Cougars.
I was initially skeptical of "another Texas school" but Houston is a strong candidate despite its location. And its location is a plus for some of the schools that will be making the decisions.
I was initially skeptical of "another Texas school" but Houston is a strong candidate despite its location. And its location is a plus for some of the schools that will be making the decisions.
Meh ok so swap in BYU for Memphis. I guess I wasn't paying attention, last I had heard they just weren't named or unconfirmed that they had been dropped. Either way, I think they look to separate OU and Texas in divisions.
I think the opposite of this. Unless we have protected rivalries, they will put OU and UT in the same division to guarantee the game. Only game that moves the needle every single year regardless of record in the conference. Now if we protect the rivalry then they might be in separate divisions. But that means if we do that you play the teams in the other division less.
At first I was irritated by the media circus created by our "Bachelorette" style expansion process, but consider what it has done to help raise the profile of the conference. The Houston-Oklahoma game had fantastic television ratings:
Don't tell me potential Big 12 membership had nothing to do with people tuning in.
Don't tell me potential Big 12 membership had nothing to do with people tuning in.
I agree with your analysis. It ultimately matters whether there are protected rivalries across divisions. Currently in the other 12-14 team conferences, I believe at least one cross division rivalry is protected. So again, there is a lot of room in the different division scenarios depending on protected or unprotected rivalries.
The B1G experimented with balancing divisions & ultimately went with geography. As a result, those bastards from the east have been able to turn a mediocre program into a contender by taking advantage of an easier schedule.
Moral of the story: don't worry about balancing the divisions. Worry about preserving rivalry games instead.
BAYLOR
ISU
KU
KSU
TCU
WVU
BYU
HOUSTON
OU
OSU
TEXAS
TECH
Updating my earlier post -
Week 1 Attendance Figures for Big 12 Expansion Candidates:
@ Cincinnati - 28,520
@ UCONN - 29,377
@ South Florida - 35,976
@ UCF - 36,260
@ Air Force - 34,128
All other candidates were either away or playing on a neutral site (Houston).
Also to consider:
@ Memphis (I know they have been eliminated) - 42,876
Edit: did not realize Temple had been eliminated also:
@ Temple - 34,005
Week 1 Attendance Figures for Big 12 Expansion Candidates:
@ Cincinnati - 28,520
@ UCONN - 29,377
@ South Florida - 35,976
@ UCF - 36,260
@ Air Force - 34,128
All other candidates were either away or playing on a neutral site (Houston).
Also to consider:
@ Memphis (I know they have been eliminated) - 42,876
Edit: did not realize Temple had been eliminated also:
@ Temple - 34,005
That's just sad for Cincy & UConn. At least we bring a lot of fans for some pretty ****** football. Cincy still has proximity in their favor, but how the hell do you justify traveling to Storrs for that kind of environment?
Big 12 Home Attendance Week 1:
@ Baylor - 44,849
@ ISU - 60,629
@ TCU - 43,450
@ OK State - 50,079
@ West Virginia - 60,125
@ Kansas - 26,864 (yeesh!)
@ Texas Tech - 60,097
@ Texas - 102,315
@ Baylor - 44,849
@ ISU - 60,629
@ TCU - 43,450
@ OK State - 50,079
@ West Virginia - 60,125
@ Kansas - 26,864 (yeesh!)
@ Texas Tech - 60,097
@ Texas - 102,315
I think you're divisions are spot on if they don't protect rivalries across divisions. If they do then you could see TCU/Baylor swap OU/OSU, which makes sense geographically.
Currently the SEC has protected rivalries across divisions. They set this up to protect the Alabama-Tennessee and Auburn-Georgia rivalries. The other permanent cross-division games set by the conference are LSU-Florida, Mississippi State-Kentucky, Ole Miss-Vanderbilt, Texas A&M-South Carolina and Arkansas-Missouri.
It matters what the B12 wants to do, protect rivalries across divisions and reduce the number of cross division games or go back to the old North/South scheduling and keep OU/OSU/TX rivalries together. It'll be interesting to see what they end up doing and who (if any) they end up inviting. Adding Houston and BYU can't make WVU happy, but oh well.
IMO the best geographic swap from what he proposed is TCU for Houston. Then you have East and West divisions. The only rivalry game you lose is Baylor-TCU.
I could still see the Big 12 use the divisions he proposed to protect The Revivalry but still call them East and West. But I think TCU would want to be in Texas' division even if it meant giving up the BU game, because TCU and UT play annually on Thanksgiving and that is a higher visibility game. So I am back to trading TCU and Houston from the @CYCLNST8 proposal and calling it East/West. In exchange I could see the Big 12 working to promote a Baylor-Houston manufactured rivalry kind of like they tried at first with Iowa State-West Virginia.
Last edited:
This is plausibly geographic (East/West) and preserves rivalries while splitting Texas for recruiting. It is my preferred alignment that I posted earlier but it looks good in map form too
ISU was only behind Texas. Cyclone Nation, pat yourselves on the back.
Job well done.
IMO the best geographic swap from what he proposed is TCU for Houston. Then you have East and West divisions. The only rivalry game you lose is Baylor-TCU.
I could still see the Big 12 use the divisions he proposed to protect The Revivalry but still call them East and West. But I think TCU would want to be in Texas' division even if it meant giving up the BU game, because TCU and UT play annually on Thanksgiving and that is a higher visibility game. So I am back to trading TCU and Houston from the @CYCLNST8 proposal and calling it East/West. In exchange I could see the Big 12 working to promote a Baylor-Houston manufactured rivalry kind of like they tried at first with Iowa State-West Virginia.
I kept Baylor & TCU together because that rivalry has a longer history than TCU-Texas. In a 12 team conference, TCU would only be missing Texas every two years; possibly less if we continue with a nine game conference schedule. Perhaps Oklahoma would want to fill that slot in off-years.
Do we really need divisions? Why not just have the top-2 teams play for the Conference Championship? There are so many issues with divisional realignment and travel - why not just say that there are no divisions and the conference will generate the schedule randomly or on some type of rotation? "Protected" rivalries, regional match-ups, and travel would all be considered and would lead to more fluid scheduling. Yes, it sets up for the likelihood of a repeat match-up in the championship, but wouldn't that be more compelling for viewers (and advertisers) if it is the top-2 teams in the conference every year? This setup would remove all questions from the playoff committee (Big 12 has clear conference champion) and also makes it easy for bowl game selections. Plus we can keep the "One True Champion" T-shirts and other marketing materials.
They got a 12.8 in the Houston market only. What do you think ISU/Iowa will get in the DM/Ames market? The key is did they move the needle nationally?
The map suggests the Oklahoma schools should be in the north division. Logic suggests the same.
It also was a big game against another highly ranked team. How are they going to draw against non-name teams this year? And more importantly how will they draw if they stumble and lose a couple of games. A big part of why I don't like the idea of Houston is I think that all their fan support will evaporate the moment they aren't winning.
