Give Tech to Texas.
Florida State gets Clemson as they could drive there.
GT gets the 14 school.
More regional. SWC rivalries kept.
*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
Florida State gets Clemson as they could drive there.
GT gets the 14 school.
More regional. SWC rivalries kept.
If ACC football teams start to jump to the Big XII, then the Big Ten and SEC will feel pressure to expand. Especially true if Big XII goes for all it can.
SEC will want VTech and one other from ACC. They'd be the first to 16, unless the Big XII can beat them to it. Personally, I'd love to see the race to 16 between the Big XII and SEC. Let the Big Ten and PAC 12 pick through the leftovers.
SEC will want VTech and one other from ACC. They'd be the first to 16, unless the Big XII can beat them to it. Personally, I'd love to see the race to 16 between the Big XII and SEC. Let the Big Ten and PAC 12 pick through the leftovers.
Sounds good, but I think the whole pointe of getting FSU is so they can play Texas every year.
12 Works alot better than 14 for the split, you could go with the Old Big 8 vs the other, Or you could do 4 pods of 3 geographically. Problem with pods is OU/OSU/Tex pod is too stacked, and ISU/KU/KSU pod is too weak (Good for us though).
OU-Tex
OSU-FSU
ISU-TTech
KU-WVU
KSU-Baylor
TCU-Clemson
OU-Tex
OSU-FSU
ISU-TTech
KU-WVU
KSU-Baylor
TCU-Clemson
I was under the impression that OU and UT had no interest in being in separate divisions. I have a hard time seeing that happen if both of them are unified against it
Not the case anymore. With the FSU/Clem talks, they're considering all options now.
Same old weak arguments we used last year when we were in the wringer. If four big conferences is the way it goes, B12 and ACC will be fighting each other for the fourth spot.
This is your opinion of course....
My opinion is they will be fine with a split...AS LONG as they get to play Texas NO MATTER what EVERY year. So if there is some sort of protected rivalry game...they'll be on board. If not...no way.
First off, athletic department accounting is open for interpretation. Things are added and subtracted from the bottom line to make a school seem more popular then they really are (see: Mizzou).
Let's say that amount is dead on, to the penny on what most would consider ethical accounting (doubt it). It still doesn't mean a damn thing. So there are a lot of Louisville basketball fans that show up to some ridiculously named KFC Yum! Arena to watch a game, why does that exactly matter to any other school? Their game time attendance isn't going to effect ISU's bottom line if they are in the same conference.
We all know this is about football. The value of Louisville would have to come from marquee matchups and television ratings pulled for their football program and it just isn't there.
All I can see in Louisville is another outlier team with a small national identity that the likes of ISU/KSU would now have to battle with in B12 recruiting areas. **** that.
Wasn't there some concern voiced about OU/TX only wanting to play once a year though? I thought they weren't thrilled about playing in the regular season AND potentially again in a championship game?
Exactly. A school's budget by itself is irrelevant in these discussions. What is relevant is how much value they bring to the shared contracts that bring everyone additional money. Now, these things may often correlate (the things that bring everyone else money may have resulted in their larger budget) but it cannot always be assumed that this is the case.
No, it's not my opinion. It's been out in the forums/blogs for a couple days now.
I wish people would stop thinking that geography for divisions matters. Yes it makes sense from a fans perspective but it doesn't from the institutions and TV perspective, and that is what matters here. TV wants competitive teams on the field, with competitive balance between divisions. They don't want, a Big 12 North and South where the South dominates the North, except for on rare occasions.
Institutions don't care about geography other than to make sure they have access to quality recruiting ground. So for ISU, KU, KSU, and WVU it is important for these athletic departments to protect that interest. So a North South split isn't going to work. Geography isn't going to matter. Competitive balance and access to recruiting hot beds is going to matter.
As an ISU fan, this will suck from the stand point that it most away games are not going to be driving distance from Ames. But from a competitive stand point it is important to us, because it gives ISU a chance to recruit more effectively and put a better product on the field. Kids want the chance to play in their home state as often as possible so it is very important that the conference allow the teams to play in TX and if the speculation is true the south (FL, GA, SC) as much as possible and the only way to insure that is to forget geographic divisions.
Institutions don't care about geography other than to make sure they have access to quality recruiting ground. So for ISU, KU, KSU, and WVU it is important for these athletic departments to protect that interest. So a North South split isn't going to work. Geography isn't going to matter. Competitive balance and access to recruiting hot beds is going to matter.
As an ISU fan, this will suck from the stand point that it most away games are not going to be driving distance from Ames. But from a competitive stand point it is important to us, because it gives ISU a chance to recruit more effectively and put a better product on the field. Kids want the chance to play in their home state as often as possible so it is very important that the conference allow the teams to play in TX and if the speculation is true the south (FL, GA, SC) as much as possible and the only way to insure that is to forget geographic divisions.
Isn't it interesting (though not surprising) to see how this is being portrayed in he national media compared to how the Big XII's instability the last 2 years was portrayed?
The East coast media (many of whom are ACC fans) hates the idea of the ACC becoming a shell of its former self, so they portray things in a very pro-ACC light.
"Frank The Tank" is a Big 10 guy who couldn't wait for the Big XII to implode during the last couple rounds of realignment. Of course Frank's previous arguments on the matter apparently don't hold any water in this case. It was all about the money when he had Okie and Texas going to the PAC; and why wouldn't they leave? But now he argues that FSU shouldn't leave just because the money's much better in the Big XII.
The bottom line is a lot of people outside the Big XII don't want this to happen. They're nervous that a strengthened Big XII would not only challenge for overall conference supremacy, but would have an impact on their conference of choice going forward with future TV deals, recruiting, etc.
The Big XII's got a lot of people nervous right now, and I absolutely love it.
There's no fight at all. Big 12 is clearly #2 in BCS formula. ACC is clearly #5 and as far as top teams go they have been #6 and #7 frequently.
That war was won the day the Big 12 held together and added WVU/TCU.
ACC is #5 in a 4 team playoff world going forward at best. You could argue the Big 10/Pac 12 and ACC are fighting for the 4th spot more than you could argue the Big 12 is. Big 12 owns all those leagues in recent BCS standings.
I agree but NU and MU ****ed us here already by leaving. And it's not like Minnesota and Iowa were going to replace them...
Totally agree on the upside of traveling to FL and the deep south.
He is a lead butt.:swoon: He does not want to do the work it takes to make it happen.:SLEEP:
No one has explicitly stated this: ISU playing Clemson would be more of a national interest game than ISU playing KSU.
I think that is true. At the very least it is a push. But I think a case can be made that more people care about Clemson then KSU, so there for more national interest could be garnered from that.
- Status
