Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
1,342
790
113
Duh!
Pac12 already gets even worse spots, that’s how.
The Big 12 won’t be the SEC, but get a grip, it’ll be relevant, and likely the 3rd best P5 conference. Soon the 3 in the P3.
More likely three tiers:
Super Conference 2: SEC and BIG
Power 3: B12, ACC, P12
G6: rest
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HFCS

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
1,342
790
113
Duh!
It will be very interesting how their negotiations go.

everyone keeps saying it will be a low number, I hope they’re right. They will definitely set the market for the big aac in ‘25
Why don’t you wait for the outcome to see if the term ”big acc” is even appropriate. you are clearly miserable and want to take as many as you can with you. Noble cause. :rolleyes:
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
49,905
30,565
113
LA LA Land
I would like some real TV consultant to give us apples to apples comparisons of the new Big 12 against the Pac-12 and ACC. We are going to miss out on the top end splashiness but I'd bet that a garden variety Cincinnati vs Oklahoma State game does every bit as good as Arizona-Oregon State or Syracuse-Louisville.
it seems we have more actual tv viewers and streamers

but if you add up the tv markets…oh wait our tv markets now have double the population as pac footprint
 

everyyard

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 24, 2006
7,745
2,903
113
44
www.cyclonejerseys.com
This can’t be serious? Or perhaps you feel like Utah isn’t deserving and the Pac12 just gives out handouts. Because everything the Pac12 gets with Utah, the Big 12 gets even more of with BYU.
I think most conferences don’t jump at private religious schools unless they are out of options. See BYU, TCU, Baylor (forced in by Texas legislature/governor). The exception would be Notre Dame. If ACC breaks BC (and WF for size reasons as well) will have problems too.
 

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,633
-521
63
I think most conferences don’t jump at private religious schools unless they are out of options. See BYU, TCU, Baylor (forced in by Texas legislature/governor). The exception would be Notre Dame. If ACC breaks BC (and WF for size reasons as well) will have problems too.
the hostility towards religion fuels their arrogance.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
2,062
2,473
113
I don’t think so. The Big XII would exclude them if there were ANY better options.
They were excluded before for reasons separate from their TV value or football strength. There is a reason that the 2016 expansion exercise ended with the Big 12 consultants saying only one addition made financial sense. And now we have them.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
2,512
1,159
113
I think most conferences don’t jump at private religious schools unless they are out of options. See BYU, TCU, Baylor (forced in by Texas legislature/governor). The exception would be Notre Dame. If ACC breaks BC (and WF for size reasons as well) will have problems too.
Only because most are small with limited alumni and fanbases.
There are exceptions. ND. BYU.

Give me BYU over Utah any day

There’s a lot of humor in posting we only took a religious institution because of being desperate, then promptly mention a bunch of smaller, less valuable religious schools that have been in the top conferences for nearly all of college athletics. And also mentioning ND, the unicorn of conference realignment, largely built on the fact they’re a religious institution.

Nearly every religious school that plays at the major college level is in a P5. SMU was until they stumbled after the death penalty. Not surprisingly the North and coasts have less, but the Big 10 would sin to get the one within their footprint (ND).

I love the addition. A valuable brand name that will be easy to hate. Perfect.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Cyclonepride

everyyard

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 24, 2006
7,745
2,903
113
44
www.cyclonejerseys.com
Only because most are small with limited alumni and fanbases.
There are exceptions. ND. BYU.

Give me BYU over Utah any day

There’s a lot of humor in posting we only took a religious institution because of being desperate, then promptly mention a bunch of smaller, less valuable religious schools that have been in the top conferences for nearly all of college athletics. And also mentioning ND, the unicorn of conference realignment, largely built on the fact they’re a religious institution.

Nearly every religious school that plays at the major college level is in a P5. SMU was until they stumbled after the death penalty. Not surprisingly the North and coasts have less, but the Big 10 would sin to get the one within their footprint (ND).

I love the addition. A valuable brand name that will be easy to hate. Perfect.
ok?
 

everyyard

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 24, 2006
7,745
2,903
113
44
www.cyclonejerseys.com
Not okay. Please defend your statement with sound reasoning or logic, and not contradicting yourself.

Otherwise you’re just ignorantly regurgitating false narratives.
I think that the fact that the pac 12 passed on BYU and so did the Big XII until we had no choice speaks for itself. But, you keep at it, professor.
 

Cyclones1969

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 26, 2021
2,783
1,565
113
52
That’s what we’re talking about- an expanded playoffs. When they expand, the Big 12 will have an auto. Everyone wants the playoffs to expand, and they can’t without getting the votes. I’m not sure why that one poster has such a struggle comprehending that.

Likely more than 1 when/if the ACC and Pac12 lose teams to the BIG/SEC. As you sayid, the new Big 12 is well positioned to be #3. And once the ACC and Pac12 lose teams, it’s going to be a great conference for an emerging program like Iowa St to be in.
they already have the votes. There are already 3 conferences to vote for what they want.

If they needed the big 12, it would have been in the alliance to begin with. The fact that it’s not indicates they’re really not worried about needing their vote to check the sec.

They do want espn and Texas and Oklahoma to pay for their attempts to change the entire landscape. So they will pay lip service to wanting to keep the big 12 viable. But none of them will give up their interests to prop up any new entity.

being 3rd in a 2 person race doesn’t really mean that much. If the pac and the acc lose teams to the two super conferences, that doesn’t mean there will be a real place at the table for whatever configuration fills the vacuum.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
40,815
33,180
113
North Iowa
they already have the votes. There are already 3 conferences to vote for what they want.

If they needed the big 12, it would have been in the alliance to begin with. The fact that it’s not indicates they’re really not worried about needing their vote to check the sec.

They do want espn and Texas and Oklahoma to pay for their attempts to change the entire landscape. So they will pay lip service to wanting to keep the big 12 viable. But none of them will give up their interests to prop up any new entity.

being 3rd in a 2 person race doesn’t really mean that much. If the pac and the acc lose teams to the two super conferences, that doesn’t mean there will be a real place at the table for whatever configuration fills the vacuum.
Right now there are 10-11 votes. All conferences plus ND get a vote.