Staying at 10?

[IcSyU]

Anybody that thinks Iowa State has an easier path to a conference championship or BCS game in the round robin versus the divisional format is an idiot.

Would you prefer to have to beat four out of five (probably minimum) of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M or have the chance to avoid all of the big boys until the title game. It will take 0 or 1 loss in most years to win the conference in this format. Before you could lose 3 games and still get into the Big 12 title game. You could afford to lose to the OUs/Texas' of the world because chances were everyone else would too. You had to get lucky once. Now you can't slip up at all.

I would rather play them in a regular season game where CPR has shown anything can happen. They have more experience playing in a championship game than we do. Anything can happen in a regular season game also. You still have to be better than 11 teams in your divisional format vs being better than 9 teams in the current big 12

No you don't. You had to be better than 6-7 to get to the title game in the north. You have to be better than 8 or 9 in the round robin.

 

[Bestaluckcy]

No you don't. You had to be better than 6-7 to get to the title game in the north. You have to be better than 8 or 9 in the round robin.

The north is long gone and is not ever coming back. In divisional format you have to be best in 9 or 10 Big 12 games, one of them being a high pressure championship game. In round robin you have to be best in 9 big 12 games. This is harder because?

 

[megamanxzero35]

Wasn't Iowa State in the running last year to win the Big 12 North if they beat Nebraska and Mizzou?

In the new round robin 9 game set up, Iowa State would need to finish 2nd or above with their one loss coming from the team that finishes first to hope for a BCS berth. And even then, if the school in 3rd is a school like Texas or OSU, I think Iowa State would get passed up for the BCS bid. Even in the old Big 12 something like that happened when Kansas was great in 2007 and they got the BCS bid even though Mizzou won the North and played in the championship game.

 

[hurdleisu24]

Id like to see the big 12 add 3 schools if MU leaves and go back to divisons with 1 divison being the remaining members of the Big 8.

 

[hurdleisu24]

The Big 12 needs to get to 12 simply because the feeling nationally is that when the big 10 TV contracts come up for bidding again were going to be back in this conference realiment talk again.

 

[PabloDiablo]

I think 10 is the number if Mizzou stays because it keeps everyones money the same. And we basically traded college station for Ft. Worth. If Mizzou leaves we will need 3 teams to come in to replace the market loss that Mizzou brings to the B12.

Also it has been indicated (don't remember where) that Texas likes a 10 team league and since they are giving up, unequal revenue sharing, rights and hs content on LHN. There there could be some kind of payoff with 10 team league. However, like I indicated above it Mizzou leaves we will need multiple markets to make up for the loss of what Mizzou brings to the conference.

I know Beebe is no longer with the conference but remember he was in conversations with the BE. It could be that there is a handshake deal that the B12 wouldn't take anyone but TCU, provided Mizzou stays. Not sure the B12 wants to be considered the reason the BE failed. Even though it wouldn't really be the B12's fault.

This is a good thought. StL is currently the 21st largest TV market in the US with approx. population of 2.8 mil metro wide. KC is 31st with metro area population of 2.1 million. Even Springfield, MO sneaks in the top 100 at 71st with a metro population of 430,000. Totaling 5,330,000 tv sets in those markets. Coming up with an equivalent amount of TV's will be difficult.

Of the current schools being considered(or at least their name being thrown out there) Salt Lake City is #33(population 1.1 mil), Cincinnati is at #34 (population 2.1 mil), Louisville is #50 (population 740,000), Lexington, KY is #63 (population 470,000) and Charleston/Huntington, WV at #65 (population 304,000)*.

IF the Big 12 were trying to replace Missouri's 5.3 million lost "tv sets" it would have to pull in BYU, Cincy and Louisville to give them 4.4 million TV sets in those respective metro areas. IF any network dollars were being placed into regions and Ohio were strong-armed, BIG 10 network style, then we would also pick up Cleveland-Akron (#17, pop: 2.8 million), Columbus (#24, 2 mil), Dayton (#41, 1 million), Toledo (#50, 730000) and Youngstown(#54, 670000) raising the total to 11.6 million TV sets.

This obviously assumes a ton about how networks work and I doubt highly that this is true but could hold some merit as a general thought more-so than facts. Ohio is very clearly owned by tOSU and won't bend to the will of Cincy or the Big 12 but the networks may look at market share and dollars to put a product on TV and not territorial ownership.

*population stats per wikipedia FWIW

 

[IcSyU]

The north is long gone and is not ever coming back. In divisional format you have to be best in 9 or 10 Big 12 games, one of them being a high pressure championship game. In round robin you have to be best in 9 big 12 games. This is harder because?

You don't have to be the best in 9 or 10 Big 12 games. You could get into the title game with 5 or 6 conference wins. You could WIN the conference title with 3 losses. That isn't happening in the round robin format. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

Which is an easier path for Iowa State:

Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Colorado

with 3 of
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Baylor

or

Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Baylor

You have to beat the teams in your division and you're in the drivers seat. If you beat those teams, you're probably better than the teams in your division and they'll also take lumps against the other side of the division. You have to win 5 or 6 games and you're in and just need 1 upset. Now Iowa State has to pull a minimum of 5 upsets to be in consideration and not lose a game they should win.

 

[jbhtexas]

This completely misses my point. We are on the verge of losing the fourth team out of the original B12 (for whatever reason, the poaching terminology I used was used by you which was used by the person you quoted ... who cares about the terminology). Had we started with fewer teams, losing four may have been more difficult to withstand.

Or consider this. If we add TCU, BYU, Louisville, and West Virginia to get back up to 12, we would be in a better position to withstand the loss of the four Pac12 flirters that if we were to just add two of TCU, BYU, UL, WVU.

I would agree that more teams might allow a conference to better withstand losing teams.

But, how having more teams prevents other teams from leaving, or being "poached", which is the question I brought up in the first post of mine you replied to, has still not been answered as far as I can tell.

And terminology does matter. "Poaching" implies that a conference is out looking to grab teams and initiating the contact. In the case of the Big 12, it seems that the teams were pursuing other conferences. Those are two very different things.

 

[jbhtexas]

Which is an easier path for Iowa State:

Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Colorado

with 3 of
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Baylor

This is no longer relevant. The new Big 12 divisions are not going to be like this. CU, NU, and TAMU are gone, and the new Big 12 divisions would likely follow competiviely balanced divisions similar to what the Big Ten has done. In trying to determine what will be easier for ISU in the future, you can't compare the present 9-game round-robin format to an obselete, unrealistic divisional alignment.

Also, keep in mind that something very rare happened in the Big 12 a few years ago. Just about every team in the Big 12 North went "mediocre" at the same time (partly due to a large coaching turnover). The likelihood of one division falling apart like that again is rather unlikely.

 

[Cyhart]

This is no longer relevant. The new Big 12 divisions are not going to be like this. CU, NU, and TAMU are gone, and the new Big 12 divisions would likely follow competiviely balanced divisions similar to what the Big Ten has done. In trying to determine what will be easier for ISU in the future, you can't compare the present 9-game round-robin format to an obselete, unrealistic divisional alignment.

Well, id assume that whatever the new divisions would be, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be in a different one than Iowa State. I know what happens when you assume, but its a fairly safe bet I think. And thats really what matters.

Also, the revenue ISU will be be getting if we go to 12 will still be a lot more than we are getting at the present time.

 

[IcSyU]

This is no longer relevant. The new Big 12 divisions are not going to be like this. CU, NU, and TAMU are gone, and the new Big 12 divisions would likely follow competiviely balanced divisions similar to what the Big Ten has done. In trying to determine what will be easier for ISU in the future, you can't compare the present 9-game round-robin format to an obselete, unrealistic divisional alignment.

Doesn't matter. For a team like Iowa State that's going to be an underdog most of the time, you don't want to have to play all of the big boys because you can't beat them week in week out. Even with more balance, which is tougher, an upset or 2 against your division or having to run the table?

 

[jbhtexas]

Doesn't matter.

Yes it does matter. Sorry.

 

[jbhtexas]

Well, id assume that whatever the new divisions would be, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be in a different one than Iowa State. I know what happens when you assume, but its a fairly safe bet I think. And thats really what matters.

Interesting. I'd bet a steak dinner UT and OU would be split, with a protected rivalry to preserve the RRS.

 

[SvrWxCy]

Well, id assume that whatever the new divisions would be, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be in a different one than Iowa State. I know what happens when you assume, but its a fairly safe bet I think. And thats really what matters.

Also, the revenue ISU will be be getting if we go to 12 will still be a lot more than we are getting at the present time.

I don't think you would see Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the same division if we sorted division by something other than geography. If you do the whole 'legends v leaders' deal you sort them to try and get somewhat of an equality on each side and in which case your theoretical top 2 (OU & Texas) would not be in the same division.

 

[Cyhart]

I don't think you would see Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the same division if we sorted division by something other than geography. If you do the whole 'legends v leaders' deal you sort them to try and get somewhat of an equality on each side and in which case your theoretical top 2 (OU & Texas) would not be in the same division.

That is a good point. I am still programmed to think geographically, and obviously thats out the door in this day and age.
I mean, TCU in the Big East?!? ha. That was just weird.

At the end of the day though, imo divisional play will be better for Iowa State. Not playing texas and okie in the same year would be a positive.
I know we beat Texas last year, but, Texas is Texas. They'll be "back" soon.

 

[IcSyU]

Yes it does matter. Sorry.

So Iowa State is better off in a format where if we trip up once we're probably dead in the water? Huh, that's news to me. I'd think Iowa State would be better off in a format where if you lose 2 or 3 games you still have a chance to pull off an upset in the title game to be the champions.

Playing a round robin puts all the underdogs at a significant disadvantage. Missouri had a chance to win the Big 12 in the divisional format. Now? Ha.

 

[Cyhart]

So Iowa State is better off in a format where if we trip up once we're probably dead in the water? Huh, that's news to me. I'd think Iowa State would be better off in a format where if you lose 2 or 3 games you still have a chance to pull off an upset in the title game to be the champions.

Playing a round robin puts all the underdogs at a significant disadvantage. Missouri had a chance to win the Big 12 in the divisional format. Now? Ha.

This is absolutely correct as well. It wasnt the angle I was arguing, but its spot on.

 

[BirdDog]

With the Big East in disarray, now is the time to pick up some high profile eastern schools and go to 12, no matter what MO does. It would sure open more recruiting doors for CPR. CFH appears to already be in the eastern market in a big way.

 

[jbhtexas]

So Iowa State is better off in a format where if we trip up once we're probably dead in the water? Huh, that's news to me. I'd think Iowa State would be better off in a format where if you lose 2 or 3 games you still have a chance to pull off an upset in the title game to be the champions.

You don't know for certain under the divisional arrangement whether ISU would have a chance to get to the championship game after losing two or three conference games. How many Big 12 South teams got to the Big 12 championship game with two or three losses? Your argument is inherently based on the anominaly of what happened in the Big 12 North a few years ago (that I pointed out in a prior post). You assume that ISU's division would be consistently weaker than the other division. This is not a good assumption knowing that there would be a strong likelihood of the divisions being arranged for competitive balance.

 

[gocubs2118]

You don't know for certain under the divisional arrangement whether ISU would have a chance to get to the championship game after losing two or three conference games. Your argument is inherently based on the anominaly of what happened in the Big 12 North a few years ago that I pointed out in a prior post.

We do know for certain that a divisional format will be much easier than a round robin and having to play everyone. Don't know why this is so difficult.