*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[HFCS]

A one-loss ACC team would have likely topped both Oregon (2 losses) and Stanford (lost to Oregon) in the human polls last season and ended up in the Top 4 of the the BCS. Also, in any other playoff selection process being bandied about, a one-loss ACC team would have got in last season.

Again, the problem with the ACC is not SOS, it has been the glaring inability to produce an undefeated or one-loss team. When FSU or Miami were previously undefeated or had one loss, they were always top 4.

Agree to disagree, but I'm not pulling numbers out of thin air, I've posted more numbers on the subject than anyone in this thread. I don't think they'd have been in over Oregon or Stanford, I think they'd have been ranked #6 or #7 by the BCS (Arkansas would be in there too as a computer top 5 and human top 7), but likely the #4 champ.

Boise State had an SOS very similar to Florida State last year (75 and 68) and one loss. RPI type rankings put them at 13th, the BCS doesn't use style point type rankings so RPI quality of wins are all that counts.

FSU with one loss would have been somewhere around 13th in 1/3 of the formula and 4th or 5th in the rest. That's not top 4.

 

[bosco]

I clicked on that, but it didn't take me to a link showing that ISU would have to add a women's sport if it added baseball (or any other men's sport for that matter)...

If every post required a link to support it then there would be a lot less posts and probably a lot more production at work. Oops didn't provide a link to support this. I can say that FSU isn't going to join the B12 and provide a link and someone else can dispute with a link. So what?! I'm not stating breaking news or concrete facts or submitting a term paper.

IF you don't agree then fine make a rebuttal like CyFan's excellent response below yours. (NO link though, tsk...tsk...) but it does show that those numbers are fluid and ISU may have to add a women's team down the road in a hypothetical scenario where ISU added baseball and if the gender % changed.

 

[jbhtexas]

If every post required a link to support it then there would be a lot less posts and probably a lot more production at work.

I never said every post needed a support link. I did ask you for one though, and you responded with a smart-*** remark.

I can say that FSU isn't going to join the B12 and provide a link and someone else can dispute with a link. So what?! I'm not stating breaking news or concrete facts or submitting a term paper.

Those two things are completely different. Whether or not ISU would need to add a women's sport if it added a men's sport is most certainly a concrete fact that can be precisely determined using NCAA guidelines...there is nothing to "agree" or "disagree" about. Either ISU has to add a women's sport or it doesn't. It isn't conjecture or opinion about something that hasn't yet occurred, such as whether FSU will or will not will join the Big 12.

I thought perhaps you might have a source that had applied the NCAA guidelines to ISU situation and showed that a women's team would have to be added.

 

[Al_4_State]

One thing you need to take into consideration regarding how much the ACC has sucked is that they have ONE BCS win in the past 12 years or so. ONE. The Big East has 4 (if you count WVU over Clemson last year). The WAC has two for crying out loud.

 

[bosco]

I never said every post needed a support link. I did ask you for one though, and you responded with a smart-*** remark.

NO but you singled out my post but didn't ask for the preceding posts or Cyfan for a link. And if Whatevs is a smart-alec response then you are thin skinned or have teenage daughters.

Those two things are completely different. Whether or not ISU would need to add a women's sport if it added a men's sport is most certainly a concrete fact that can be precisely determined using NCAA guidelines...there is nothing to "agree" or "disagree" about. Either ISU has to add a women's sport or it doesn't. It isn't conjecture or opinion, such as whether FSU will or will not will join the Big 12.

It is going to be a very boring message board if there can only be posts that only provide information that is backed by sold facts.

Here is an article that doesn't specifically state it but does say that Title IX was a determining factor in getting rid of it. If you want more then you can look it up yourself.

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/cf-archive-bin/10581-time-isu-reinstate-baseball-program.html

 

[Wesley]

This is one reason I'm not crazy about megaconference at 14 or 16 --- seems too scattered to have a conference identity as far as football scheduling. Even with a 9-game schedule, wouldn't a 16-team league mean playing some teams only once every four seasons? (or twice every 8, in home-and-home groupings)?

If it probably comes down to 4 megaconferences, would you not want to be in the group? :yes:

 

[cyman05]

I don't know if anybody saw this...could be nothing, but has the potential to be major news:

Before today, the ACC favored letting the 4 best teams into the new playoff. But it came out today that the ACC now favors a conference-champs only idea. That idea is also favored by the Big10 and Pac12 (assumedly along with the Big East and every other minor conference). The Big 12 has not taken a stance. With the ACC's switch, the SEC is now the only conference to come out and say they want the top 4 teams. If the ACC's switcheroo causes a conference champs only model to come to reality, then what does this have to do with Notre Dame and Florida State? And why would the ACC suddenly switch their tune at the meetings this week?

1. Does a conference champs model force Notre Dame to join a conference? Could this be a nervous ACC push to take a 1 in 3 shot at landing Notre Dame? If so, does that cause all other ACC schools to stay in their current home?
2. Even if this would cause no reaction from Notre Dame, could it be extra incentive for Florida State to remain? Just be ACC champs and hope that the ACC is the 4th best conference instead of the 5th?

Interesting development nonetheless...

This is where I saw this at if anybody is interested in more detail:
Homepage | MrSEC

 

[Wesley]

The only real problem for the ACC is that the bottom part of the conference is not very competitive. Will that be changing soon?

 

[heitclone]

The ACC isn't as bad as people make it out to be, its just that in the last decade or so Virginia Tech is the only thing close to a powerhouse they've had. Other than that they just have a lot of parity, the Florida (FSU/Miami) schools haven't been able to keep with UF and are even losing ground to South Florida now as well.

 

[AlumfromAmes]

I don't know if anybody saw this...could be nothing, but has the potential to be major news:

Before today, the ACC favored letting the 4 best teams into the new playoff. But it came out today that the ACC now favors a conference-champs only idea. That idea is also favored by the Big10 and Pac12 (assumedly along with the Big East and every other minor conference). The Big 12 has not taken a stance. With the ACC's switch, the SEC is now the only conference to come out and say they want the top 4 teams. If the ACC's switcheroo causes a conference champs only model to come to reality, then what does this have to do with Notre Dame and Florida State? And why would the ACC suddenly switch their tune at the meetings this week?

1. Does a conference champs model force Notre Dame to join a conference? Could this be a nervous ACC push to take a 1 in 3 shot at landing Notre Dame? If so, does that cause all other ACC schools to stay in their current home?
2. Even if this would cause no reaction from Notre Dame, could it be extra incentive for Florida State to remain? Just be ACC champs and hope that the ACC is the 4th best conference instead of the 5th?

Interesting development nonetheless...

This is where I saw this at if anybody is interested in more detail:
Homepage | MrSEC

Interesting, but hard to gauge what it might mean.

Yes, conference-champs-only should push ND to a conference. You could make the argument that it would save the ACC and entice FSU and Clemson to stay. Just don't know if that would mean much to ND.

Would ND actually choose the ACC? Who knows? It could just as likely be one more step in a larger plan that includes FSU, Clemson, and others moving to the Big XII. Followed by a move of ND to the same.

 

[im4cyclones]

The ACC isn't as bad as people make it out to be, its just that in the last decade or so Virginia Tech is the only thing close to a powerhouse they've had. Other than that they just have a lot of parity, the Florida (FSU/Miami) schools haven't been able to keep with UF and are even losing ground to South Florida now as well.

If you have to go farther back than the past decade, they aren't good. They may have been good at one time. But they aren't good now. I think a decade is reasonable. Not a fluke but a trend.

An article linked in here somewhere said that FSU won the ACC 3 times in the 2000s with 5, 3, & 5 losses. You lose 5 in B12 and you might end up in Shreveport. Not conference champs.

 

[agrabes]

The ACC isn't as bad as people make it out to be, its just that in the last decade or so Virginia Tech is the only thing close to a powerhouse they've had. Other than that they just have a lot of parity, the Florida (FSU/Miami) schools haven't been able to keep with UF and are even losing ground to South Florida now as well.

Actually, it's the Big East that wasn't as bad as people said it was. They've had a pretty decent bowl record. The ACC hasn't.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

Actually, it's the Big East that wasn't as bad as people said it was. They've had a pretty decent bowl record. The ACC hasn't.

I'm not contesting that the ACC sucks, but the Big East sucks pretty hard, too. Most of their major bowl wins are from Virginia Tech (left in 2005), Miami (left in 2005), and West Virginia (leaving this year). A good share of the rest are from Pitt and Syracuse, who are also leaving and are 10-15 years removed from fielding quality teams.

 

[drednot57]

Divisional Alignment, Competitive Balance Style


Division A:
Darrel Royal Division
Baylor - 31.9%
Florida State - 71.0%
Kansas - 42.6%
Kansas State - 65.0%
Texas - 75.1%
West Virginia - 66.7%

Division A average winning percentage: 58.7%

Division B:
Bud Wilkinson Division
Clemson - 59.0%
Iowa State - 39.6%
Oklahoma - 72.2%
Oklahoma State - 58.2%
TCU
Texas Tech - 62.3%

Division B average winning percentage (excluding TCU): 58.3%

Protected rivalries would include Texas-Oklahoma and Baylor-TCU (among others, obviously). Each division ends up with two Texas schools, as well as exactly 4 "old" school and 2 "new" ones.

Yeah, I think that'd do it.

I like the split. Even so, rather than Div. A and B. how about what I have in bold print above?

 

[drednot57]

Don't worry. If FSU and Clemson join the Big 12, ISU will eventually be playing it too...

Sorry for all the baseball haters out there...baseball is the big-time NCAA men's spring sport. Any team that wants to be part of a big-time conference will eventually play the big-time sports. It's inevitable.

With $30M in TV revenue, plus donations, ISU could build decent baseball facilities and at least be competitive which ISU wasn't when the baseball was killed. That said, what wold be the cost of a small baseball stadium with a retractable roof, so games in Feb. could played in Ames?

 

[Al_4_State]

I'm not contesting that the ACC sucks, but the Big East sucks pretty hard, too. Most of their major bowl wins are from Virginia Tech (left in 2005), Miami (left in 2005), and West Virginia (leaving this year). A good share of the rest are from Pitt and Syracuse, who are also leaving and are 10-15 years removed from fielding quality teams.

The Big East as it will be next year sucks, but the Big East as it existed from 2005-2011 is inarguably better than the ACC. They got beat up in the media, but in that period of time they had 4 BCS wins to the ACC's 1. That included a 2-1 head-to-head record in BCS games against each other, in favor of the Big East. The Big East's other BCS wins were against SEC and Big 12 champions.

The ACC has unequivocally been the worst BCS conference over the past 7 years. The Big East will be worse going ahead, but that's because they've lost 3 more teams.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

The Big East as it will be next year sucks, but the Big East as it existed from 2005-2011 is inarguably better than the ACC. They got beat up in the media, but in that period of time they had 4 BCS wins to the ACC's 1. That included a 2-1 head-to-head record in BCS games against each other, in favor of the Big East. The Big East's other BCS wins were against SEC and Big 12 champions.

The ACC has unequivocally been the worst BCS conference over the past 7 years. The Big East will be worse going ahead, but that's because they've lost 3 more teams.

All good points. One other thing to consider, though, is that when the Big East loses BCS games, they lose them badly. Pitt, Cincinnati, and UConn got absolutely shellacked in their BCS games, and they were supposedly the best in their conference. I even remember many people saying that Cincinnati deserved a shot at the national championship in 2009 before they ended up getting their **** pushed in by Florida. When a team dominates their conference like that and gets exposed as a total fraud in their bowl, it often means that their conference was soft.

 

[im4cyclones]

Don't worry. If FSU and Clemson join the Big 12, ISU will eventually be playing it too...

Sorry for all the baseball haters out there...baseball is the big-time NCAA men's spring sport. Any team that wants to be part of a big-time conference will eventually play the big-time sports. It's inevitable.

I don't get the fascination with having baseball. NOBODY went when we had it. We were no good when we had it. Why invest money in something in which (1) we cannot compete and (2) no one has an interest in watching.

How can you really want us to divert potential funds from football and/or basketball to fund a losing entity like baseball? In case you haven't noticed, we are in a conference that invests heavily in football facilities. Even the new football building only makes us comparable to others. It does not move us to the upper echelon of the conference.

 

[awd4cy]

All good points. One other thing to consider, though, is that when the Big East loses BCS games, they lose them badly. Pitt, Cincinnati, and UConn got absolutely shellacked in their BCS games, and they were supposedly the best in their conference. I even remember many people saying that Cincinnati deserved a shot at the national championship in 2009 before they ended up getting their **** pushed in by Florida. When a team dominates their conference like that and gets exposed as a total fraud in their bowl, it often means that their conference was soft.

The ACC has also lost BCS games badly too. Last season Clemson got rocked and the season before that Virginia Tech got stomped on by Stanford. I think we can all agree both conferences suck but I think it is too tough to tell which one sucks more.

 

[Wesley]

All good points. One other thing to consider, though, is that when the Big East loses BCS games, they lose them badly. Pitt, Cincinnati, and UConn got absolutely shellacked in their BCS games, and they were supposedly the best in their conference. I even remember many people saying that Cincinnati deserved a shot at the national championship in 2009 before they ended up getting their **** pushed in by Florida. When a team dominates their conference like that and gets exposed as a total fraud in their bowl, it often means that their conference was soft.

Is that why Boise beat OU?