Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Theoretical New Big 12

CycloneJames

CycloneJames

Active Member
Dec 1, 2009
920
41
28
Ankeny
So this morning I was trying to think of this a different way. Instead of teams joining the Mountain West, what about the Big 12 just expanding and replacing. Now, I am assuming Texas, ATM, Okla, OSU, TT, and Colorado are going. Here is a list of teams I cam up with that may or may not be realistic:

Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor (or Colorado depending on who goes to Pac 10)
Cincinnati
Louisville
TCU
BYU
Utah
Boise St
Memphis
Houston

Also, it is becoming less and less likely that Mizzou is actually going to be in the Big 10 so I could have added them back in. Now for this to happen the Big 10 would have to take 1 or 2 Big East teams (Rutgers & Pitt) otherwise I don't think Cincy or Louisville would want to leave.

What would everyoene think of a conference make up like this?
 
Al_4_State

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,287
23,387
113
38
Driftless Region
Visit site
Someone had a link to a Big East board yesterday, and their fans seemed to LOVE the idea of KU, KSU, and ISU joining the Big East, or them joining the Big 12, w/some MWC teams as well.
 
CycloneJames

CycloneJames

Active Member
Dec 1, 2009
920
41
28
Ankeny
I did a little more research since this is all about money & tv markets. Under the above senario the Big 12 would have the follow markets:

Dallas-Ft Worth (TCU) #5
Houston #10
Salt Lake City (Utah / BYU) #31
Kansas City (KU / KSU) #32
Cincinnati #33
Louisville #49
Memphis #50
Des Moines #72

You could also change some teams and throw in UNLV for the Las Vegas market #42 and same with New Mexico - Albequerque #44
 
jdoggivjc

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
59,526
21,042
113
Macomb, MI
CycloneJames said:
I did a little more research since this is all about money & tv markets. Under the above senario the Big 12 would have the follow markets:

Dallas-Ft Worth (TCU) #5
Houston #10
Salt Lake City (Utah / BYU) #31
Kansas City (KU / KSU) #32
Cincinnati #33
Louisville #49
Memphis #50
Des Moines #72

You could also change some teams and throw in UNLV for the Las Vegas market #42 and same with New Mexico - Albequerque #44
Click to expand...

The problem with the assertion:


  • Dallas-Ft Worth (TCU) #5 - Doesn't care about TCU, they care about Texas
  • Houston #10 - Doesn't care about Houston. If they care about college sports at all, it's Texas and A&M
  • Salt Lake City (Utah / BYU) #31 - they actually would care about their college athletics
  • Kansas City (KU / KSU) #32 - if KU, Mizzou, and ISU are packaged together, probably would care.
  • Cincinnati #33 - I can't see caring about the Bearcats
  • Louisville #49 - Those that don't care about UK I could see caring about the Cardinals
  • Memphis #50 - do they care about Memphis there?
  • Des Moines #72 - The % of those that care about ISU has always been precarious, and it's only going to be worse with Iowa being in a superconference and ISU on the outside.
It's one thing for you to cover your big cities, but there has to be an element of people in and around those cities actually CARING before you can assume any TV deal being viable. I mean, why do you think it works for the Big 10? Because people in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus CARE about Ohio St. People in Detroit CARE about Michigan, and, to a lesser extent, Michigan St. Chicago CARES about every Big 10 team. It works because the people there care. Look, I'm not saying that ISU shouldn't band with the remnants of the Big 12 and try to form the best conference that they can out of it. But assuming that a major network is going to come running to us with a major TV deal just because we attempted to add major markets by adding Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU, and Utah is naive because while we're attempting to reach major media markets, those media markets generally don't care about those said institutions, if they don't care, they're not going to watch. If they're not going to watch, the networks can't sell advertising slots to make revenue, and if they can't make ad revenue, there's no point in broadcasting football. There's no doubt that this would be a fun basketball conference, but if this conference realignment gave one iota of caring about basketball, Kansas wouldn't be as ****** as we are.
 
C

Clone9

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2006
3,202
967
113
Boston, MA
jdoggivjc said:
The problem with the assertion:


  • Dallas-Ft Worth (TCU) #5 - Doesn't care about TCU, they care about Texas
  • Houston #10 - Doesn't care about Houston. If they care about college sports at all, it's Texas and A&M
  • Salt Lake City (Utah / BYU) #31 - they actually would care about their college athletics
  • Kansas City (KU / KSU) #32 - if KU, Mizzou, and ISU are packaged together, probably would care.
  • Cincinnati #33 - I can't see caring about the Bearcats
  • Louisville #49 - Those that don't care about UK I could see caring about the Cardinals
  • Memphis #50 - do they care about Memphis there?
  • Des Moines #72 - The % of those that care about ISU has always been precarious, and it's only going to be worse with Iowa being in a superconference and ISU on the outside.
It's one thing for you to cover your big cities, but there has to be an element of people in and around those cities actually CARING before you can assume any TV deal being viable. I mean, why do you think it works for the Big 10? Because people in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus CARE about Ohio St. People in Detroit CARE about Michigan, and, to a lesser extent, Michigan St. Chicago CARES about every Big 10 team. It works because the people there care. Look, I'm not saying that ISU shouldn't band with the remnants of the Big 12 and try to form the best conference that they can out of it. But assuming that a major network is going to come running to us with a major TV deal just because we attempted to add major markets by adding Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU, and Utah is naive because while we're attempting to reach major media markets, those media markets generally don't care about those said institutions, if they don't care, they're not going to watch. If they're not going to watch, the networks can't sell advertising slots to make revenue, and if they can't make ad revenue, there's no point in broadcasting football. There's no doubt that this would be a fun basketball conference, but if this conference realignment gave one iota of caring about basketball, Kansas wouldn't be as ****** as we are.
Click to expand...

It seems like its gonna work for the Big Ten though. People in NYC don't care at all about Rutgers or Syracuse, but the whole reason for taking those teams is to get on all of those tvs.
 
CycloneJames

CycloneJames

Active Member
Dec 1, 2009
920
41
28
Ankeny
jdoggivjc said:
The problem with the assertion:


  • Dallas-Ft Worth (TCU) #5 - Doesn't care about TCU, they care about Texas
  • Houston #10 - Doesn't care about Houston. If they care about college sports at all, it's Texas and A&M
  • Salt Lake City (Utah / BYU) #31 - they actually would care about their college athletics
  • Kansas City (KU / KSU) #32 - if KU, Mizzou, and ISU are packaged together, probably would care.
  • Cincinnati #33 - I can't see caring about the Bearcats
  • Louisville #49 - Those that don't care about UK I could see caring about the Cardinals
  • Memphis #50 - do they care about Memphis there?
  • Des Moines #72 - The % of those that care about ISU has always been precarious, and it's only going to be worse with Iowa being in a superconference and ISU on the outside.
It's one thing for you to cover your big cities, but there has to be an element of people in and around those cities actually CARING before you can assume any TV deal being viable. I mean, why do you think it works for the Big 10? Because people in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus CARE about Ohio St. People in Detroit CARE about Michigan, and, to a lesser extent, Michigan St. Chicago CARES about every Big 10 team. It works because the people there care. Look, I'm not saying that ISU shouldn't band with the remnants of the Big 12 and try to form the best conference that they can out of it. But assuming that a major network is going to come running to us with a major TV deal just because we attempted to add major markets by adding Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU, and Utah is naive because while we're attempting to reach major media markets, those media markets generally don't care about those said institutions, if they don't care, they're not going to watch. If they're not going to watch, the networks can't sell advertising slots to make revenue, and if they can't make ad revenue, there's no point in broadcasting football. There's no doubt that this would be a fun basketball conference, but if this conference realignment gave one iota of caring about basketball, Kansas wouldn't be as ****** as we are.
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to imply that this new Big 12 could create a Big 12 Network. Clearly that would not work because it would be significantly worse than the current Big 12. I agree that the dallas and houston population care significantly more about texas and a&m. But I think enough people would care for it to be shown on tv there. Keep in mind that TCU and Houston would be elevated SIGNIFICANTLY with a move like this (which we definitely be a BCS conference).
 
CycloneJames

CycloneJames

Active Member
Dec 1, 2009
920
41
28
Ankeny
Clone9 said:
I would love this conference. I hope it happens, but it won't.
Click to expand...

Why won't it? In my opinion the only 2 reaches are Cincinnati and Louisville. And If the Big 10 starts taking Big East teams I don't think its all that much of a reach. Do I think its highly likely? Probably not, but I think its better than just joining the Mountain West.
 
clone26

clone26

Member
Jan 30, 2009
552
7
18
DSM
www.explorethemetro.com
CycloneJames said:
So this morning I was trying to think of this a different way. Instead of teams joining the Mountain West, what about the Big 12 just expanding and replacing. Now, I am assuming Texas, ATM, Okla, OSU, TT, and Colorado are going. Here is a list of teams I cam up with that may or may not be realistic:

Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor (or Colorado depending on who goes to Pac 10)
Cincinnati
Louisville
TCU
BYU
Utah
Boise St
Memphis
Houston

Also, it is becoming less and less likely that Mizzou is actually going to be in the Big 10 so I could have added them back in. Now for this to happen the Big 10 would have to take 1 or 2 Big East teams (Rutgers & Pitt) otherwise I don't think Cincy or Louisville would want to leave.

What would everyoene think of a conference make up like this?
Click to expand...

How would you divvy up the divisions?
 
jdoggivjc

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
59,526
21,042
113
Macomb, MI
CycloneJames said:
I wasn't trying to imply that this new Big 12 could create a Big 12 Network. Clearly that would not work because it would be significantly worse than the current Big 12. I agree that the dallas and houston population care significantly more about texas and a&m. But I think enough people would care for it to be shown on tv there. Keep in mind that TCU and Houston would be elevated SIGNIFICANTLY with a move like this (which we definitely be a BCS conference).
Click to expand...

I think that's there's three fallacies in the argument, though - the assumption that with the addition of the Big 12 leftovers that the status of TCU, Houston, etc. would be elevated instead of the opposite of the status of the Big 12 leftovers would be decreased. Second is the assumption that the BCS continues to exist - it sounds like the whole purpose of going to the superconferences is to create a playoff. When I was listening to Fox Sports Radio last night, they said at least $500 million is left on the table because of the BCS system - a playoff system would earn AT LEAST $750 million. This would be their excuse to do away with the BCS system to create a playoff system that incorporates only the 4 superconferences. Third, if they do create the playoff system, or even if they do retain the BCS, who says our conference is going to be invited to the party? Hell, this could be the superconferences' way of cutting the MWC and WAC completely out of the equation. Yeah, I know the argument is if they do this they might have to deal with significant antitrust legislation and/or action from congress, but if that's not taking place now because congressmen right now are too afraid that standing in the way of these superconferences is going to either impact their state financially or because it could kill their political career, then why would they do so after it's become firmly established?
 
CycloneJames

CycloneJames

Active Member
Dec 1, 2009
920
41
28
Ankeny
jdoggivjc said:
I think that's there's three fallacies in the argument, though - the assumption that with the addition of the Big 12 leftovers that the status of TCU, Houston, etc. would be elevated instead of the opposite of the status of the Big 12 leftovers would be decreased. Second is the assumption that the BCS continues to exist - it sounds like the whole purpose of going to the superconferences is to create a playoff. When I was listening to Fox Sports Radio last night, they said at least $500 million is left on the table because of the BCS system - a playoff system would earn AT LEAST $750 million. This would be their excuse to do away with the BCS system to create a playoff system that incorporates only the 4 superconferences. Third, if they do create the playoff system, or even if they do retain the BCS, who says our conference is going to be invited to the party? Hell, this could be the superconferences' way of cutting the MWC and WAC completely out of the equation. Yeah, I know the argument is if they do this they might have to deal with significant antitrust legislation and/or action from congress, but if that's not taking place now because congressmen right now are too afraid that standing in the way of these superconferences is going to either impact their state financially or because it could kill their political career, then why would they do so after it's become firmly established?
Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my mind that it would be BCS conference. Kansas, Kansas St, Cincinnati, TCU, BYU, Utah, and Boise St have all been to a BCS game before. Even if they BCS no longer exists, this is likely a best case senario for TCU, BYU, Utah, and Boise. They are not going to get into the Pac 10 or any other super conference.
 
T

trajanJ

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,427
208
63
I see the Pac10, Big10, ACC and SEC will be the 4 - 16 team super conferences. That will be the new BCS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom