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

Status
Not open for further replies.

CYVADER

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
5,384
242
63
Cornfields
why in the **** is this thing still on the front page. can we give it it's own forum off of the front page already!?!?!?!?
 

URBCLONE

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2006
1,244
75
48
56
Urbandale

cyman05

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 7, 2010
2,119
305
83
I hear you Cyman. I do think Dodds still carries a lot of weight in the conference though. The good news as far as I am concerned is that the article seems to indicate that Texas is now open to 12 teams. I would love to see the Big 12 take it even further and grab Louisville, Cincinnati, Rutgers, and UCONN to go to 14. That would collapse the Big East and perhaps just force ND's hand. Would be nice to be the aggressor for once.

Finally, did you see the article about Vandy's Associate AD saying that the SEC is not finished expanding. Really hope the target this time is the ACC and not UT for instance.

WOW- I didn't catch that one. Looks like the article was published a week ago. I think we all knew they'd go to 16 at some point, but I can't believe they came out an admitted it publicly. I think if they go to 16 they'll almost assuredly expand east. I would expect some combination of Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or West Virginia with the 1st two being the most likely. Then they can move Missouri back West where it makes some geographical sense. I supposed they'd consider an OU/OSU combo, but whatever they do they'll have to break the "no expanding in an already existing SEC state" rule.

If you assume they take 2 ACC teams, it'd be interesting to see if they ACC is happy going back down to 12 or if they take UConn and Rutgers to finish off the Big East.

Here's the link for anybody interested

Vandy vice chancellor hints SEC not done expanding | CollegeFootballTalk
 

URBCLONE

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2006
1,244
75
48
56
Urbandale
WOW- I didn't catch that one. Looks like the article was published a week ago. I think we all knew they'd go to 16 at some point, but I can't believe they came out an admitted it publicly. I think if they go to 16 they'll almost assuredly expand east. I would expect some combination of Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or West Virginia with the 1st two being the most likely. Then they can move Missouri back West where it makes some geographical sense. I supposed they'd consider an OU/OSU combo, but whatever they do they'll have to break the "no expanding in an already existing SEC state" rule.

If you assume they take 2 ACC teams, it'd be interesting to see if they ACC is happy going back down to 12 or if they take UConn and Rutgers to finish off the Big East.

Here's the link for anybody interested

Vandy vice chancellor hints SEC not done expanding | CollegeFootballTalk

Saw something today that said VA Tech would be a target. Geographically that move would make total sense. If that would happen, then I think that the ACC would look at Rutgers and/or UCONN to fill the gap. Since the Big 12 has already gone east with WVU, I think we should go ahead and expand with the teams mentioned earlier and create a East / West Big 12. Given Dodds comments along with Neinas saying expansion is done for 2012, got to believe that something is in the hopper for '13 or whenever the TV rights are up. PS. With Boren's comments about Rutgers, I have to believe that there is more to this than just idle speculation. Many of the Big East boards were buzzing about it over the weekend.
 

cyman05

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 7, 2010
2,119
305
83
Saw something today that said VA Tech would be a target. Geographically that move would make total sense. If that would happen, then I think that the ACC would look at Rutgers and/or UCONN to fill the gap. Since the Big 12 has already gone east with WVU, I think we should go ahead and expand with the teams mentioned earlier and create a East / West Big 12. Given Dodds comments along with Neinas saying expansion is done for 2012, got to believe that something is in the hopper for '13 or whenever the TV rights are up. PS. With Boren's comments about Rutgers, I have to believe that there is more to this than just idle speculation. Many of the Big East boards were buzzing about it over the weekend.


Interesting...sounds like something is starting to brew again. I thought this was over until next spring/summer at least.

I totally missed Boren's comments about Rutgers too. I thought Rutgers was pure media speculation, but maybe there is some smoke.

I have a hard time believing Va Tech goes to the SEC without Virginia. Sounded like that was a political nightmare in Virginia with lawmakers switching out Syracuse for Va Tech to ACC in 2003. Now Va Tech leaves Virginia??? I'll believe that when I see it. I think FSU and Clemson are most likely.

If the SEC expands do you see Louisville and Rutgers to Big 12? Or UConn/Rutgers to ACC?

Can't we just get a commish to make sense of all this and put this all to rest!

Boren link below:

OU President Boren Wants Rutgers and Louisville in Big 12 - BeyondU Sports
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
Anybody see this posted today? More evidence that A&M is delusional and they used false reports about the Longhorn Network as a smoke screen to bolt...Delusional...sounds like of like Missouri...only difference is A&M will be middle of the pack SEC and Mizzou will be bottom of the pack SEC in a few years after they lose their Texas recruits

Texas Tech spokesman: ESPN did not threaten Tech | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Texas Tech spokesperson Blayne Beal said Monday that ESPN never threatened the university to air its Big 12 Conference football game against Texas on the Longhorn Network.

In a July 21 email from Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne that was published by the Dallas Morning News on Nov. 18, Byrne claimed ESPN "Threatened Tech."

"The first year of cable system is the critical startup time," Byrne wrote. "So far no cable systems have signed up. According to (Texas AD) Deloss (Dodds), tu contract calls for one game with best efforts for a 2nd game. ESPN pushing hard to get clearances and inventory. Threatened Tech. Deloss acknowledges ESPN rep did that but he stopped them from doing that anymore. Privately says he can control ESPN, publicly says he can't."

Beal said Monday that Byrne's claim of ESPN threatening Tech is "unequivocally not true."

"ESPN presented a plan," Beal said. "We reviewed it and decided against it."
The email, which contains a series of concerns regarding ESPN and the Longhorn Network, does not list a recipient. In the email, Byrne also notes that A&M needs "...a backup plan. SEC? Pac-12? Bigger-10?"
Byrne has lied in the past.
 

CycloneChris

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2009
1,645
86
48
Chicago suburbs
I think it's unlikely that Missouri would make a major decision with long-term ramifications for the entire university off of a "false report." Does anybody here believe MU didn't take ENOUGH time to make its decision?

Neinas doesn't specify what information he believes to be "false." Missouri's under no obligation to share anything with him. This isn't a court case...if the financial report dealt with future revenue strategy for the SEC, then there's good reason NOT to share it.

From reading this, it seems like Neinas got his Depends in a wad over the fact that he wasn't allowed to "make his case" to the MU administration. The Big 12 had YEARS to prove that it was committed to all of its members. Yet none of the proposed changes were approved until after NU, CU and TAMU left, and when MU had one foot out the door.

Does SEC membership generate an extra $12M per year for Mizzou? We will find out. But if not, then that's MU's problem. Not Chuck Neinas's.

Your mizzou curator **** sticks couldn't even schedule a conference call without it being rick-rolled and having 4 different people introduce themselves as Dan Beebe to the gal running the call. If they can't get something like a conference call right, it's not that far fetched to think they would **** this up too.
 

Mizzoulander

Member
Sep 28, 2011
643
16
18
Interesting to hear Rutgers name thrown out. I think that Kirk Bohls speculation himself and nothing else.

As much as A&M/Mizzou fans would like you to think otherwise, I don't think DeLoss Dodds is the commish of the B12 anymore. The last couple years have given Texas a lot of negative pub and more defections by disgruntled members would either force Texas' hand to a move they don't want to make and give Texas more negative pub.

I think you've got this backwards. The defection of 4 of the 5 teams that had/have options to move (OU being the exception, along it sounds as if the Pac 12 presidents had approved, they'd be gone too) has strengthened Dodds' hand. The only teams with leverage are gone. The remaining teams are either tied to UT or OU, or have no other options in a solidly-AQ league.

Texas does not care about negative publicity. They want the easiest, most lucrative path to championship games. And the moment that the Big 12 does not provide that, they're gone.

But for right now, why would they leave? They have veto power over the number of teams in conference (who else wants to stay at 10?) They have de facto control over not only their own Tier 3 games, but (from Byrne's email) they are working to gain control over others as well.

If you trust Texas to act in the interests of long term Big 12 success, that's OK. I just don't see it taking place.

(BTW, **** Vitale said tonight that Missouri belongs in the Big 12. Chalk up one MORE good reason to leave...) :smile:
 

Mizzoulander

Member
Sep 28, 2011
643
16
18
Your mizzou curator **** sticks couldn't even schedule a conference call without it being rick-rolled and having 4 different people introduce themselves as Dan Beebe to the gal running the call. If they can't get something like a conference call right, it's not that far fetched to think they would **** this up too.

Well, that's a great point. In Missouri, the A/V technicians that set up the conference calls for the Curators and made the access number accessible to the public rather than only credentialed media, are the SAME people that review legal documents and analyze financial reports for the University.

We find it's more cost-effective that way.

(not even going to bother with a pirate...)
 

CycloneChris

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2009
1,645
86
48
Chicago suburbs
Well, that's a great point. In Missouri, the A/V technicians that set up the conference calls for the Curators and made the access number accessible to the public rather than only credentialed media, are the SAME people that review legal documents and analyze financial reports for the University.

We find it's more cost-effective that way.

(not even going to bother with a pirate...)

Based on what we've seen from the curators, the AV people are probably the smartest people there.
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
44,465
12,736
113
I think it's unlikely that Missouri would make a major decision with long-term ramifications for the entire university off of a "false report." Does anybody here believe MU didn't take ENOUGH time to make its decision?

Neinas doesn't specify what information he believes to be "false." Missouri's under no obligation to share anything with him. This isn't a court case...if the financial report dealt with future revenue strategy for the SEC, then there's good reason NOT to share it.

From reading this, it seems like Neinas got his Depends in a wad over the fact that he wasn't allowed to "make his case" to the MU administration. The Big 12 had YEARS to prove that it was committed to all of its members. Yet none of the proposed changes were approved until after NU, CU and TAMU left, and when MU had one foot out the door.

Does SEC membership generate an extra $12M per year for Mizzou? We will find out. But if not, then that's MU's problem. Not Chuck Neinas's.

For the record, Nebraska and aTm were against revenue sharing when they were in the Big 12. Along with Texas and Oklahoma. If Nebraska and aTm had been for revenue sharing in the Big 12 from the beginning it is doubtful we would have had these issues today.

That is one of the main reasons why those teams had to leave before we could get any of the proposed changes.

Can't wait to get your check for the maximum amount of Exit fees. And the latest predictions for your projected bowl in the SEC next year is the TOILET BOWL.
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
I think you've got this backwards. The defection of 4 of the 5 teams that had/have options to move (OU being the exception, along it sounds as if the Pac 12 presidents had approved, they'd be gone too) has strengthened Dodds' hand. The only teams with leverage are gone. The remaining teams are either tied to UT or OU, or have no other options in a solidly-AQ league.

Texas does not care about negative publicity. They want the easiest, most lucrative path to championship games. And the moment that the Big 12 does not provide that, they're gone.

But for right now, why would they leave? They have veto power over the number of teams in conference (who else wants to stay at 10?) They have de facto control over not only their own Tier 3 games, but (from Byrne's email) they are working to gain control over others as well.

If you trust Texas to act in the interests of long term Big 12 success, that's OK. I just don't see it taking place.

(BTW, **** Vitale said tonight that Missouri belongs in the Big 12. Chalk up one MORE good reason to leave...) :smile:
To be champions, Texas needs to start winning basic games. I am beginning to think the management of their football team needs an upgrade. I would think their bulletin boards would be howling by now like they are in Lincoln.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,725
54,911
113
LA LA Land
BYU officially says "NO THANKS" to the Service Academy Conference, I mean Big East Conference. They never gave the Big 12 an official yes or no in the whole feeling out process.

I still think BYU/BSU or BYU/AFA is similar in value to Louisville/Cincy. There are plusses and minuses with either one. If you go to 14 that's your 4.

Big 12 is still not being predatory at all. The ACC took 6 teams from the Big East. The Big 12 simply took the one best athletic program available to replace a defector when it could have easily taken another 1-4 teams the Big East needs to be relevant.

TCU never played a Big East game and they're a more logical fit in the Big 12. That was just timing, not poaching.

I still think there's a chance some or all of these CUSA and MWC schools realize they're MUCH better off going with their original idea of a championship game and mega conference with a huge east and west division for football only.
 

Boomer

Active Member
Jun 7, 2010
924
69
28
@wilnerhotline
Jon Wilner
Source: "The ACC will go to 16.''

@wilnerhotline
Jon Wilner
Also told that ADs from FBS schools believe Rutgers & UConn could head to ACC and BE would cease to exist as fball conf

===============

Those teams announce plans to jump, B12 extends lifevests to Louisville & Cinci for a later date no blood on the b12 hands for killing the BE

WVU is no longer on a island.Simple yes?

North

WVU
Louisville
Cinci
ISU
KU
KSU

South

OU
Texas
TCU
OSU
Baylor
Tech


Seems simple WVU wont be on a island & would have regional games, if we wanted to 14 in 2015 we could easily with the Florida twins (USF,UCF), just move KSU to the South
 
Last edited:

royhobbs09

Active Member
Apr 11, 2006
259
40
28
No thanks on Cinci. I'd rather have any number of available teams including BYU, Rutgers, New Mexico, Memphis, USF, UCF, Tulane, Boise State, Air Force, UConn, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron