I think you’re absolutely correct, but I’m not sure we are agreeing for the same reasons.
could you expound on your thought please
Big 12 Expansion (new thread)
- Thread starter Gilbyone
- Start date
I think you’re absolutely correct, but I’m not sure we are agreeing for the same reasons.
could you expound on your thought please
Logically, there are three options:
1. allow existing members to be poached
2. poach any of the existing P5s (most likely Pac12 as they're the least fiscally sound)
3. Some element of both
Honestly, if it were I, I'd look to being aggressive with P12 schools 'during' extended contract negotiations. This, in essence, would allow flexibility. I'd be forthright in establishing the widest timezone conference providing the ability of geographic rivalries and less frequent cross geographic marque matchups. The P12 is in the most difficult position of all the conferences. Look no further than a 10:30 EST game for us this weekend. They have to do something and, effectively, just tied their own hands with this so-called alliance. The B12 is their lifeboat which they just stuck a knife in. This is a small window for the B12 to be aggressive. We'll have to wait and see.
To me the question is whether USC/Ore are happy with P12 money or if they are willing to jump ship for the much larger $$ in an expanded BIG (basically SEC equivalent $$). If they go then I think all bets on P12 stability are off. I'm not sure that the next tier schools could get equivalent to New B12 money, in part because they have to share with 2 deadweights. It is in that scenario where I see a real opportunity for B12 .
For now it's a wait and see deal
How is it optimistic.
The Pac12 TV deal runs out with the 2023/24 school year and the Big 12 deal runs through 2024/25. So until we hear what the Pac12 deal is for 2024/25- the Big12 is better off.
We can’t on one hand say that football is all that matters and not understand that Stanford and Cal are dead weight too, and the Arizona schools aren’t much better.
I see what your saying but there are “upsides” to each school we took on. There schools that we could add that would be stupid IMO and Boise is one of them.
The one thing that I find amusing is how much **** is being slung at several PAC programs for not being worthy considerations, or 'dead weight' when I'd bet most of them would argue, some correctly, that their school is better than ours. We sign a few schools who've been begging at the door for years with no shot and suddenly we're looking down on people.
edit -
Hell, it's more silly than I thought. Not one of the schools mentioned has fewer than twice as many 8+ win seasons than ISU and that's only over 40 years. Twice as many. Some have 3 or 4 times as many. Recency bias is strong here but remember our basketball team is winless if we're only talking last year!
edit -
Hell, it's more silly than I thought. Not one of the schools mentioned has fewer than twice as many 8+ win seasons than ISU and that's only over 40 years. Twice as many. Some have 3 or 4 times as many. Recency bias is strong here but remember our basketball team is winless if we're only talking last year!
Last edited:
Yes, during this whole thing, talking to B1G fans, XII fans and PAC fans they all think no one is worthy to join them. In a sense, they are right. There are only 2 or 3 money teams in each conference so if you're only looking for money the pickings are slim. If you looking for other things, there are lots of options.
Having nothing to do with what's best for the XII I like Stanford, Utah, Colorado because I can take the train to the games.
I listened to the end of that game on ESPN Radio Wrap Around on the way back to Michigan (on business) after watching Indiana win @ Toledo that night! The fact that I remember that scenrio shows how traumatic of a loss that was. That being said, I'd love another home and home with Wyoming!
I agree on quality of football, but two points from my perspective: (1) as collegiate brands UCLA is strong, Stanford is solid and I think ASU is ok (Arizona is trash in football but a very strong BB brand - just like Kansas) and (2) those four additions would further strengthen the B12 as the 3rd best conference in the country with considerably more fan support and solid week to week matchups than the ACC. So B12 would not get SEC/BIG $$, but that is already a given, and this would give each member long-term stability so I would love to see it.
Too bad we don't actually get a voice in how this will all shake out.
While we're all talking hypotheticals, something I don't know in general but wonder -- are Cal and Stanford tied at the hip in any way? Or are most of the Pac couplets mainly a result of simply being the same league forever (in addition to the handy geographic link)?
Since the hypothetical talk has been USC + Ore + Wash + Colo to BIG that means that at least some believe USC and UCLA are not tied at the hip (obviously Wash and Ore aren't going with their "States"). I have no insight on Cal/Stanford but in this environment I don't see a lot of loyalty and if it meant survival for your program or loyalty to Cal, I would expect Stanford would value survival over loyalty.
The thing that worries me is that the Big 12 just made recruiting easier for UH, Cincinnati, and UCF. They will get better. I'm not sure how we get better, unless we are able to take good players out of their backyards. But - if we weren't getting them before, why would those kids come here now?
Campbell was already pulling studs out of Ohio and Central Florida. I don’t see how that slows it down.
Yep, a few weeks ago we were talking about scenarios for landing places for the Angry 8 and in most cases it seemed like there were homes for 6 or 7. Those same natural 6 or 7 landing places still exist, but now we have 12 schools fighting for them.
But back then CMC could say "come play in the Big 12". Now THEY can say that as well.
PAC12 network has been a failure and most of the schools don't have the kind of fan support that the Big8 schools do and maybe the Big8 schools got some idea what the media rights would be with the 4 adds and was better than what the PAC12 has. If P5 status is assured for the Big12 then maybe everyone stuck together to keep the conference together and maintain P5 status.
You're probably correct, loyalty/tradition vs. survival. It isn't the '90s (or prior) anymore.
