For the past several years, the Big 12’s public position on potential expansion was constantly wait-and-see with lots of studies being commissioned and a general lean towards staying at 10 members. The league’s presidents and other stewards (despite public proclamations from Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby to take action on expansion one way or the other) seemed to indicate that they were simply not motivated to expand, effectively stating that the options weren’t good enough (sort of like how much of America despises both major presidential candidates at record levels). The focus from the Big 12 was more about short-term maximization of their ability to make it into the College Football Playoff (whose leaders finally figured out today that New Year’s Eve blows for watching playoff games).

In meantime, though, the Big Ten put into place the structure of a new record-breaking TV deal with Fox and ESPN (on top of existing rising revenue from BTN) and the ACC announced the formation of the ACC Network with ESPN that will provide a financial windfall for that conference. Not coincidentally, the Big 12 presidents put down their Pokémon Go* games for a few moments and changed their tune on expansion within 24 hours of the finalization of the ACC Network deal. Now, the Big 12 is looking to add at least 2 and maybe even 4 additional members.

(* The Charmander as Houston Cougar image above come from a SBNation post about all of the FBS football teams’ corresponding Pokémon characters that was written well before the Pokémon Go craze came about. Enjoy!)

What happened? Well, it appears that the Big 12 might have finally gotten off of its delusion that it could ever attract members of the ACC or any other power conference. Coaches like Bill Snyder and partisan Big 12 fans might try to suggest schools that left the Big 12 wish that they could come back, but trust me on this one: every single person that actually matters at the schools that left the Big 12 are happy to be far, far, far away from that dysfunctional mess. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC are all academically, financially and demographically superior to the Big 12… and it’s not even a contest. The ACC Network deal seems has to cemented the notion that the Big 12 can’t hold out for the misguided hope to pick off other power conference schools (albeit Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated reported some residual delusion within the Big 12 that they could poach some Pac-12 schools in the next decade, which ought to be asinine to anyone that has followed conference realignment over the years). Every reasonable Big 12 expansion target is going to come from one of the non-power Group of 5 (“G5”) conferences outside of independent BYU.

At the same time, this self-realization by the Big 12 members is coupled with the very real fear that Texas, Oklahoma and/or Kansas could be out the door when the current conference Grant of Rights agreement expires in 2025 or even upon expiration of the new Big Ten TV deal in 2023 (which gets into the time range where breaking the GOR agreement might be financially feasible). The other members of the Big 12 have already seen Texas attempt to create the Pac-16 and Oklahoma’s leadership openly talk about the school having options in the realignment sphere. Maximizing short-term money by keeping membership numbers low is only sustainable if the Big 12’s three top flight risks stay put. As a result, the Big 12 has to engage in some “CYA expansion” whether they believe that UT, OU and KU will stay or not. When the conference’s largest TV markets, top athletic recruiting territory, fastest growing area, best academic institution and most valuable national brand name are all wrapped up in the single school the University of Texas, the rest of the Big 12 needs to expand and diversify its membership for survival in the event that the Longhorns ever decide for a “Texit”.

Now, that being said, the worst house (the Big 12) in Beverly Hills (the power conferences) is still significantly more valuable than the nicest house in Compton (G5 conferences). As Thamel noted, each member of the Big 12 makes more annual TV revenue than the entire AAC (which is the highest-paid G5 conference). Indeed, AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said this week that he has been “talking to the (athletic directors) and the president of the schools that might leave, and it looks like some of them will.” The chasm between the power and non-power ranks is so stark that none of the G5 schools to pass on any opportunity to join any of the 5 power conferences (the “P5”) regardless of geography or a hope that another better “fit” within the P5 might be coming down the road in the future (e.g. an Eastern school like UConn isn’t going to pass on a Big 12 invite in the hopes of an ACC or Big Ten invite later). Every G5 school has to take any Big 12 offer that it receives immediately because this expansion process might constitute the last new additions to the power conference ranks for the next generation. The stakes couldn’t be higher for the handful of G5 schools that are in position to make the jump.

When I started writing frequently about conference realignment with the formation of the Big Ten Expansion Index nearly seven(!) years ago, I’ve made some correct predictions and quite a few wrong ones. However, I will always believe in my first rule of conference realignment: “Think like a university president and NOT like a sports fan.” Too many sports fans look at recent on-the-field records (what I call the “What Have You Done For Me Lately?” Syndrome) and not the long-term off-the-field factors that drive conference realignment, such as TV revenue, markets, demographics, stability and academic prestige. No one should analyze an expansion candidate based on the best case scenario where a school goes 12-o in a football season. Instead, the proper analysis for adding a school is whether it still provides value (whether in the form of a major TV market, top recruiting territory or academic excellence) even if it has a 0-12 record. This is something that I have stressed for many years and I’ll continue to emphasize it here. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the schools that are generating the most discussion for Big 12 expansion:

POLE POSITION

CINCINNATI

I created the Big 12 Expansion Index nearly three(!) years ago that admittedly had some interesting results (such as a high ranking for San Diego State) due to my desire to create an index based on as many objective factors as possible without inserting any subjective “smell test” bias. Still, my overall conclusion at the time was that Cincinnati was the very clear #1 best fit for Big 12 expansion and I still firmly believe that to be the case today. Whether the Big 12 expands by 2 or 4 schools, it’s extremely difficult to see how Cincinnati wouldn’t be involved in any combination. At worst, the Bearcats seem to be the #2 option out of the realistic expansion candidates regardless of who might be the personal #1 favorite of any Big 12 school. They provide a solid new TV market, excellent historical performance in both football and basketball, revamped facilities, an entry point into the state of Ohio (which would become the best football recruiting territory in the Big 12 outside of the state of Texas), good academics (particularly at the graduate level) and a way to eliminate the issue of West Virginia being a geographic and cultural island within the league. Cincinnati might not be the very best option in any of those individual categories, but it is the only one that is good-to-great across-the-board for the Big 12.

PRIME CONTENDERS

HOUSTON

When some Tweets from well-connected Dave Sittler surfaced over one year ago(!) that Houston would be a prime expansion target for the Big 12, I noted the following:

Putting aside the Big 12’s obvious delusions of grandeur of reverse raiding the Big Ten for Nebraska or adding Notre Dame and/or Florida State, this actually appears to be some legitimate information from someone with contacts with people that control the situation. Follow Sittler’s Twitter timeline for some further comments. Bottom line: Houston has seriously vaulted itself into Big 12 expansion talks. Now, this makes little sense for the Big 12 when looking at the typical goals of power conference realignment, such as expanding into new TV markets and recruiting territories. However, we would be remiss to forget that Texas politics (whether we’re talking about the state itself or the university) effectively control the Big 12 (as Sittler alluded to in his Tweets). The Big 12 was initially formed with heavy demands from then-Texas Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and other Texas politicians in order to get Texas Tech and Baylor to tag along with UT and Texas A&M. It’s a bit of surprise to see such relatively strong statements about Houston’s Big 12 candidacy here, but not completely shocking when looking at the political history of the conference. Back in the midst of conference realignment mania in 2010, I recall then-UT President Bill Powers stating that it was a goal for Houston to become a “Tier 1” university, so there was an acknowledgment even back then of some broader goals to elevate the stature of that school.

Sure enough, look at the explicit Tweets from the past week from the Governor of Texas, Lt. Governor of Texas and the President of the University of Texas:

The president of Texas Tech then also issued a statement in support of adding Houston to the Big 12. It’s pretty clear that no matter what people will try to argue, there’s a whole separate political game that’s being played here where the normal metrics of conference realignment (such as obtaining a new TV market) do not apply.

Keep in mind that the Big 12 requires 75% of its members to approve a new school, which means any expansion candidate needs 8 votes. As a result, Texas and Texas Tech cannot block Big 12 expansion by themselves, but don’t be surprised if TCU and Baylor fall in line behind their state counterparts. TCU and Baylor might be private schools, but they certainly aren’t beneath the state political game, particularly with how Baylor got into the original Big 12 due to powerful alums in the Texas state government in the early-1990s and leveraged lawmakers that played a part in derailing the proposed Pac-16 deal of 2010. Meanwhile, TCU essentially owes its Big 12 membership to the efforts of UT, so it’s not a stretch to see the Longhorns call in a chit on that front.

The upshot is that it won’t take much for the Texas-based schools to effectively have veto power over any Big 12 expansion decision: if UT and Texas Tech are politically-aligned and just attract one of either Baylor or TCU, then they have as much leverage as the University of Virginia did in making its vote for ACC expansion in 2003 contingent upon inviting Virginia Tech (which also happened to be forced upon UVA by state lawmakers, including prominent moves by then-Lt. Gov. and current US. Senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine*). There are other reasons that Houston could be a solid expansion pick for the Big 12, such as its institutional support and solidifying a Houston TV market that is being encroached upon by the SEC via Texas A&M and LSU fans, but the Texas state political developments may trump everything else. That’s why no one other than Cincinnati should feel very safe in a 2-team expansion by the Big 12 and a great candidate could be left without a chair when the music stops even in a 4-team expansion.

(* Judging by the Democratic National Convention last night, I’m fairly certain that Tim Kaine loves balloons more than my 7-year old twins… and every other kid that I’ve ever met in my entire lifetime.)

BYU

If Houston could get into the Big 12 because of outside personal political relationships even if it doesn’t fit traditional conference realignment goals, BYU might end up outside of the Big 12 because its relationships (for better or worse) within the conference haven’t been as strong despite being arguably the strongest single expansion option. When looking at what “matters” to university presidents in expansion, BYU seems to fit the bill: great fan base, excellent academics, new and growing TV market, national appeal due to its direct link to the LDS church (essentially being to Mormons what Notre Dame is to Catholics) and a fantastic top-to-bottom athletic department*. If the Big 12 were to pick a school based on a blind resume of the metrics that are critical to conference realignment decisions, I’d be certain that BYU would be picked every time.

(* I’ve seen some suggestions that BYU might end up being a football-only candidate for the Big 12 in order to avoid Sunday play issues, but that doesn’t seem like the right move for the conference considering how strong BYU is in basketball and non-revenue sports. BYU’s entire athletic department can provide a ton of value, whereas there are some other schools that we’ll discuss later that would make more sense as football-only membership considerations.)

Yet, for whatever reason, the expansion prospects for BYU seem to run hot and cold. There are certainly plenty of observers out there that believe that BYU is near the top of the list, but then there are very well-respected reporters that have been correct more often than not on realignment news (such as Brett McMurphy of ESPN.com) that have been much more skeptical of BYU’s chances. One argument that is out there is that the Big 12 is focused on expanding to the east. The prohibition of athletic teams playing on Sunday is another possible negative factor, although it wouldn’t be applicable to football. A more pernicious suggestion brought up by Chadd Scott is that there could be an anti-Mormon sentiment among university administrators.

Despite the cold bucket of ice water above for BYU fans, I’ve been on the record many times that if I were running the Big 12, the top two picks for expansion based on what the conference claims to be looking for ought to be Cincinnati and BYU. If the Big 12 is looking to maximize revenue (which is goal #1 in conference realignment), then it’s difficult to see them passing on BYU regardless of any other perceived problems.

UCONN

UConn is right next to BYU in terms of being an extremely valuable school by G5 standards that would fare well in a blind resume test. It is the only school mentioned here that’s a true unambiguous state flagship university, which P5 members inherently like since most of them are flagships themselves. At the same time, Connecticut has great academics, a location that gives them access to the massive New York City and Boston TV markets on top of its affluent home state and elite of the elite programs in basketball (both men and women). Indeed, UConn’s stock has been justifiably rising in Big 12 expansion reports compared to very few mentions over the past couple of years. UConn just feels like it should be a P5 school and it has the athletic department revenue to back it up. The two main concerns for UConn’s Big 12 candidacy are (a) geographic fit and (b) football fit (which rules conference realignment). The geographic fit issue is based on the fact that it extends the already far-flung Big 12 all the way to the Northeastern corner of the United States. Personally, I think that issue can be overcome by UConn since it could argue that it wouldn’t be any more of a geographic outlier than BYU (who doesn’t seem to get docked points as much on geography) and its access to the NYC and Boston markets would justify the move.

Now, the football fit isn’t as easily explained away. It’s not so much the on-the-field performance of UConn, but rather that the other football-based metrics, such as the lack of a recruiting territory (where New England and the neighboring State of New York constitute arguably the worst per capita FBS recruiting region in the country). UConn also simply has a young FBS football program – it only moved up to then-Division I-A in 2002 in a world where P5 conferences (whether right or wrong) put a premium on having generations of tradition.

So, the institutional profile, TV markets and overall athletic department strength point to UConn being a very strong candidate for the Big 12 even if there’s only a 2-team expansion, yet the geographic and football fit issues make it vulnerable enough that its fans are unfortunately going to sweat whether it’s a 2 or 4-team expansion. To be clear, if I were running the Big 12, I’d certainly add UConn in a 4-team expansion since I believe that it’s clearly a P5-level institution, but it’s a school whose prospects are hard to read in the real world. UConn is essentially in the same “hot or cold” boat as BYU where there are respected people that believe that they’re near the top of the Big 12 expansion list while others that are in the know aren’t as optimistic.

MEMPHIS

If Houston has political backers in Big 12 expansion, Memphis is engaging in some Chicago/FIFA/IOC-style “patronage” with FedEx chairman Fred Smith essentially offering to pay for the Tigers to get into the league. Memphis also brought out its biggest PR gun to date this week:

The next time that someone tells you that you’re the dorky college football equivalent of a baseball sabermetrician for being obsessed with conference realignment, you can retort that Justin Timberlake (who is in contention for The Song of the Summer yet again*) is ALL-IN on the action.

(* My personal definition of “The Song of the Summer” is (a) it needs to be played within the first 15 minutes after the dance floor opens at any wedding that summer and (b) Grandma needs to be dancing to that song without irony or needing to participate in a gimmicky line dance. On those metrics, Timberlake’s “Can’t Stop the Feeling!” is probably taking the cake since it’s a bit peppier than the entries from Drake and Panda while also being completely inoffensive. I think Sia is coming on strong here as we get towards the end of the summer, though. Unfortunately, my favorite performance from JT isn’t getting much airplay at weddings.)

In all seriousness, Memphis has a number of attractive attributes for the Big 12: improving football program, solid TV market, excellent basketball fan base (which may or may not translate to football), location in a top notch football recruiting territory and geographically sensible for the conference overall. The negatives are based on academic reputation and its direct competition from the SEC from multiple directions. If Cincinnati is a likely pick and Houston has the political leverage to get into the Big 12, it feels like this is going to be a competition between BYU, UConn and Memphis for the last two spots in a 4-team expansion. In particular, outside of the fact that both UConn and Memphis are known more as being basketball schools, UConn seems have strengths where Memphis is weaker and vice versa. It will be interesting to see what the Big 12 prioritizes here.

ALL OR NOTHING

UCF AND USF

I put Central Florida and South Florida together in the analysis since my feeling is that the Big 12 is either going to add both of the schools or neither of them at all. The main arguments in favor of UCF and USF are location, location and location. The Big 12 obviously has a great hold on the state of Texas but suffers from very poor demographics outside of it, so the thought of adding the state of Florida to that mix for TV market and recruiting purposes can seem intoxicating. At the same time, both UCF and USF have massive enrollments (particularly UCF), which helps when the perception is that bigger is better.

However, the flip side of being in the state of Florida is that UCF and USF face the strongest in-state competition by far of any the Big 12 expansion candidates with the exception of Houston (which has political factors in its favor within the Big 12), so the on-paper market size may not translate into legitimate market share. I’ve spent more time in the I-4 Corridor between Orlando and Tampa than any other place besides my hometown of Chicago. The fact of the matter is that Florida and Florida State have as strong of a hold as any pair of schools has on their home state in the entire country (including the Texas and Texas A&M combo in the state of Texas). Plus, the Miami Hurricanes will still get significant mindshare in the Southern half of Florida whenever they end up being competitive. (Don’t let the current relative down period for the Canes lull you into thinking otherwise.) Other Big 12 expansion candidates might be in markets that are within the territories of P5 conferences, such as Cincinnati being within the Big Ten footprint (covered by Ohio State) or Memphis being within the SEC footprint (with Tennessee as an in-state competitor and Ole Miss being nearby across state lines), but the P5 fan penetration in those markets are on the weaker end. In contrast, the Orlando and Tampa markets are among the strongest ones out there for both the SEC and ACC. There are a lot of college football fans on paper in those markets, but they’re also largely accounted for by the Gators, Noles and (to a lesser extent) Canes. It would be like an upstart baseball league deciding that it was going to take the Yankees and Mets head-on in the New York market based on the theory that there are a lot of baseball fans living there (which would be financial suicide).

Therefore, a conference can’t expect to extract any value out of the Florida market with only one school unless they’re UF, FSU or maybe Miami. If the Big 12 really believes that getting into the Florida market is truly what is best for their long-term interests, then it ought to add both of UCF and USF. Otherwise, adding only one of those schools is simply going to provide a Florida outpost on paper without really gaining any legitimate market share. The league simply can’t compete in the state of Florida in a half-assed manner with such dominant pre-existing competition from the SEC and ACC. Once again, market share means much more than market size in this particular analysis. This is an all-or-nothing proposition for the Big 12.

ON THE UPSWING

COLORADO STATE

The fact that Colorado State has been wedging itself into the Big 12 expansion discussion shouldn’t be a surprise if you have been applying my first rule of conference realignment of thinking like a university president instead of a sports fan. CSU has solid academics in a fast-growing market that has only one direct P5 competitor (former Big 12 member Colorado). The state of Colorado is sort of the opposite of the description of the Florida market above: there isn’t very much competition considering the size of the population base, but a lot of people aren’t committed to being fans of CU or college sports overall. The risk of adding Colorado State is that the Big 12 would be adding a school where its home market sports fans aren’t known for having a propensity to support college sports. On the other hand, the Denver market in particular is growing so fast with such fantastic demographics in terms of income and education levels that it’s an area where the Big 12 presidents would love to get back into ASAP. The addition of Colorado State to the Big 12 would seem to make the most sense if they’re paired up with BYU as part of a 4-team expansion (with the other 2 schools from the east).

THE PRESIDENTS’ SOFT SPOT

TULANE

Pushing further on the first rule of conference realignment of thinking like a university president, I’ve said for several years that Big 12 expansion observers ought to keep an eye on Tulane. This is the only school in the Big 12 mix that is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) that is a marker of being a part of the educational elite. (Rice is also an AAU member, but they don’t seem to be garnering any real consideration.) At the same time, Tulane is in the New Orleans market with access to top notch recruiting in the state of Louisiana and only one in-state competitor (albeit a monster in the form of LSU). I’m not saying that Tulane is likely to be added to be the Big 12, but they’re going to get a lot more consideration than the average fan would expect because they’re the type of school that university presidents love. Indeed, Jake Trotter of ESPN.com brought up the prospect of Tulane being a Big 12 expansion candidate earlier this week.

THE FANS’ SOFT SPOT

BOISE STATE

Bob Bowlsby mentioned the possibility of adding football-only members to the Big 12, which for many observers brought to mind two schools: BYU and Boise State. As I noted earlier, it doesn’t make much sense to me to add BYU as a football-only member because it has such a strong top-to-bottom athletic program than the Big 12 ought to want as an all-sports member. In contrast, Boise State seems to fit as a potential football-only option since its non-football sports aren’t bringing as much value and they’re even more geographically isolated from the rest of the Big 12 than BYU or UConn (which isn’t a big deal for football but can cause logistical challenges for all other sports). The problem is that Boise State is the classic “Thinking Like a Sports Fan” choice, where fans love watching Boise State on-the-field (at least compared to virtually all other G5 options), but they don’t fit any of the academic, TV market or demographic metrics that university presidents are looking for in expansion decisions. The on-the-field performance of Boise State over the past decade has been stunning, yet the problem for the Broncos (whether right or wrong) is that conference realignment is more about off-the-field attributes. The main off-the-field factor that Boise State can hang its hat on is that it has become the most valuable national TV property in the G5 to the point that the current Mountain West Conference media contract has a provision that was effectively written to provide the Broncos with a financial bonus for national appearances, so that would be the attribute that the school is going to emphasize in any Big 12 discussions.

THE SERVICE ACADEMIES

AIR FORCE, ARMY AND NAVY

At least for me, the schools that immediately came to mind when the Big 12 said it was contemplating football-only members were the service academies. Indeed, Air Force, Army and Navy are strong national brands with stellar academics and the Department of Defense recently opened the door for their athletes to have their 24-month service commitment waived if they go directly to the pros after graduation (which could help with recruiting). Do I think any of these schools are likely to end up in the Big 12? Not really. However, that would likely be more because Air Force, Army and Navy would take themselves out of consideration themselves as opposed to the Big 12 not wanting them. Air Force was reportedly approached several years ago by the Big 12, but preemptively nixed the discussions because the Cadets were concerned about competitiveness. This stance might change if the academies start getting more top-level athletes due to the more open policy of allowing grads to go straight to the pros. Regardless, the service academies have unique value that isn’t replicated anywhere else at the G5 level, so they ought to considered if football-only options are on the table for the Big 12.

CONCLUSION

The Big 12 has kicking the proverbial can down the road on expansion for years and years. Frankly, they should have expanded to at least 12 back when they lost Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and the league was teetering on collapse. There’s still a decent chance that the Big 12 could come back and state that they won’t expand any further, but this time seems different. It was one thing for the Big 12 to be behind the Big Ten and SEC in terms of financial stability since that has been the normal state of college athletics for the past few decades, anyway. However, it’s an entirely different matter to find the Big 12 cemented on a lower pecking order than the ACC. I believe the Big 12 has finally realized that size does matter in terms of college sports power even if they never end up with their own conference network. In fact, Dennis Dodd is reporting that the Big 12 is looking to make an expansion decision prior to the beginning of this season, which means that the college sports world could have some finality on this issue within the next few weeks. For the G5 schools that are pushing for an invite to the Big 12, August 2016 will be the most important month in the histories of their respective athletic departments. Once the door closes on Big 12 expansion, the power conferences will be set in place for the next generation.

(Image from SBNation)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Hawks #1 in the CFP.

    Like

  2. mdahmus says:

    The ‘anti-mormon bias’ isn’t necessarily pernicious. There’s serious issues of academic freedom at play at that school.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      That’s where Frank isn’t thinking like a university president. You could also less charitably describe the anti-BYU feeling as political correctness relative to a conservative school.

      And the current controversy involving treatment of rape victims in light of the Baylor situation can’t be ignored. The issue was that consensual pre-marital sex was a violation of the honor code and in the investigation of a possible rape, they explored whether the victim had also engaged in consensual sex, which could get the victim kicked out of school.

      Like

      • @bullet – The P.C. argument against BYU is certainly valid when looking at Pac-12 expansion and the focus of its members. However, the Big 12 has tolerated the socially conservative Baptist views of Baylor for many years (where they didn’t allow *dancing* on campus until the mid-1990s and only stopped a policy of banning students and staff for engaging in homosexual activity from campus last year). That’s why it’s “pernicious” from my viewpoint – the Pac-12 objections of BYU aren’t because they’re Mormon specifically, but rather that the school has policies that are clearly not consistent with the rest of the Pac-12 (and could actually be in direct contravention of anti-discrimination laws in the West Coast states) and they’d apply the same standard to schools like Baylor, Liberty or even Yeshiva. Whether people agree with it or not, the Pac-12 essentially mandates secular schools (although I’m sure if Notre Dame wants to join, then the Pac-12 would welcome them with open arms since all of the power conferences go out of their way to placate ND).

        In contrast, the Big 12 has already shown that it would accept a socially conservative religious school in Baylor, so then it starts sounding more like it’s an objection against the Mormon affiliation itself as opposed to a general secular stance against discriminatory policies. IMHO, that’s a pernicious stance in a way that the Pac-12 stance against BYU isn’t here.

        Of course, it’s interesting that you point out the sex scandals at both Baylor and BYU seeing that they’re both taking place at arguably the two most socially conservative schools that play FBS football.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Well as you point out, those standards would not be applied to Notre Dame. Standards are relevant only when the $ are close. Then they get thrown out the window.

          I’ve never seen any sense of anti-Mormon views from the Big 12 (only BYU perceptions of anti-Mormon views). The negative reactions you get to BYU are that they are a pain to deal with and that the no Sunday play is also a pain. But the university presidents are from the same graduate schools as the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents, so they think pretty similarly.

          Like

        • Jeremy says:

          I enjoyed your comments on conference expansion.

          I belong to a group that is making sure others realize that BYU had anti LGBTQ stances and therefore shouldn’t have their profile raised with admittance to the Big 12.

          I can promise that the Big 12 is taking BYU’s anti LGBTQ stances into consideration. I have been personally contacted by the lead counsel to the Big 12.

          With what happened in Charlotte last week and the removal of the All Star Game the Big 12 is taking LGBTQ rights seriously.

          This is not an anti religion cause, as many members of my group belong to BYU’s affiliated church.

          An openly gay person is not allowed to perform or coach at BYU, even if legally married, unless they practice abstinence. This isn’t right.

          The discrimination is on BYU’s end.

          Like

          • @Jeremy – This is very good insight. If this is the case with the Big 12, then I’ll give them credit because I didn’t necessarily believe that they’d go to bat on LGBTQ issues in the same manner as the Big Ten and Pac-12 would (if only because of the presence of Baylor). It has definitely become a major issue and, as you’ve said, we’ve seen it manifest itself recently with the NBA All-Star Game being moved from North Carolina.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            It will give the presidents heartburn. It would be a non-starter if BYU was not essentially an extension of the church. A private school with those rules would not be admitted.

            Like

          • Red says:

            No offence intended here mate, but I doubt those social justice issues will dissuade the Big12 from adding BYU if the conference thought it would bring them a lot of money. It would be like saying they wouldn’t accommodate Notre Dame because the Catholic Church doesn’t ordain women to the priesthood. The difference between the two is 69.5 million Roman Catholics in the USA (22%) compared to 6.1million Mormons in the USA (>2%). With those numbers ND will always get a pass. Having said that, would the Big12 like to potentially add 6.1million sets of eyeballs to its conference with the addition of 1 school? Is it worth it to put up with no-play Sundays? Is it worth it to put up with a conservative school? I think the $ will dictate that it is worth it to them to add BYU.

            Again, no offence intended toward your cause, just playing devil’s advocate

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Red,

            “No offence intended here mate, but I doubt those social justice issues will dissuade the Big12 from adding BYU if the conference thought it would bring them a lot of money.”

            No, but it might be enough reason to make them football-only members to reduce the level of affiliation.

            “It would be like saying they wouldn’t accommodate Notre Dame because the Catholic Church doesn’t ordain women to the priesthood.”

            1. ND isn’t nearly as extreme in their restrictions as BYU
            2. ND is a lot more valuable than BYU

            “The difference between the two is 69.5 million Roman Catholics in the USA (22%) compared to 6.1million Mormons in the USA (>2%). With those numbers ND will always get a pass.”

            It’s about the number of fans of ND, not the number of Catholics. Nobody is making special allowances for any of the small Catholic schools out there.

            “Having said that, would the Big12 like to potentially add 6.1million sets of eyeballs to its conference with the addition of 1 school?”

            Sure, but many schools can make claims like that. Not all LDS members are CFB fans, just like not everyone in Houston is a UH fan and not everyone in TN is a Memphis fan, etc. BYU has a large fan base outside of the LDS church, too, but I doubt anyone has an accurate size for their fan base.

            “Is it worth it to put up with no-play Sundays?”

            Maybe, maybe not. Rescheduling a bunch of things is hard on everyone else, plus BYU is a long trip for all the non-revenue sports.

            “Is it worth it to put up with a conservative school?”

            Conservative is one thing, BYU is another.

            “I think the $ will dictate that it is worth it to them to add BYU.”

            They seem like a top option but people keep saying how hard they are to deal with. UT and OU aren’t going to put up with that from anyone else but them.

            Like

          • Red says:

            Jeremy,

            “They seem like a top option but people keep saying how hard they are to deal with. UT and OU aren’t going to put up with that from anyone else but them.”

            Truer words have never been spoken… or written.

            Like

          • John says:

            Jeremy,
            You actually contacted the lead counsel of the Big 12? Good grief, man, get a job. LOL.

            That said, BYU was named the safest campus in America by businessinsider. Amazing that liberals try to brush that aside and focus on their myopic agendas at the expense of every other important issue.

            “Safety? Meh, we don’t care about that.” We are only concerned with the hiring practices of private employers, right?! LOL. smh. Pathetic.

            Like

          • Bryson says:

            Lookie who we have here showing up on this blog. It’s Jeremy. The guy named Jeremy Haley who has been ripping BYU and tweeting at everyone he knows online about BYU and its supposed “anti LGBQ” stance. If anyone wants to know who this guy is just go to his twitter account @Runhard55. You will see lots of vitriol and anti-BYU rhetoric.

            And funny thing is this guy likes and follows the University of Utah and University of Utah athletics. Surprise, surprise. LOL Someone has to be mentally ill to take that kind of concerted effort forward. You almost have to feel bad for him. Almost. Until you realize his hatred of BYU stems from the University of Utah.

            Nothing to see here, folks.

            Like

        • Brandon says:

          Conservatism is the only thing that could possibly save the U.S…With these horrible liberal policies and no morality what-so-ever (also the liberal media) is EXACTLY what has destroyed the U.S and is completely destroying the west and thus the rise of the right wing all across the West. One can only hope it continues and gets rid of “progressivism” because they are progressing towards a one world government and right off a cliff.

          Like

    • Bob Johnson says:

      BULL CRAP!!!! Academic Freedom is NOT free; That is often used to mask the bigotry that drives people to proclaim issues that are complicated and not easily discussed within a public forum. Having attended BYU and Cal Poly Pomona, the bigotry is almost always directed by those who wish to push their views on others in forums that are not condusive to public discussion.

      Like

  3. Nathan says:

    I’d vote for Rice over Tulane in the President’s Soft Spot category simply to because of the MOB. Too bad the Big XII is overflowing with TX schools, which means it would never happen.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Everybody has a soft spot for Rice. But UH has the political muscle behind it. Not going to be 2 Houston schools.

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Rice would probably be more appealing to the other P5 conferences than Tulane. But geography trumps the rest in this case when we’re discussing the B12.

      Of course, we have no shot at any of them in this round. My question these days is, do I ant the MWC or the AAC to pick us up?

      Like

  4. David Brown says:

    I do not see Connecticut as a good option. They ( like Syracuse) try and position themselves as “New York’s College Team.” Of course, St John’s ( hoops) and Rutgers really are. Looking at it from a strictly economy standpoint. One reason why Delaney sold the University Presidents on Rutgers, was that the favorite College teams of New Jersey and New York would include: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and of course, Rutgers (only Notre Dame is missing). People from those States care nothing about Oklahoma or Texas ( unlike the Wolverines , Buckeyes and Nittany Lions). For that reason ( and many more), The Huskies are not going to the Big 10

    Like

    • Tyler Smith says:

      Agreed. UConn has no shot at the B1G. The next round of expansion for the B1G will be on the western side of the conference. The B1G already has New York City via Rutgers and Rutgers has more upside for football and the recruiting in New Jersey is big time.

      Memphis will be getting into the B12 over UConn.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      I think Frank hits on some of the reasons not to do UConn in his analysis of the Florida twins. You need a critical mass. With Rutgers, the B1G had a mass of B1G fans already there. There is no such synergy with the Big 12 and UConn. And there is lots of pro competition as well as competition from other colleges for football fans, mainly Notre Dame and Penn St.

      Its worth noting that it is closer from Austin to Los Angeles than from Austin to Storrs. And that Storrs is 400 miles further on average from the Big 12 schools than Provo is.

      Also, football drives revenue. The KSU AD made a comment recently that it was 85% of revenue (I’m guessing that was a general figure rather than scientific, but its a big % whatever the number is). UConn is a weak football school with less than 15 years in the top division. I’m guessing a lot of casual fans don’t even know they play football, figuring they are like St. John’s and Providence.

      UConn might make sense for the ACC or B1G. They are likely the best G5 addition those conferences could choose. But they don’t make sense for the Big 12.

      Like

      • mr greg says:

        uconn, the OG thug school will never get into the ACC, they sued the BC and other ACC presidents personally when the ACC gobbled up the best of the BIG EAST. uconn will correctly be left hanging out in the wind.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          mr greg,

          “uconn, the OG thug school will never get into the ACC, they sued the BC and other ACC presidents personally when the ACC gobbled up the best of the BIG EAST. uconn will correctly be left hanging out in the wind.”

          UConn will be added as soon as they become the most valuable option for the expanding conference. The presidents won’t hold petty things like lawsuits against them if it means leaving significant money on the table. Fans can hold grudges but presidents can’t afford to.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I have to more or less agree with Mr. Greg regarding UConn and the ACC. There was enormous bitterness from BC and the ACC toward UConn after the suits filed by then AG Richard Blumenthal (now US Senator from CT). By the way, at the time, I fully understood the anger since there was outright lying coming from the ACC. It was totally legal, though really immoral. Yes, welcome to the real world.

            There have been rumors that BC has absolute veto power over admitting UConn to the ACC.
            There is obviously no way for anyone without super secret inside info to know if that is true. Certainly, BC would view UConn as a direct competitor in New England, so I cannot imagine BC agreeing to UConn. Particularly with the addition of Cuse and Pitt, BC does not need other northeastern schools.

            UConn would need to really be vital to the ACC before beign invited. That could, of course, happen if the ACC lost schools. With the long GOR that does not seem likely in the next decade or more.

            If UConn football is stuck in G5 purgatory for another decade or more and the Big East has open arms for all sports (other than football), what does UConn do? Do they “give up” on football, so that basketball can flourish?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jersey Bernie,

            “I have to more or less agree with Mr. Greg regarding UConn and the ACC.”

            I’ll explain why I disagree.

            “There was enormous bitterness from BC and the ACC toward UConn after the suits filed by then AG Richard Blumenthal (now US Senator from CT).”

            Was being the key word. 11 of the ACC presidents/chancellors weren’t around when the BC expansion happened. Another retires next year and BC’s has been there for 20 years so he must be near the end. The point is, this isn’t personal to them so they’ll be more objective when voting. BC will probably try to keep them out, but if UConn is obviously the best choice then they’ll get in. Remember, Pitt was part of the lawsuit as was VT initially. Also, there are a lot of former Big East schools that might view UConn as a familiar face for their fans.

            “By the way, at the time, I fully understood the anger since there was outright lying coming from the ACC. It was totally legal, though really immoral. Yes, welcome to the real world.”

            I understood it from both sides. I thought the lawsuits were ill-advised because they’d cost more than they’d ever recover but I think AG felt obligated to the people of the state to show they fought for UConn.

            “There have been rumors that BC has absolute veto power over admitting UConn to the ACC.”

            I highly doubt the written voting rules include veto power for anyone. We know it took 3 votes to block SU the first time around.

            “There is obviously no way for anyone without super secret inside info to know if that is true.”

            It would’ve come out before if anyone had actual veto power. Much more likely is that schools have unofficial veto power over schools in their area (like UVA on VT, UNC on ECU, etc). The presidents are colleagues and would tend to support each other. That said, the rest of the ACC isn’t going to agree to lose millions by adding a clearly inferior school if BC is the only upset school.

            “UConn would need to really be vital to the ACC before beign invited.”

            That’s a given for this scenario because they’re already at 15 and nobody needs to be at 16. But what if ND football joins, or the ACC loses multiple schools?

            “That could, of course, happen if the ACC lost schools. With the long GOR that does not seem likely in the next decade or more.”

            No, and by then the feelings would be even less.

            “If UConn football is stuck in G5 purgatory for another decade or more and the Big East has open arms for all sports (other than football), what does UConn do? Do they “give up” on football, so that basketball can flourish”

            No, power brokers in the state are committed to football. At least for now.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I do not see Connecticut as a good option…The Huskies are not going to the Big 10.

      (I am assuming you meant “Big 12”, since that’s the subject of the post.)

      There is no great option. All of the candidates have flaws. Otherwise, the B12 would have done this long ago.

      Let’s assume Houston is a shoo-in, for political reasons; BYU gets in, because they are the best available brand name not in a P5 conference already; and Cincinnati for the many reasons Frank describes. So, who’s #4?

      Frank makes a pretty good case that UConn is the best “fourth school” available. There’s enough doubt that any of the schools names could be #4, but UConn definitely has strong points in its favor.

      Like

      • Mark says:

        I am by no means a UConn fan, but the Big Ten would be able to monetize UConn very well, certainly better than any Big 12 school except for Texas. Connecticut is very wealthy and would give Mich, OSU, MSU, PSU another game near NYC. Plus UConn is the highest level elite in basketball with all the national titles – they would drive strong BTN bball ratings and could charge Connecticut TV subs a fortune.

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          UConn is not even a blip in the NYC TV market. Storrs is 140 miles from NYC. How does 140 miles give anyone a game near NY? Philadelphia is only 90 miles from NYC.

          The population of Connecticut is about 3.5 million. That is the maximum TV market for UConn.

          The people State of Connecticut may be wealthy but the state itself is going through major financial problems.

          Wonderful basketball, but we all know that bball does not drive the bus.

          To the extent that the B12 wants to do something for WV, UConn also does not do anything there either.

          The basic argument for UConn to the B12 is that there is no one better and the B12 has to take someone. Good academics, great basketball. End of case.

          That is the hope for UConn. Their “natural home” should be the ACC, but that did not work out.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Oops cannot edit message, so here is a follow up.

            UConn is not AAU. If the B1G wants to go down the road of taking a non-AAU school, there are other possibilities (Oklahoma?)

            How does the B1G monetize a medium sized (to small) state with no football of consequence?

            As others have said, all of New England probably produces two or three four star football players in a good year and another handful of three stars. If the entire region generates 10 P5 quality football players per year, that is a lot. (And BC is sitting there in Boston, only 85 miles from Storrs)

            A game at UConn brings no recruiting value, unlike playing at Maryland or Rutgers.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Mark,

          “I am by no means a UConn fan, but the Big Ten would be able to monetize UConn very well, certainly better than any Big 12 school except for Texas. Connecticut is very wealthy and would give Mich, OSU, MSU, PSU another game near NYC.”

          Speaking as an OSU fan, we don’t want yet another east coast game. You can’t just keep adding schools in the East and keep geographic divisions unless you want to aggravate some of your most valuable members. It would make 3 of 9 games on our schedule be brand new B10 members we have no connection with. Let MI play them and leave us alone.

          Like

          • Mark says:

            Brian – as a fan, I complete agree on UConn. UConn offers essentially the same cash opportunity as Rutgers. Between NYC and Boston, close to Hartford in a very wealthy state. OSU and Mich fans would pack UConn’s stadium just like they pack Maryland and Rutgers. Plus UConn actually is a blue blood in basketball and would be the school to make Big 10 basketball relevant in NYC. Put MSU-UConn at MSG and get a huge amount of NYC media.

            Maybe the Big 10 is done chasing cash, but I doubt it. UConn is worth more than Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. Only Texas is more valuable to the other conference schools of the current Big 12 and G5 schools for the Big 10.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mark,

            “UConn offers essentially the same cash opportunity as Rutgers.”

            I doubt that. Certainly not now, and probably not even before RU was added.

            “Between NYC and Boston,”

            NYC-RU = 36 miles
            NYC-UConn = 142

            Philly-RU = 65
            Boston-UConn = 85

            RU-UMD = 191
            RU-PSU = 228

            UConn-UMD = 357
            UConn-PSU = 366

            RU is between NYC and Philly and significantly closer to both of them. It’s also much closer to DC and fellow newbie UMD as well as old eastern member PSU. That means a lot more synergy with RU. The much greater proximity to NYC also really impacts the value there. Nobody but UConn fans believe that UConn football matters at all in NYC.

            “close to Hartford”

            About as close as RU is to NYC. I’ll take metro NYC over Hartford.

            “in a very wealthy state.”

            It is. But the areas around NYC in all directions have significant wealth. CT is just so small it doesn’t get as diluted by the rest of the population. NJ is a much bigger state and is #3 in per capita income.

            “OSU and Mich fans would pack UConn’s stadium just like they pack Maryland and Rutgers.”

            Probably, but that’s just because tickets are cheap. NYC isn’t a hotbed of alumni for OSU. Neither is Boston.

            “Plus UConn actually is a blue blood in basketball”

            That’s a given, but how much is it worth? The vast majority of TV money is for football. It would help with BTN subscriptions but CT is a small state (NJ is more than 2 times larger).

            “and would be the school to make Big 10 basketball relevant in NYC.”

            No, it would just keep a winning UConn relevant in NYC. They’ll never care about teams from flyover states.

            “Put MSU-UConn at MSG and get a huge amount of NYC media.”

            For 1 game, sure. But we can already get that without adding UConn.

            “Maybe the Big 10 is done chasing cash, but I doubt it.”

            I do think they’re worried about over-expanding, but I’m not sure they’re done either. It depends on who asks to join. There’s always room for a UT.

            “UConn is worth more than Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc.”

            MO – MO is 50% larger than CT meaning 50% more BTN money, CT would slightly bump the hoops deal, MO has better football and brings an old rivalry with NE and potentially KU, AAU

            KU – slightly smaller state, equal MBB, old rivals with NE, AAU

            OU – CFB king trumps MBB king any day, OK is slightly larger than CT, brings valuable rivalry with NE

            And before you ask, AAU membership has value to the B10’s reputation but not any direct financial value.

            “Only Texas is more valuable to the other conference schools of the current Big 12 and G5 schools for the Big 10.”

            I obviously disagree. And so does the ACC or they would’ve added UConn. And so does the B10, or they would’ve added UConn over RU. Why do fans think they know more about the value of a school than the conference that used experts to analyze all the candidates and spent hours making the decision.

            Like

          • Mark says:

            Brian:


            MO – MO is 50% larger than CT meaning 50% more BTN money, CT would slightly bump the hoops deal, MO has better football and brings an old rivalry with NE and potentially KU, AAU

            KU – slightly smaller state, equal MBB, old rivals with NE, AAU

            OU – CFB king trumps MBB king any day, OK is slightly larger than CT, brings valuable rivalry with NE

            And before you ask, AAU membership has value to the B10’s reputation but not any direct financial value.

            “Only Texas is more valuable to the other conference schools of the current Big 12 and G5 schools for the Big 10.”

            I obviously disagree. And so does the ACC or they would’ve added UConn. And so does the B10, or they would’ve added UConn over RU. Why do fans think they know more about the value of a school than the conference that used experts to analyze all the candidates and spent hours making the decision.”

            I agree that Rutgers is closer to NYC than UConn, my point is that UConn is the next school in line as they bring more value than all the other choices except Texas:

            Missouri – train wreck of a school right now, terrible football and basketball. Bad location in middle of the state dilutes its reach in KC and StL as KC is a Kansas town and the Big 10 already has 1/3 of the St L market in Illinois. And I disagree on 50% more BTN money – BTN could charge more in Connecticut plus I would assume there are more cable subs per capita in Connecticut vs Missouri

            Kansas – tiny and poor state, very little value, Gets play in KC, but Connecticut much richer and bigger. KU will probably lose AAU status in the next purge, the gov is killing the state university system with huge tax cuts. Football is hopeless, maybe even worse than Rutgers

            Oklahoma – poor small state again dependent upon energy that looks like a losing bet for the next 10 years. Yes good football, but Big 10 has enough good football teams so one more just takes away wins for UM, OSU, MSU, etc. No chance at AAU in our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes.

            Like

          • Doug says:

            I don’t see UConn adding any value to the BIG. The only scenario is if the BIG needs an even number and no one else is available, but that’s highly, highly unlikely.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mark,

            “I agree that Rutgers is closer to NYC than UConn, my point is that UConn is the next school in line as they bring more value than all the other choices except Texas:”

            What value do they bring? They hurt the academics of the B10. They greatly increase travel. They aren’t all that near any major city and they aren’t allowed to move home football games from the middle of CT to a big city. They add great hoops programs, but there is very little money in that. CT is a small state so BTN subscriptions don’t raise much. And all the playoff, bowl and NCAA money gets split more ways. Where is the net benefit here?

            If UConn is the best option available, then expansion won’t and shouldn’t happen.

            “Missouri – train wreck of a school right now, terrible football and basketball. Bad location in middle of the state dilutes its reach in KC and StL as KC is a Kansas town and the Big 10 already has 1/3 of the St L market in Illinois. And I disagree on 50% more BTN money – BTN could charge more in Connecticut plus I would assume there are more cable subs per capita in Connecticut vs Missouri.”

            MO isn’t leaving the SEC anyway. Beyond that, most of KC is in MO just like most of STL is in MO. MO is a bigger state and they pay the SECN footprint fee which is more than BTN charges. CT won’t pay more than MO for BTN because that’s not how it works. There is one price for in the footprint and another for outside of it. CT residents wouldn’t pay more anyway because so many of them don’t care about UConn sports.

            Why would you assume more subscribers per capita in CT? Do people not watch TV in MO? There 2.35M households in MO versus 1.36M in CT. The per capita difference would have to be huge for it to matter at all. And all the national data I’ve seen shows relatively variation in cable usage from place to place (80-95% basically everywhere).

            “Kansas – tiny and poor state, very little value, Gets play in KC, but Connecticut much richer and bigger. KU will probably lose AAU status in the next purge, the gov is killing the state university system with huge tax cuts. Football is hopeless, maybe even worse than Rutgers”

            CT – 3.6M, #29 state in population
            KS – 2.9M, #34 state

            Huge difference there. You can hypothesize KU losing AAU status, but they have it and UConn never has and isn’t particularly close to getting it. And the lack of WBB is literally meaningless for expansion.

            “Oklahoma – poor small state again dependent upon energy that looks like a losing bet for the next 10 years. Yes good football, but Big 10 has enough good football teams so one more just takes away wins for UM, OSU, MSU, etc. No chance at AAU in our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes.”

            OK – 3.9M, #28 state
            CT – 3.6M, #29 state

            Good football trumps almost everything else. OU has fans nationally that care about football, the actual money-driving sport. OU also adds another important game to the B10 roster that is highly valuable for TV deals (OU/NE) in addition to all their other games.

            The B10 does not have enough good football teams at all. The lack of quality depth is one of the national complaints about the B10. OU would greatly increase the strength of the West division and provide another power capable of regular playoffs visits.

            OU is worth millions more than UConn to the B10. It’s not even close.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Let MI play them and leave us alone.

            MI doesn’t want a steady diet of games in Storrs, either. The one road game Michigan agreed to play @UConn, they tried desperately to persuade the Huskies to move it to an NFL stadium.

            The Huskies refused, because when they got state money to expand their stadium, they agreed to stop moving big games out of town. That expansion got them to a whopping 42,704, which would be smaller than any stadium in the Big Ten. (NW is the only league stadium under 50k, at 47,130.)

            Like

  5. Tyler Smith says:

    Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Texas to the B1G at the end of the B12 GOR. Delany plans to retire in 2020 and will announce those schools are coming to the B1G before he retires so he can go out with a bang.

    UT’s president and chancellor both favore a move to the B1G. David Boren, Oklahoma’s president, wants to go to a conference with elite academics.

    Since the RRR game is vitally important for OU and UT, OU and UT will both go to the same conference. If Delany wants to expand with KS and MO too, they will be easy gets for Delany.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      1. OU, KU, and UT are bound to the Big 12 for another five years after Delany retires.

      2. I highly doubt Delany will do something as disruptive to the Big Ten as adding four members and then retire.

      3. [Redacted] is an absolute mess right now and will probably be still be sorting it out for years. Even if they were not, they have zero reason to leave the SEC.

      Like

  6. Mike says:

    CFP money distributed as a flat payment to each conference (http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/revenue-distribution), so if ESPN/FOX pay a pro rata increase for each new member on the TV side won’t it cost each member to expand around $1MM* (55/10 vs 55/12) if they go to 12 or or $1.6MM* if they go to 14 (55/10 vs 55/14). Is the Big 12 expecting a championship game to make up for it?

    *Even more if you count NCAA distributions

    Like

    • NeutronSoup says:

      The idea, as I’ve heard it expressed, is that incoming members will have to accept a lower share of the revenue, so existing members’ revenue will actually go up.

      Like

      • @NeutronSoup – Exactly. The theory is that the Big 12 will get the pro rata increase in TV revenue in expansion, but actually pay out less to the new members for a period of time (which results in a net TV revenue increase for each of the existing Big 12 schools).

        Like

    • bullet says:

      CFP about $50 million. Sugar Bowl $40 million 2 out of 3 years-$26.7. CCG about $30 million.

      Those all have to be split. That’s 11 million ten ways, 9 million twelve ways and 8 million fourteen ways. That’s roughly $2 million if they add 2 and $3 million per school if they add 4. Now you could argue the improved chances of making the playoff and the likelihood of the round robin and a 10 team ccg knocking a team out of the playoff or a 2nd NY6 bowl makes expansion a wash on splitting ccg $. But that still leaves a $1 million per school hit for a 2 team expansion and a $2 million per school hit for a 4 team expansion.

      TCU and WVU reached full shares in 5 years. I suspect the new schools will take to the end of the contract to get full shares (8 years), which means the existing schools will be ahead, and maybe far enough ahead that financially it won’t matter that they make less than they would have in 9 years.

      There’s been a lot of discussion of marketing analysis so it seems they think there are corporate sponsorship opportunities that generate some additional revenue for the conference as well. So it may not be just the pro rata TV that the new members bring in.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      The new members are ALL going to agree to take less money at the beginning. and my guess is the “buy-in” will be at least 5 years, if not 8 (to coincide with the expiring GOR).

      Like

  7. Husker1 says:

    I know that BYU and the PAC schools do not mesh well, but if BYU goes to the Big 12 the west’s last solid expansion option for the PAC is gone. No way they take Boise, Idaho, any of the other Cali schools, the New Mexico programs are terrible, UNLV may be an okay option only in combination with somonelse, there is simply no other options. If the Big 12 was spurred to action because the ACC solidified, you would think the PAC would also be, unless they think they can make another run at the Big 12 when their deal comes to an end, but I think the BigTen is in far better position to grab the best on the Big 12 if they do in fact break up in the end.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      The State of Idaho has to buck up and reorganize its university system such that Boise State becomes the flagship (rechristened Idaho State?).

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Idaho St already exists: http://www.isubengals.com/

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          I knew that, but being re-classified as a flagship might help overcome whatever stigma might be associated with having been a lesser campus (and in BSU’s case a Juco). The present day Idaho State in Pocatello can become Idaho Tech or Idaho A&M whatever. Me, I’d prefer the Idaho Vandals up in Moscow take one for the team in that regard.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Ain’t happening. Boise St isn’t very represented in the legislature. Many from UI law school. Very protective of their turf.

            Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      It can’t be said often enough. There is zero chance that BYU will ever be invited to the Pac. The academic freedom issues and cultural divide make it an absolute non-starter.

      Like

    • mr greg says:

      if they (the PAC12) were smart, and he’s not as smart as their commissioner thinks he is, they would immediately go to 14 by adding byu and co state. that gives both Utah and Colorado instate rivals (just like Oregon, asu, wa) and locks out the big 12 from any west expansion. but it wont happen because of the pac12’s religious school biases.

      mr greg.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        mr greg,

        “if they (the PAC12) were smart, and he’s not as smart as their commissioner thinks he is, they would immediately go to 14 by adding byu and co state.”

        No, they wouldn’t. I won’t debate how smart Scott is, but he knows enough to realize that adding more schools in states already in the footprint doesn’t make money for the P12.

        “that gives both Utah and Colorado instate rivals (just like Oregon, asu, wa)”

        All of those were added when travel was more important than TV money.

        “and locks out the big 12 from any west expansion.”

        Why stop the B12 from adding schools you don’t want? That’s bad business.

        “but it wont happen because of the pac12’s religious school biases.”

        Most P5 conferences have issues with BYU’s stances on certain issues. It’s not about religious schools, because plenty of those have been or are in P5 conferences. It’s BYU in particular that’s the problem.

        Like

  8. Eisenbarth Mark says:

    Nice work

    I would add 2 thoughts/comments/questions regarding UH & why it might not be a bad insurance policy for the teams outside of Texas as well
    …adding UH adds political pressure on Texas to keep the Big12 alive, more Texas skin in the game to make Texit at least harder
    …If Texit happens, then big 12 may need Houston for the Houston market & to help with the Texas market in general…plus if Texit happens, I would expect Oklahoma to be not much behind, which I think you have argued is the 3rd most important team to the Texas market

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      agree on this point. the Presidents of IowaSt, KS, KSt, etc., should be looking beyond this expansion with the thought that UT and OK will leave. Houston is a good addition for the non-state-of-Texas schools because it helps keep the State-of-Texas tv eyeballs if/when UT leaves. (note “helps”; not “completely compensates”).

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        The KSU pres did. He’s now pres at WSU.

        Just kidding. Presidents don’t school hop primarily on athletic affiliation. They do, however, on all the other measures people ignore when evaluating candidates for affiliation invites (think like a pres).

        Like

  9. bullet says:

    Good call on Texas politics. Although Sittler covered OU and so the general assumption was that OU was the school who wanted Houston from his comment.

    I think its pretty clear Texas wanted to stay at 10. But once there was support for expansion, the governor gave them orders to make sure UH was included.

    And UT wasn’t “responsible” for getting TCU in. UT just sealed the deal. As the OU AD made clear in the article, OU wanted TCU and there was some support elsewhere in the conference. Drinking with Deloss Dodds just removed any opposition from UT and then everyone else fell in line.

    Like

  10. bullet says:

    While you are right about demographics and academics as regards the B1G, ACC and Pac, financially, the Big 12 is just fine relative to the Pac 12 and ACC (depending on how much their revenue increases with their network deal and GOR extension).

    The Big 12 is always a solid 3rd in attendance and school revenues (average or median), well ahead of the Pac and ACC. They are actually first in “profitability,” limiting school subsidies. And they have been ahead of the Pac in distributions (even without considering the Big 12’s separate tier 3 TV) at least since 2010. Last year was the first time the ACC was ahead of the Big 12 and that was a one year blip because the Orange Bowl was not a playoff bowl, but the Sugar Bowl was.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      To be clear, “school revenues” are the individual school’s total athletic revenues as reported in the USA Today annual report and elsewhere.

      Like

  11. Stuart says:

    three questions:
    1) Does any expansion reduce the chance Texas or OU and KU leave as the GOR expires?
    2) How are FOX and ESPN feeling about shelling out and extra $25-50m (2 or 4 schools) per year for G5 schools, and seeing 16-28 current Big 12 match ups replaced playing these new schools?
    3) Would adding these G5 schools reduce the tier1 value in 2025 TV deal?

    Like

    • Bob in Houston says:

      1) No. If anything, it would increase it.
      2) I’m sure they are feeling they’re being taken advantage of. Rare, but true.
      3) Of course it will.

      Like

      • Stuart says:

        I have been thinking for some time that FOX and ESPN will push to limit expansion to two schools. The others will be there if they want or need to go back and expand again in five years. Not pissing off your media partners should be a factor.

        My read is Houston gets one of those two spots, and that is probably at the expense of Cincy, to get Texas (state of and school) on board. Houston also nixes Memphis. BYU or UConn get the other spot. The Baylor situation and the LDS honor code being applied to sexual assault victims makes me think the timing favors UConn.

        So if two schools, Houston and UConn wouldn’t shock me.

        There is one other factor. School Presidents/Chancellors will be making presentations. The data and info doesn’t matter much – it’s been analyzed to death already – but the presenter does. This is the personality test, do the B12 Presidents and Chancellors like the peer presenting or do they prefer not to work with them? That could shuffle the order of preference and elevate one or bounce out another.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      1) Probably not by much, if at all. But no one knows what those chances are anyway, so how will we ever know?

      2) They cannot be very happy. You make the bed, you gotta lie in it.

      3) If these schools are entitled to full shares starting in 2025, then the per-school payout almost certainly has to go down. But the B12 need not give them full shares. Even half-shares would be far more than they were getting in the AAC.

      Like

      • Stuart says:

        Marc, by 2025 the per school matters because the new schools would be on full scale or close. So if the B12 is worth $6m/yr less per school due to dilution that impacts every current member $60m over a decade. That ties back to #1. Hence the reason I asked.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Marc, by 2025 the per school matters…

          Of course it does. It is the only thing that matters. I thought I had made that clear.

          …because the new schools would be on full scale or close.

          You are assuming the B12 will do the dumbest thing imaginable—always possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.

          As Frank pointed out, “each member of the Big 12 makes more annual TV revenue than the entire AAC.” This means that you don’t need to give an AAC school very much at all, for the move to be worth their while.

          So, why would you promise them full shares in eight years, knowing that the league is doomed if you do? You can say to a Cincinnati or UConn: get real, in eight years you aren’t going to be as valuable as Oklahoma. If you think you are, then stay in the AAC, and we will invite someone else.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            This is, of course, analogous to the RU invitation to the B1G. RU was saved from the fate of the AAC. When Delany did not offered a 6 year phase in with relatively little for the first few years, it was still a huge improvement.

            Give an ACC school a one-third share for 4 years, then a 1/2 share for the 4 years and they will have to jump at it. Worry about full shares in 2025.

            On the RU boards, there are still clowns arguing that the deal should be renegotiated for more money now. Sane people try to tell them to shut up and be happy.

            Of course on the UConn boards there are clowns who think that the B1G and ACC both really really want UConn. So the theory goes, the B12 will need to make an offer to UConn, which can then leverage that offer with both the B1G and ACC, or certainly at least one of them.

            Sane people on the UConn boards are just hoping to get a B12 offer. Of course, even some of the rational UConn posters think that the NYC and Boston TV markets are part of UConn’s appeal. Somehow, I am not sure if even a UConn-Oklahoma football game would get the attention of anyone outside of Storrs.

            As someone has posted, not a whole lot of B12 alums (or families of current students) in Boston or NYC. (As opposed to the huge number of B1G alum and families)

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            This is, of course, analogous to the RU invitation to the B1G. RU was saved from the fate of the AAC. When Delany did not offered a 6 year phase in with relatively little for the first few years, it was still a huge improvement.

            Right, and I’m suggesting they take it even farther. Say to Cincinnati, “You are never getting a full share, ever, unless you meet certain hurdles (attendance, TV ratings, etc.) that prove you are truly a peer.”

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t think BYU dilutes anything. They are probably top half P5 level in value.

            I don’t think Houston or Cincinnati dilute much.

            But if you go 4, you likely get dilution. The idea would be that the programs grow and increase in value. That’s a risk.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I don’t think BYU dilutes anything. They are probably top half P5 level in value.

            I don’t think Houston or Cincinnati dilute much.

            Think of it this way: what kind of deal does the B12 get next time? Every conference is looking to see their media deal go up, and the B10 has already done that. If Houston or Cincy is only mildly dilutive, it’s still dilution. Do these adds allow the B12 to keep up with the Joneses?

            Like

          • Mark says:

            BYU would probably be the 3rd most valuable school if added, Cincinnati would be 6th (ahead of KSU, ISU, TCU, Bay, Tex Tech) and Houston would probably be about the same as Cincinnati. I doubt they make the buy in more than 8 years.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      1) if they get more money it does (and not just pro rata)
      2) they never like paying more money, but the value of these schools will increase some because they are playing more attractive competition.
      3) not adding 2. BYU is an above average P5 school Houston and Cincinnati aren’t far below average. Adding 4, maybe it does.

      Like

  12. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Roll (Tulane Green) Wave into the Big XXII-2+4!

    Like

  13. d2 says:

    Cincy(ohio market and wv issue) no brainer, I would go Uconn, Memphis and USF after that. Byu to much cultural difference.

    Like

  14. WildcatJeff says:

    Hi Frank, I recently started following you and think you have a great handle on the Big XII expansion. I would love a history lesson on how the conference got in the predicament over the years. Was it pure lack of leadership or nothing could have been done? Over the years I thought they had enough to do what the ACC did. That is get ND or take the top four ACC football schools. FSU, Clemson, Maimi and VT and roll a tv network. Really feel UT has ruined the conference and cut their own nose off! EMAW!

    Like

    • @WildcatJeff – I don’t think that there was much that could be done. The Big 12 was originally started as a marriage of convenience between the old Big 8 and the hand-picked Texas-based schools from the SWC and that has meant that there wasn’t anything other than money tying the league together. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC all have various bonds (whether academics, history together, regional strength, etc.) beyond money (which, to be sure, is still critically important) that the Big 12 simply never had. That’s why when I first started writing about conference realignment back in 2009, it was already clear that the Big 12 and Big East (and even better example of a marriage of convenience) were the most vulnerable leagues by far.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Granted, the Big 12 and Big East had inherent problems that were difficult to solve. But poor management definitely contributed to their troubles.

        The B12 was the only power conference that fired its commissioner, Dan Beebe. I recall the explanation: “There’s a perception he only listens to one school.” The parody twitter account, @DanBeebe, made fun of this to hilarious effect.

        Underlying the joke, is the fact that the B12 wasn’t an “All for one, One for all” conference. The Big Ten would be a very different place, if Michigan and Ohio State were hoarding most of the tier 3 revenue for themselves.

        Like

      • Steve Ross says:

        Yep, the Big 12 was a shotgun marriage and most of those end in divorce court. This CYA expansion has little to do with Texas and/or OU ditching the league. As for Houston, the political pressure is (IMO) overblown. Texas A&M leaving for the SEC made the political damage a lesser problem for Texas. Either Texas went so public with the backing of Houston because they know the votes to kill it are already in line — or they don’t give a damn in the long run. The Coogs bring next to nothing in terms of solidifying the Houston market for the Big 12. First and foremost, Houston is a pro town, really entrenched that way. Last year not a single regular season college football game was in the Top 100 sporting events telecast in the Houston market. Not Texas. Not A&M. Not Alabama. and not Houston. As a matter of fact when you breakdown the ratings, Alabama played in five games that got a 2.0 or better rating. Texas played in four. Houston had two — their last two games of the season. I have always believed that we are headed to a four league 64-team (plus ND) super division, and the Big 12 will be the one without a seat at the table when that happens. This is a cynical, short-sided, reactionary money grab by the Big 12 and it will not enhance their sustainability in any way shape or form.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I have always believed that we are headed to a four league 64-team (plus ND) super division, and the Big 12 will be the one without a seat at the table when that happens.

          Why would the four survivors conveniently and coincidentally agree to expand at the same time to exactly 16 teams? At no time in history have all the “power” leagues had the same number of teams.

          The flaw in this theory becomes obvious, when you try to figure out which 64 teams would make it, and which leagues would accept the stragglers. There is no central authority that will force the B10 and/or SEC to accept schools they don’t want.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Brian says:

          Steve Ross,

          “I have always believed that we are headed to a four league 64-team (plus ND) super division,”

          Why? First, why have the symmetry of 4×16 and then have ND separate to screw things up? Second, what makes you believe all the leagues will naturally end at 16? The P12 had a shot but Texas said no. There’s no group of 4 the P12 would accept that doesn’t include UT. And if that block (UT, TT, OU, OkSU) does go west, why would the B10 and SEC respond by taking the scraps of the B12? What schools would the ACC find to add and how would they justify it?

          “and the Big 12 will be the one without a seat at the table when that happens.”

          It’s possible we drop to a P4 at some point and certainly the B12 could be the victim.

          “This is a cynical, short-sided, reactionary money grab by the Big 12 and it will not enhance their sustainability in any way shape or form.”

          It should keep them together until the GOR ends at least. Beyond that is a guessing game. Having more money to pay the current members can’t hurt, but is it worth the extra travel and games against G5 programs?

          Like

    • Brian says:

      WildcatJeff,

      “I would love a history lesson on how the conference got in the predicament over the years. Was it pure lack of leadership or nothing could have been done?”

      50 years ago, the Big 8 and SWC were power conferences with some great programs in them. But once the Supreme Court opened up college football to TV money in 1984, things started to change. The Big 8 suffered from the small population in it’s footprint in the plains states. The SWC was almost entirely in TX and TX was early in its population boom (TX has grown over 50% since 1980) so it wasn’t quite the huge state it is now. The SWC also had a bunch of schools cheating with several getting caught by the NCAA. That culminated with SMU getting the death penalty which signaled the beginning of the end for the SWC.

      Arkansas left for the SEC in 1992 and the SWC splintered. The Big 8 needed the population in TX and the SWC teams needed a stable home. They merged into the B12 in 1996. Unfortunately they just didn’t have enough time to coalesce into a real conference. There was a dominance struggle that Texas won and that led to some hurt feelings in Nebraska. When the B10 announced they were looking to expand, multiple B12 schools showed interest. Colorado left for the P12 (where many of their alumni are) before the B10 grabbed Nebraska and another round of infighting led to Texas A&M leaving the next year. Missouri almost had to go as well since they’d so openly sought greener pastures.

      What could the B12 and its members have done differently?

      1. The SWC could’ve not cheated so much and destroyed their reputations.

      2. The schools could’ve been better academically so other conferences wouldn’t be as appealing to the presidents. This is the fault of the state governments, generally.

      3. The Big 8 could’ve insisted on absorbing the 4 new members rather than merging. That was the beginning of giving Texas too much power for the conference to survive.

      4. Texas could’ve not been so selfish, but that would mean putting the conference ahead of the school and that isn’t their job. But not forcing some of the changes they did and not starting the LHN would’ve kept things together for longer at least.

      In reality, the B12 was doomed by geography (not in Eastern time zone, sparse population to the west) and demographics (only TX has a large population) as much as anything. The LHN was probably the final nail in the coffin but you can’t expect a university to turn down $15M per year guaranteed when they know they will always land on their feet.

      “Over the years I thought they had enough to do what the ACC did. That is get ND or take the top four ACC football schools. FSU, Clemson, Maimi and VT and roll a tv network.”

      Except ND wants east coast exposure much more than TX and plains exposure. As for taking 4 ACC schools, the distance and finances were always going to make that nearly impossible. The B12 never had sufficient advantages to raid the ACC. They will be fairly close in money most years and it takes a huge gap to get a school to leave one P5 conference for another unless their home conference disintegrates.

      “Really feel UT has ruined the conference and cut their own nose off! EMAW!”

      They did hurt the B12 but they didn’t cut off their nose. They’ll be fine no matter what. All the other P5 conference would gladly add them.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Colorado had a Big 12 and Pac 12 offer and chose the Big 12 by one vote. A few months later the board changed and they have wanted in the Pac 12 ever since. Their alumni are much heavier in Pac 12 states. CU leaving was inevitable. It just took Utah to grow into an acceptable program for the Pac 12.

        A&M wanted in the SEC in 1994. Texas politics forced them into the Big 12 against their will. Not much that could be done once an opportunity presented itself.

        Mizzou simply followed the first 3 in jumping at an opportunity for more money and stability. Had Nebraska still been in the conference, things might have been different with Mizzou.

        The one thing that could have been done with Nebraska was if OU had agreed to continue the series every year. But OU didn’t want to play NU and UT every year. NU was a juggernaut then and OU was struggling. One of those early Big 12 games was something like 73-7. With OU off the schedule, NU really didn’t have any rivals. They dominated ISU and Mizzou. They had something like 30+ year winning streaks against KU and KSU. And their CU rivalry wasn’t anything like OU.

        Revenue distribution was really irrelevant. All 4 schools that left were “have” schools like UT, OU and KU. They were united on all revenue distribution plans against the 5 “have-nots,” Baylor, KSU, ISU, Tech and Ok. St.

        Like

  15. Wildcat Jeff says:

    Money grabbing will ultimately hurt CFB! Lack of local rivals and lost traditions will erode total viewership and money. Mizzou in SEC east, Nebraska to Maryland, etc. what is you take?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Money grabbing will ultimately hurt CFB!

      What you call “money grabbing,” is what others call “revenue.” It’s what college sports have been doing, for as long as the people in charge have known there was money to be made. That’s a lot longer than either of us have been around.

      “Money grabbing” is the phrase that people use for the subset of revenue they happen to dislike.

      Mizzou in SEC east, Nebraska to Maryland, etc. what is you take?

      Conference realignment isn’t a new phenomenon. It has happened many times, without being the death of the sport. People get over it. In 15–20 years, 100% of Missouri’s student body will consist of people who never knew the Tigers as anything other than an SEC team.

      Like

  16. Carl says:

    Fight on State

    Like

  17. dtwphx says:

    Thinking about the states of Utah and Colorado,
    BYU > University of Utah

    Lets say B12 takes BYU and CSU,
    Then in Colorado, B12>Pac12.

    Colorado State has BYU fans to the west (Idaho, Utah, Arizona)
    I think most people underestimate the significance of the LDS population in the mountain west.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Corridor
    Colorado State has Kansas, Kansas State, TTech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State to the east.

    University of Colorado alumni may live in California, but the reverse isn’t true.
    How many California school alumni live in Colorado?

    B12 would be the prominent conference in Utah and Colorado with a BYU, CSU addition.

    I don’t get how UConn, WV, Cinci have any value, or create any critical mass of interest.
    They couldn’t generate enough value as subset of the old big east. What’s changed
    that the leftovers of big east football can create value?
    Let WV wither on the vine.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Lets say B12 takes BYU and CSU…I don’t get how UConn, WV, Cinci have any value, or create any critical mass of interest…Let WV wither on the vine.

      The B12 disagrees with you. They could’ve had BYU or CSU in 2012. They chose WV.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      dtwphx,

      “Thinking about the states of Utah and Colorado,
      BYU > University of Utah”

      Not as a school it isn’t. Especially not to P12 presidents.

      “Lets say B12 takes BYU and CSU,
      Then in Colorado, B12>Pac12.”

      Not by much and the majority still don’t care because they’re out biking/climbing/etc or rooting for the Broncos.

      “I think most people underestimate the significance of the LDS population in the mountain west.”

      There are 6.5M LDS members in the US total, mostly in the west. It gives BYU a large fan base, but not all of them care about college sports obviously.

      There are 27.5M people in TX, 20.3M in FL, 11.6M in OH, …

      “University of Colorado alumni may live in California, but the reverse isn’t true.
      How many California school alumni live in Colorado?”

      http://www.coloradodaily.com/sports/buffs/ci_28266585/colorado-athletics-fundraising-soars-west-coast

      CO has 2-3 times as many alumni in CA as they do in the entire B12 footprint. They also increased athletic fundraising in CA 900% by moving (320% for P12 footprint) while only dropping 16% in B12 states.

      Only about 50,000 B12 alumni live in CO right now. Stanford’s Alumni Association has 2800 members in CO. UW claims over 2200. Utah claims about 3500. So call it 30,000+ P12 alumni in Colorado.

      “B12 would be the prominent conference in Utah and Colorado with a BYU, CSU addition.”

      CSU doesn’t bring prominence.

      “I don’t get how UConn, WV, Cinci have any value, or create any critical mass of interest.”

      WV is already a member and isn’t being dropped or treated poorly. You need to get past that fantasy. UConn brings elite hoops teams and proximity to huge TV markets. UC brings quality athletics, access to OH and a neighbor for WV. All of these schools bring the benefit of games in the Eastern time zone.

      “They couldn’t generate enough value as subset of the old big east.”

      The Big East didn’t have UT and OU in it.

      “What’s changed that the leftovers of big east football can create value?”

      A TV contract that guarantees $25M per year per school added no matter who it is.

      “Let WV wither on the vine.”

      Not going to happen.

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      “University of Colorado alumni may live in California, but the reverse isn’t true.
      How many California school alumni live in Colorado?”

      – Whatever the current number may be, it is one that has been rapidly increasing over the past decade & is projected to keep growing. California has become an exporter of citizens & Colorado is one of the prime destinations.

      Like

      • @Scarlet_Lutefisk – This is true as a general matter. There’s a lot of flow between Colorado and California in general. In the past year, Colorado took in more former California residents than any other state (while Texas was #2). On the flip side, Texas was the #1 draw for former Colorado residents, while California was #2. Overall, California had the second highest net loss of population to Colorado (with Big Ten center Illinois being #1). Demographically, the state of Colorado is much more West Coast-looking than it was when the Big 12 was initially formed in the 1990s. (I’d say the same about Utah and Arizona, as well.)

        http://www.denverpost.com/2016/04/14/colorado-has-more-people-on-the-move-than-any-other-state/

        Like

        • bullet says:

          In the 70s the Coloradans hated Texans for buying up the farms & ranches and the ski resort properties and driving up prices Now they hate the Californians.

          And I understand the Kansans hate the Coloradans for doing the same to Kansas as they escape high prices in Colorado.

          Like

    • Mark says:

      Have you ever been to Colorado? I’ve spent significant time and Colorado St is like MAC school in support. Doesn’t ever register. Much of population growth in Colorado is Hispanics who have not grown to love CSU. Plus Colorado is like the Pac 12 states, the folks just aren’t into watching sports except for the Broncos.

      Like

  18. ccrider55 says:

    The week before the B12 meetings Yoda tweeted source in Belmont said BYU and Cincinnati were in and all would be settled before season start. Now:

    Tuxedo Yoda
    Tuxedo Yoda – ‏@TuxedoYoda

    @J1012Jeff When B12 has press conference on 8/16/16, don’t be surprised to see ADs from UCF & USF sitting with Bowlsby. Big 16 looks likely.
    6:07 AM – 29 Jul 2016
    2 RETWEETS4 LIKES

    Not sure on most tweeters including Yoda, but he did change to pro expansion while it still seemed unlikely primarily because of UT.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      To clarify, Yoda still anti expansion. He changed his prediction of what would likely happen.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Since the networks were dumb enough to give them a blanket pro rata deal, going to 16 would be tempting. Doing football-only for some of them would be tempting, too.

        UC to pair with WV
        UH to keep UT happy
        UCF and USF to get into FL
        BYU and UConn to fill it out

        A – OU, OkSU, KU, KSU, ISU, WV, UC, UCF
        B – UT, TT, Baylor, TCU, UH, UConn, BYU, USF

        Lock crossover games in the order listed (old Big 8 members get a TX school, old Big East members meet, FL schools meet, BYU/UC is leftover) and play a 7+1+1 schedule.

        Like

        • Duffman says:

          I will opt for the worst decision

          Adds Houston to further fracture the state of Texas and shrink the footprint
          Adds BYU to create another island on the opposite side of the conference

          a) Pisses off schools in Texas not named Texas
          b) Pisses off old Big 8 schools for having to deal with BYU in their division
          c) Pisses off West Virginia for keeping them isolated from the rest

          In the end, Oklahoma gets nothing they want and leave at earliest convenience

          Best option is a PAC move with Oklahoma State
          Seems B1G and SEC will not take both
          Seems doubtful ACC will take both

          While some are saying 14 / 16, if it has taken this long, just getting to 12 may be futile

          Like

          • Brian says:

            If that happens, then the P12 can add UCF, USF, UC and UConn. It gives them some Eastern time zone games and a new MBB blue blood to replace UCLA. They also get FL access.

            Yes, I’m kidding.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        The force is NOT with Yoda. But he is well dressed.

        Like

      • Smoothie King II says:

        Texas politics has always played a huge deal in the Big 12 and in higher education in Texas. I would guess that UH with Tech and UT’s support is a shoe in. I would also guess that Tech and Houston are more than likely to get a nod of tier one status in Texas over North Texas, UTD, UTSA or any other system schools.

        Like

        • Duffman says:

          I just wish Loki had some political clout for Rice. Shame they did not jump up after the SWC folded and another, less academics school did.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          This time, unlike 1994, its more than just pure power politics. The governor is a Texas grad. The state is trying to push other schools into becoming a top tier university to increase job creating research as well as opportunities for good students to stay in state who can’t get into Texas or A&M. California has something like 9 AAU members and NY something like 7. Texas has 3. They created a matching research fund for these schools. Right now Houston and Texas Tech are the only ones who qualify for it, but UT-Dallas is close. UT-Arlington, UTSA, North Texas, Texas St. and UTEP are also eligible if they can meet the criteria.

          So rather than Baylor and Texas Tech grads in influential positions pushing the interest of their university, the governor, who doesn’t have ties to UH, is pushing something he believes serves a state interest. The UH president has said not being P5 limits their possibilities.

          Like

          • Smoothie King II says:

            Bullet you totally missed the politics involved as many reporters did in 1994, There was only ONE politician that mattered in 94 and it was Bob Bolluck as a Tech undergrad and Baylor law school grad, he made all the decisions along with Deloss Dodds. Bob Bolluck as the Lt Governor had more power and control of the purse strings then Ann Richards, whom he hated. Tech and Baylor were just the best of what was left in the SWC.

            This round of realignment and tier one funding UTD & UTA do qualify, but just barely. Tech and UH will almost certainly receive preferred treatment in the future assuming they fall in line with UT. It is important to also note who is on the Texas Board of Higher Education. I have not looked recently but assume that most are appointees of Rick Perry and will have a large amount of negotiations in the matter.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            It was more than just Bob Bullock. The speaker of the House (Laney?) was from Tech. In the meeting, Bullock was there along with two others-Montford (Tech) and Sibley (Baylor) who had leadership positions in the Senate. There was just an unprecedented alignment of Baylor and Tech political power at just the right time.

            Like

    • David Brown says:

      I am a Penn State guy, so I have no dog in this hunt. So keep this in mind.?Frank says think like a University President. Which of the Schools will help grow the Big XII? The Numero Uno School is UCF. If you can get an agreement for USF, Houston and Cincinnati, all the better. But if UT and its surrogate ( Tech, TCU and Baylor) insist on Houston plus one, make it UCF. They are offering growth opportunities plus the State of Florida.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I haven’t seen any source anywhere, suggesting that UCF would be their second choice in a two-school expansion. If university presidents think like that, they are doing an amazingly good job of keeping that opinion to themselves.

        Like

    • Wildcat Jeff says:

      I like yoda’s call for BIG XVI! BYU, Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, & Memphis or UConn in that order. BYU and Cincy solid no drop off, UCF & USF growth, Houston for UT and Memphis for Justin as long as Fred throws in $500 mil guarenteed in next 5 years. UConn is only out due to distance.

      Like

  19. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/29/missouri-hank-foley-interim-athletic-director-chancellor-search

    MO’s interim chancellor is now also their interim AD after the current interim AD left to become the AD at North Texas. Remember this started just 2 weeks ago when MO’s AD left to take the AD job at Baylor.

    Like

    • David Btown says:

      With the exception of Hawaii ( and they have Plenty of Asian Campus Cuties to check out ), and New Mexico State is their a worse place to go then North Texas? I would sooner go to Wyoming, UTEP or Marshall then North Texas. Not to mention, Why leave a Power 5 job to go there? Makes no sense.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        They lost 1500 students after the BLM disaster last year. They are really hurting financially. Probably not a worse FBS school to be an employee of right now.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I understand that they had the incident related to Ferguson last year, but Missouri > North Texas and even UTEP > North Texas. North Texas is the nadir of College Football ( even worse then SMU, post Death Penalty).

          Like

  20. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnists/chad-leistikow/2016/07/29/leistikow-big-ten-iowa-michigan-ohio-state-jim-harbaugh-predictions/87683378/

    A writer predicts the B10 race this year and thinks the crossovers will have more impact than ever in determining the division winners (at least in the West).

    I think Michigan is the best team in the Big Ten East, and I think Iowa is best in the West. BUT …

    … I’ve got Ohio State, behind Big Ten MVP J.T. Barrett, routing Minnesota — yes, Minnesota — in the league championship game Dec. 3 in Indianapolis.

    Huh?

    Well, it’s the first year of nine-game conference schedules in a 14-team league. And when each school faces three of the seven teams in the opposite division, not all schedules are created equal. And this year’s Big Ten title chase, in my opinion, is going to be more widely affected by schedules than when there were just two crossovers.

    Let’s look at two teams that some think could challenge the West-favored Hawkeyes: Minnesota and Wisconsin.

    The Badgers’ three East opponents (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State) were a combined 36-6 last year.

    The Gophers’ draw (Maryland, Penn State and Rutgers) was 14-23.

    His predictions:
    East:
    1. OSU 8-1 – lose @MSU but beat MI at home to win the East
    2. MI 8-1 – win @MSU but lose @OSU
    3. MSU 6-3 – he sees MSU being inconsistent
    4. PSU 5-4
    5. IN 3-6 (but 6-6 overall)
    6. UMD 3-6 (but 6-6 overall) – upsets MSU
    7. RU 1-8

    West:
    1. MN 6-3 – beat IA to win the West
    2. IA 6-3
    3. NW 5-4
    4. NE 5-4
    5. IL 4-5 (but 6-6 overall)
    6. WI 3-6 – blame the schedule
    7. PU 0-9

    I’m not saying I agree but it’s good to see people starting to take the schedules into account.

    Like

    • morganwick says:

      He says the schedules are what will cost the best teams the divisions but he has the division winners beating the best teams and only getting into the title game on H2H tiebreaker. And in Michigan’s case OSU is their only conference loss. Why didn’t he just say home field advantage?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        morganwick,

        “He says the schedules are what will cost the best teams the divisions but he has the division winners beating the best teams and only getting into the title game on H2H tiebreaker. And in Michigan’s case OSU is their only conference loss. Why didn’t he just say home field advantage?”

        I think he really meant that about the West more than the East.

        The only reason he thinks MN can get into a tie is because their crossovers are much easier than IA’s or WI’s. And WI only finishes that low due to their crossovers and playing 6 tough games in a row.

        Like

  21. Colin Meyer says:

    Frank, the service academies were my idea and you borrowed it from me…..Boilerbuilder

    Like

    • @Colin Meyer – Great minds must think alike. I honestly had been looking at the service academies for quite awhile.

      Like

      • neomodernism says:

        Thinking like a university president:
        I want to add programs that help raise my national awareness, help recruit students and athletes, improve my academic standing.

        For WVU Cincinatti will only compete against WVU for students and athlete without raising national awareness or academic. Cincinatti is a bad addition for WVU.
        A better addition would be Navy: better national profile, does not compete for same students or athletes, DC metro area more dynamic thus better to raise profile, but doesn’t raise academic profile.

        Big xii team #11: Navy (alternative for a WVU travel partner could be Temple)
        #12: BYU (best of the non p5)
        #13: Air Force (same pros/cons as Navy while serving as travel parter and geographic bridge to BYU)
        #14: Tulane ( because neither service academies is about academic and nor is BYU)

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I think when the Big East was doomed was when they seriously considered Navy. There was an anonymous quote from a BE president talking about Navy and talked about “class, class, class.” Shortly thereafter, Pitt fled to the ACC. If that was it, Rice would be fought over by every P5. The service academies can’t compete in a P5 conference in the long run and it wouldn’t be good for them or our future officers.

          With Air Force there is a mistaken perception that the Big 12 invited them and Air Force turned them down. The Big 12 asked them if they had any interest. Air Force said no. There is a huge difference between being considered and an invitation. There are at least 10 schools being “considered” for the Big 12 now.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          neomodernism,

          “Thinking like a university president:
          I want to add programs that help raise my national awareness, help recruit students and athletes, improve my academic standing.”

          Fair enough.

          “For WVU Cincinatti will only compete against WVU for students and athlete without raising national awareness or academic. Cincinatti is a bad addition for WVU.”

          There isn’t much competition for students. UC is almost 90% OH residents and both UC and WVU have very high acceptance rates so very few are applying to both and then choosing one. UC is a better school than WVU, too. The schools already compete for athletes so that won’t change too much.

          The good thing for WVU is that UC provides a drivable road game and chance to build a rivalry.

          “A better addition would be Navy: better national profile, does not compete for same students or athletes, DC metro area more dynamic thus better to raise profile, but doesn’t raise academic profile.”

          Navy is more known nationally because of the service not the academy, but UC athletics are better and more widely watched than Navy’s.

          Like

          • neomodernism says:

            yes both UC and WVU currently compete for athletes in Ohio, but being a P5 gives WVU some leverage against G5 UC

            yes Navy uses its service reputation rather than its athletic reputation to gain national awareness and this is still an advantage over UC; that between a game of WVU v Navy as opposed to WVU vs UC there will be more canal viewers.
            especially using a model of targeted and streamed viewers rather than cable bungling

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            The issue with Navy is rather that conferences are membership clubs, not corporations, and Navy cannot be moved from the AAC to the Big12 by M&A deal between the Big12 and the AAC. Navy has got to accept the invite, and there’s very strong reasons for them not to do so.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            neomodernism,

            “yes both UC and WVU currently compete for athletes in Ohio, but being a P5 gives WVU some leverage against G5 UC”

            Not much leverage, based on their recruiting.

            “yes Navy uses its service reputation rather than its athletic reputation to gain national awareness and this is still an advantage over UC; that between a game of WVU v Navy as opposed to WVU vs UC there will be more canal viewers.”

            Navy draws a decent audience twice per year – for Army and Notre Dame. Army is the only game that weekend which helps the ratings a lot. ND brings the audience itself and that game only gets about 3M viewers per year (it’s one of the lowest rated game for ND every year).

            In other words, everyone is aware we have a Navy but very few people care to watch their football team unless nothing else is on.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      As Frank suggested, I think the service academies are very unlikely, by their own choice. They need carefully curated schedules to even have a shot at bowl eligibility. They don’t want to get beat up regularly by the big-time Texas and Oklahoma schools.

      Like

      • neomodernism says:

        in all likelihood Texas and OU won’t be in the same division so each academy would only play UT and OU once.

        Navy had previously declared their preference to play in the West of the AAC (vs Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis( (http://footballscoop.com/news/miles-from-the-atlantic-ocean-navy-will-join-the-american-s-west-division/)
        being in the Big XII continues to allow them to play in Texas, Oklahoma, maybe even in New Orleans and/or Memphis)

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          There is, however, a big difference between playing in Texas and playing Big12 sized linemen when you play in Texas. Navy plays against bigger lines than their’s on average in the AAC, but the size difference gets substantially worse in the Big12.

          Like

          • neomodernism says:

            The service academies recently will allow athlete graduates to serve in the reserves to satisfy their obligation. If so theses graduates can go pro as long as they serve that one weekend a month.
            With this allowance they will be better able to recruit.
            I am skeptical this allowance was to allow them to continue as is against G5s.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Unless they’ve changes their rules, the size issue is because players have to be eligible for military roles in the future. Many of those jobs come with size limits that prevent the academies from having 6’7″ 350lb linemen. Before they graduate they have to match the military’s guidelines for fitness (1.5 miles in 10:30) and appropriate weight for their height. The OL and DL often have to drop 50 pounds to make their limits.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The service academies recently will allow athlete graduates to serve in the reserves to satisfy their obligation. If so theses graduates can go pro as long as they serve that one weekend a month.
            With this allowance they will be better able to recruit.
            I am skeptical this allowance was to allow them to continue as is against G5s.

            I am skeptical that the academies have any ambition whatsoever to compete with the power five. They passed that rule to get some good press when they have the rare, twice-per-decade star, not to start turning out NFL talent at the rate Oklahoma and Texas do.

            Like

          • neomodernism says:

            The military/government don’t make rules for the exceptionals

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            They just did.

            Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        The exception that the service academies just made is for their own benefit (as well as the athletes), which is fine. How often was David Robinson called “the Admiral”? How often was Roger Staubach’s Navy background mentioned? This is great publicity for the Navy and the Naval Academy.

        Like

  22. Brian says:

    Let’s hear from the Dude:

    https://twitter.com/theDudeofWV

    ESPN/Fox aren’t especially keen on the B12 adding 4. They may add $ to keep it at 12.

    Adding 4 likely pays the current 10 members more than the ACC will receive for ACCN.

    Adding 4 also positions the Big 12 to launch a network in the future.

    My opinion only. ESPN/Fox will pay to limit Big 12 expansion to 12. Keeps the door open to add P12 schools in 2024.

    If the Big 12 does limit expansion to 12 UC looks to be the odd school out. Assuming Texas really wants UH in the B12 & is willing to deal

    Industry sources tell me that ESPN/Fox could live with BYU & UH/UC added to the Big 12.

    An industry expert told me to view candidates differently. If none meet min metrics which ones are closest?

    He’s crazy to think the B12 is stealing UCLA or any other P12 school in the future, but I’ll give him credit for this one:

    I sat thru the entire speech and Hilary didn’t give her opinion on Big 12 expansion.

    Like

    • @Brian – Heh! The Dude left a nice “non-partisan” Tweet for me about this post:

      Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 8h8 hours ago
      @frankthetank111 I’m disappointed in you. Your blog post is both partisan & stupid.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      I posted that on a Texas board and another poster said:
      “I can’t imagine any context in which I would care what Hillary says about it, but I definitely don’t want Trump involved, because I have no interest in a yuuuge conference. “

      Like

    • morganwick says:

      A Big 12 Network will never happen unless it can make Texas more money than the LHN can (even as a football independent) AND the Big Ten and Pac-12 won’t come calling at the next opportunity (or a Big 12 Network can make Texas more money than the Pac-12 Network). Otherwise Texas will leave and there won’t be a Big 12 worth building a network around.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        morganwick,

        “A Big 12 Network will never happen unless it can make Texas more money than the LHN can (even as a football independent) AND the Big Ten and Pac-12 won’t come calling at the next opportunity (or a Big 12 Network can make Texas more money than the Pac-12 Network). Otherwise Texas will leave and there won’t be a Big 12 worth building a network around.”

        I assume he was thinking that a Big 14 could potentially start a 13 team network.

        Like

  23. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7063633/missouri-tigers-hope-join-sec-had-wanted-big-ten-invite-most

    Just a reminder of the B12’s preferences last time around:

    A source with direct knowledge of the Big 12’s expansion plans told ESPN.com’s Andy Katz that Missouri’s indecision has put the expansion committee and the conference in a tough position as it waits to see how many teams it will seek to add to the conference.

    There were a number of top candidates, the source said, including BYU, Louisville, West Virginia, TCU and previously unmentioned Tulane, of Conference USA. The source said the Big 12 has been contacted by a number of other schools about possible inclusion, as well.

    The source said that Tulane would become a viable option for the Big 12 if it were to grab four schools to beef up the membership to 12, in a situation where BYU decides it doesn’t want to leave its football independence or its new tie to the WCC in all other sports. Tulane is interesting to the Big 12 because of its location in New Orleans and in a state, Louisiana, where the Big 12 is absent, as well as the school’s renewed commitment to sports and facilities after Hurricane Katrina.

    A source with knowledge of Tulane’s situation told ESPN.com that the Green Wave have privately been making overtures to the Big East and Big 12 about possible membership but didn’t want to upset Conference USA as that league looks to form a partnership with the Mountain West.

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      If both Houston and Tulane make it I may just quit watching college football.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I tell you, a Texas version of Stanford might be attractive to PAC CEO’s. Talk to OU next time the Sooners look toward the exit.

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          If the little bros can be ditched, UT, OU, KU and Rice make a lot of sense for PAC-16.

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            It makes zero sense if you are Kansas. If I am KU I want the B10 where my road games will not start @ 9:00 local time on the miserable Pac-12 Network with ( so far no Direct TV) carriage, from places like Pullman, Washington ( at least Purdue is 12:00PM on BTN).

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            It makes sense for Kansas if your two options are joining a Pac-16 with Texas & Oklahoma or being stuck in a Big 12 with leftover and mid-majors.

            Like

  24. whalerfan says:

    Connecticut to the Big 12 is not the best fit but why not? The Huskies already play in a league where the closest rival is 200 miles away. They bring the New York market despite the naysayers here. UConn vs MSU in the elite 8, won by UConn on the way to another National Championship, was a home game in MSG. SNY holds the rights to the Men’s and Women’s (11 National Championships) as well as football. Did I mention to you who say the Huskies don’t have a hold on New York City that SNY is Sportsnet New York? The football team is down but all of the teams HAVE NOT played in a BCS game. UConn has. By the way, didn’t Robert Griffin III not say that playing at Rentschler Field was the loudest place he’s ever played? Yes he did.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      As long as UConn bball is top notch, it will be noticed in NYC. In the same way that Villanova is noticed, or Georgetown would be noticed. Big East basketball is a big deal in NY. MSG is ground zero for the Big East, and the Garden is a really big deal for all of college basketball.

      That is why UConn would be perfect back in the Big East.

      I am not sure what your first two sentences have to do with the Big 12. Obviously UConn will jump at an invite to any P5.

      Perhaps the Big 12 will add 4 teams and UConn will be one of them. Then we will see whether the Big 12 moves the needle at all in NY.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        I could see the Big East being conservative in expansion (e.g. not offering to SLU, Dayton, Richmond etc) on the chance that Syracuse, BC, and Wake do not survive a consolidation of the P5 to the P4/3. I’m turn those schools may drop their football altogether or to the same level as Villanova, Grown etc.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I think they should just take Dayton and SLU and further separate themselves from the A10. The A10 mostly overlaps their region.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      whalerfan,

      “They bring the New York market despite the naysayers here.”

      According to what data? Only 11% of NYC are CFB fans at all, and of those UConn is 4th (around 5% market share) well behind #1 RU (about 20% market share). UConn MBB and WBB do really well for college sports, but hoops doesn’t drive P5 expansion.

      “UConn vs MSU in the elite 8, won by UConn on the way to another National Championship, was a home game in MSG.”

      UConn is 500 miles closer to MSG and has many more alumni in the area. Of course it felt like a home game for them. That doesn’t prove that they bring the market. NYC loves winners, not UConn in general.

      “SNY holds the rights to the Men’s and Women’s (11 National Championships) as well as football. Did I mention to you who say the Huskies don’t have a hold on New York City that SNY is Sportsnet New York?”

      SNY had a deal with RU years before they signed the deal with UConn. But RU has upgraded their game coverage to BTN from SNY although SNY still has lots of RU coverage.

      “The football team is down but all of the teams HAVE NOT played in a BCS game. UConn has.”

      And they were roundly criticized as by far the worst team ever to make a BCS game. They tied for the 2010 BE title at 8-4 and got crushed in their bowl.

      BCS/NY6 games:
      Boise – 3
      UC – 2
      UConn, UCF – 1

      Major bowls from before the BCS (NY6 minus Peach):
      UH – 4
      Navy – 3
      Tulane – 2

      UConn has been ranked in the AP poll only 6 times. Ever. And never in the final poll. Lots of other expansion candidates have done much better.

      Like

  25. bullet says:

    @frank
    I don’t know what Detroit is like since they renovated, but that made LAX look like a palace by comparison. Albany, GA had a better airport than Detroit. I’ve been in most of the major airports and none were anywhere as close to as bad as Detroit.

    But yes, I was sitting on a rental car bus this summer for 30-45 minutes trying to get the last few hundred yards to the LAX terminal. We finally got off early, walked and did make it to the restroom and the plane on time!

    Like

    • Pat says:

      Detroit (DTW) opened two brand new airport terminals in the last 5-10 years. I fly out of there monthly and it’s very nice. You must have been in a different Detroit.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        “since they renovated”

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          I never flew out of Detroit before they renovated, but it was my connection airport for my flights to/from Beijing in my first semester teaching there, and after the renovation, it’s quite nice. With O’Hare, Newark and DTW to choose from this coming year, I’d be picking DTW even at a small price penalty.

          Like

  26. mrcardinal1202 says:

    As a Big 12 fan and a Missouri fan I would love to see Mizzou return but that will not happen. So my realistic dream for the Big 12 is to become the Big 16. I propose they add BYU, Colorado St., Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and Tulane. With this addition I propose pods of the following:
    West North South East
    BYU TCU Texas Houston
    Baylor Kansas St. Oklahoma St. Tulane
    Colorado St. Memphis Texas Tech Cincinnati
    Iowa St. Kansas Oklahoma West Virginia
    In Odd years the West division would be the North and West and Even years South and West.
    In Odd years the East division would be the South and East and Even years North and East.
    West rotates 2 games from the East and the North rotates 2 games from the South.
    Another thing to help the growth of the conference is that I would make every team play a Conference Game at a Neutral Site. Giving the schedule a 4/4 home and away split.
    I would also start rotating my Conference Championship game to multiple neutral sites not just Jerry World and Arrowhead Stadium.

    Like

  27. Tim says:

    Frank,

    I noticed 3 MWC contenders did not make the cut on your most recent list (SDSU, UNLV, New Mex). I assume the geography of SDSU is too much of an issue – although if paired with BYU, it actually seems like it makes as much sense as the Florida schools.

    If UNLV had a better stadium and could field a decent team I am sure they might merit more consideration too.

    The other one no one is mentioning though is New Mexico. I can’t see a huge difference between them and CSU. UNM has good academics and is good in many other sports. It is closer to TT and the other big 12 schools. Their football team was above average and beating power 5 teams a fair amount until the hired Locksley as HC in 2009. The Davie switch took time to rebuild but they nearly made the champ game in MWC last year. So their team is roughly back on par w/ CSU now.

    CSU promotes the ‘Denver’ market but realistically it’s an NFL town and the fact it took so long to build a new stadium due to the locals in FT. Collins fighting, shows the support for CSU is not overwhelming. Furthermore, w/o conference network implications, seems like “owning 2mil in Albuquerque and really the whole state, might trumps mild support in larger pro sport city.

    Likewise CSU stadium will hold 41k max. UNM when it was better in mid 2000’s could put 43k in it’s stadium. Neither is recruiting hot bed but not devoid of talent.

    I would like to see as many MWC teams as possible slide over to Big12 but I just don’t comprehend why CSU is getting so many mentions and New Mexico hasn’t had a single mention.

    Any thoughts?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Tim,

      “I noticed 3 MWC contenders did not make the cut on your most recent list (SDSU, UNLV, New Mex). I assume the geography of SDSU is too much of an issue – although if paired with BYU, it actually seems like it makes as much sense as the Florida schools.”

      He supported SDSU last time but there has been literally no talk about SDSU as a candidate. I think the B12 prefers to go east rather than west for the better time slots and population.

      “If UNLV had a better stadium and could field a decent team I am sure they might merit more consideration too.”

      The stadium is in the works but they’ll have to prove they can succeed on the field. They’ve been terrible for decades.

      “The other one no one is mentioning though is New Mexico. I can’t see a huge difference between them and CSU. UNM has good academics and is good in many other sports. It is closer to TT and the other big 12 schools. Their football team was above average and beating power 5 teams a fair amount until the hired Locksley as HC in 2009. The Davie switch took time to rebuild but they nearly made the champ game in MWC last year. So their team is roughly back on par w/ CSU now.”

      UNM has potential but has to prove they can have CFB success. But again, the B12 doesn’t seem to want to go westward. They already have 1 Eastern time zone school and growing into the Mountain time zone causes problems. BYU is fighting that issue, too.

      “I would like to see as many MWC teams as possible slide over to Big12 but I just don’t comprehend why CSU is getting so many mentions and New Mexico hasn’t had a single mention.

      Any thoughts?”

      CO used to be a B12 member, so CSU would be riding their coattails. The B12 is familiar in Colorado while NM may be more used to the P12.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      MWC commissioner said 2 of their schools were being considered. Those two are almost certainly Colorado St. and Boise St.

      Like

  28. Ctaig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  29. BuckeyeBeau says:

    (I have no real investment here, but, for the fun of it ….)

    BXII: I say THINK BIG, THINK HUGE !!!!

    Add SIX and go PODS.

    So, both Florida schools, Cincy, Memphis (sorry UConn — you lose !), Houston and CSU (sorry BYU, you lose !). Pod it out. (I’ve never been a fan of pods, but for the fun of it ….)

    Pod East = 2 Floridas, Cincy and WVir
    Pod North = Kansas, KState, IState and CSU
    Pod Middle (or Pod River) = Memphis, Houston, OK and OkieSt
    Pod South = UT, TT, Baylor and TCU

    they already play 9 games. So, pods rotate creating 8 team divisions: play 7 in-division and two cross-overs. You’ll play every team at least once every three years.

    Lots of inventory.

    Treat the new six teams like legally beatable bastard step children. reduced $$$ and voting rights for, like, 8 years. They will agree to it; they are desperate. Cinny has already said it will take less money at the beginning.

    Advantages: BXII has basically 8 years or so before the GOR expires. That’s 8 years to build some interest and fan loyalty to these new schools. With more money (even if lots less then OK and UT get), the new schools can improve their on-field football product. With new name-brand teams to play (occasionally), they can get better recruits. Playing in places like TX and FL and OH will help with recruiting.

    As noted: lots of inventory.

    Also an improved BBall product.

    Further, with 16 schools, if UT and OK leave, the remaining 14 have a much better chance of remaining a P5 conference (particularly if they can use the next 8 years to put a better football product on the field).

    If you are the President of not-UT and not-OK, my guess is you are looking past this expansion to the day when UT and OK leave. (maybe they won’t, but you have to plan as if they are going to leave.) As such, Houston is actually a good addition since, in some small to medium way, Houston “fills the hole” (marketwise) that is going to be left when UT leaves.

    CSU is closer, less hassle, better market, easier to get; thus, CSU gets the nod.

    Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      That setup would mean that the current non-Texas members (Oklahoma, OKST, KU, KSU, ISU) would stop playing in Texas regularly. I doubt that would go over well.

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        well, the pods rotate, so I guess there is one year out of three where the North and East pods are not linked to a pod with TX teams.

        I suppose you could spread the Texas teams out more. Put TT, Baylor and the Okies in one pod, leaving UH, UT, and TCU in pod with Memphis.

        There are still two cross-over games to schedule. It could be worked out to have a least one texas team every year. details details. grin.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        That setup would mean that the current non-Texas members (Oklahoma, OKST, KU, KSU, ISU) would stop playing in Texas regularly. I doubt that would go over well.

        Also, if I am understanding the proposal, Texas/Oklahoma wouldn’t be locked every year. There’s no way the league would allow its most valuable game to ever rotate off the schedule.

        Like

  30. BuckeyeBeau says:

    It is very very very very likely that the BXII GOR will be extended (like the ACC extended its GOR).

    If I understand correctly, ESPiN agreed to create the ACC Network, but as part of the deal, ESPiN asked the ACC to extend its GOR. And, iirc, an extra 10 years was added.

    Thus, it is reasonable to assume that ESPiN and FOX will ask the BXII to extend its GOR. And it is reasonable to assume that the BXII will add at least 10 years to its GOR.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Don’t think so, as long as the expansion exists within the pro rata of the existing contract. No reason to – nothing gained by it for OU or UT.

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        not about UT and OK; it’s about the networks. ESPiN and FOX say: “sure, we’ll give more money, but we see risk that BXII implodes in 8 years. “we need security; we need to know our investment in your league will not be wasted; we have shareholders to consider; you have obligations to your stake-holders…” “if you aren’t going to leave the BXII, why not extend the GOR?” “Oh, so you ARE leaving? and our investment IS at risk?” “No, well then what’s the problem with extending the GOR?” “We’ll give more $$ (or won’t fight about what the contract requires [or whatever]) if you extend the GOR.”

        Eventually GOR is extended in exchange for more $$ for everyone.

        And the contact can be fought. Clever lawyers can come up with a whole list of reasons why ESPiN and FOX should not be compelled to pay $30M a year to Cincy or CSU or BYU or UCF.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          No.
          No negotiation necessary. B12 expands and ESPN/fox owe the conference 25M more per school.

          Only way GOR gets revisited is if whole contract is redone. Is the B12 with the new G5 members going to claim significantly more worth immediately? If no, why would ESPN/fox offer, and why would conference extend GOR losing future leverage?

          Like

        • largeR says:

          I will defer to all your ‘clever lawyers’ on here, but without a Big 12 network, there isn’t any investment. ESPN and FOX are paying for the right to televise ‘X’ number of football and basketball games each year. I think everyone not named OU or UT would love a GOR extension, but they won’t get it because OU and UT don’t want it and won’t give it. They have future options that the others don’t have.

          A separate question that I don’t believe has been addressed; why doesn’t the Big 12 tell ESPN and FOX ‘we will amend the contract eliminating the pro-rata increase of $25M per school/per year if you will pay us ‘X’ amount of money to not add any of these largely non-accretive universities?’ All of them will be available in 2025 when the current contract expires.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            1. You know they haven’t?
            2. Might the response be: only with extending contract and GOR?

            Like

          • largeR says:

            @cc
            1. I would think there would be something, somewhere addressing this possibility-on a blog, twitter, ESPN, etc. It would seem the clause was inserted for the possibility of adding Florida State/Clemson/GT/?, and not for the purpose of adding w/x/y/z(insert your personal favorites). As has been pointed out, many times, when there is no consensus #11 who is accretive, why go to 12 or 14? Obviously, by shorting the new members, the short term additional money for the current 10 is a reason to expand. But, if they can come close to that money without expanding, why expand?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            largeR,

            “1. I would think there would be something, somewhere addressing this possibility-on a blog, twitter, ESPN, etc. It would seem the clause was inserted for the possibility of adding Florida State/Clemson/GT/?, and not for the purpose of adding w/x/y/z(insert your personal favorites). As has been pointed out, many times, when there is no consensus #11 who is accretive, why go to 12 or 14? Obviously, by shorting the new members, the short term additional money for the current 10 is a reason to expand. But, if they can come close to that money without expanding, why expand?”

            There can’t be any sort of in depth discussion of it because ESPN/Fox can’t respond until they see the potential candidates and evaluate whether it’s better to pay for them or pay to not have them. They need to see the group of 2 or 4 to be able to analyze them as a group. For example, UCF by itself has a different value than UCF with USF. Besides, this sudden urge to expand probably caught the networks a little off guard. They need to crunch a lot of numbers to determine how much value not adding any team has.

            Also, they run a risk if they try to buy their way out of the clause. ESPN has been accused of trying to control expansion before. If they were caught buying out of that clause rather than promoting certain schools to P5 status there could be serious issues. After all, they knowingly left it non-specific before. They could’ve provided some restrictions at the time (other P5 members, certain specific criteria, etc) but didn’t.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Brian,
            I agree. ESPN/Fox could have legal issues and certainly would have major political ones if they bought the Big 12 out of any expansion.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “…and certainly would have major political ones if they bought the Big 12 out of any expansion.”

            Really? Haven’t they done that through a proxy already?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Really? Haven’t they done that through a proxy already?”

            No, they started a business venture that had the side effect of interrupting expansion. This would be a blatant cash for not adding certain teams to P5 deal. Even the government might look into that.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          BuckeyeBeau,

          “not about UT and OK”

          Actually it is. The TV networks have to fulfill their contractual obligations so they have no leverage. Extending the GOR requires a unanimous vote, so UT and OU can say no if they want. Fox/ESPN can buy their votes, but that’s a huge gamble. All schools will expect equal pay in the next TV deal, so continuing to pay UT and OU more means paying 10-12 other schools more too. Wouldn’t you prefer to have some idea of what they’re worth before agreeing to pay $30M+ per year to all of them for a decade ($3B+ over a decade)?

          Like

    • Brian says:

      BuckeyeBeau,

      “It is very very very very likely that the BXII GOR will be extended (like the ACC extended its GOR).”

      That’s not what I’ve read. UT and OU are not interested in extending the GOR according to rumors/sources.

      “If I understand correctly, ESPiN agreed to create the ACC Network, but as part of the deal, ESPiN asked the ACC to extend its GOR. And, iirc, an extra 10 years was added.

      Thus, it is reasonable to assume that ESPiN and FOX will ask the BXII to extend its GOR. And it is reasonable to assume that the BXII will add at least 10 years to its GOR.”

      Why should they extend their GOR when the deal requires Fox/ESPN to pay through 2024-25? Is the TV deal also getting extended the extra 10 years?

      I’d think both sides would want a few years with the new members in the B12 to evaluate their worth for the next TV deal. Agreeing to 10 extra years based on pure guesses about their value is bad business. I’d look for Fox/ESPN to come to the B12 in 2022 or so and ask them to extend the GOR and Tv deal then.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      If I understand correctly, ESPiN agreed to create the ACC Network, but as part of the deal, ESPiN asked the ACC to extend its GOR. And, iirc, an extra 10 years was added.

      A new network has up-front costs, and loses money initially. ESPN doesn’t want to make that investment, if it’ll be worthless in a few years. The network was the “carrot”, that made the “stick” of 10 more GOR years worthwhile to the ACC schools. You don’t give up “something” (your rights) for “nothing”.

      The B12 has an existing contract that requires a pro-rata increase for every school added. The B12 doesn’t need to sign anything to get the benefit of that increase. To get another decade on the GOR, the networks would need to offer something very substantial. No one seems to think it’ll be a network, which would practically be doomed to fail without the league’s most valuable athletic program, Texas.

      What could ESPN and/or FOX offer that would induce the schools to relinquish their rights for another decade? I am drawing a blank.

      Like

  31. bullet says:

    Interesting podcast with Iowa St. AD. Expansion talk starts about 9 minutes in.
    He really doesn’t want expansion without a GOR extension. Mentions that a lot of ADs are really in the dark on these sorts of issues.

    Worth noting that Chuck Neinas said all the Big 12 ADs were against expansion at a time when Boren indicated the presidents were split about 1/3 for, 1/3 against and 1/3 on the fence.

    http://cyclonefanatic.com/podcasts/off-the-record-podcast-w-cw-jamie-pollard/

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Pollard is a fine AD (he’d be my choice to succeed Anderson at Maryland), and the GOR extension is critical for ISU, just as the ACC GOR extension was critical for Wake and BC.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      And to tie in with discussion above, at one point he talks about academics. Then he says (not an exact quote), “but what really matters is money.”

      Like

  32. Wildcat Jeff says:

    OK I am a KSU homer, but not sure why KU gets mentioned as third most likely to get plucked after UT and OU???? KSU has the third most wins in football of league teams since the league formed in 1996. KSU enrollment has grown around 8k more per year to 25k same as KU. There is a lot of passion and much more TV veiwers for KSU than KU in football. Really see the other 8 current schools besides UT and OU as very similar in value. Anyone strongly disagree and why if so.

    Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Because Kansas is a basketball king, the state flagship university & an AAU member.

      Before Bill Snyder KSU was among the absolute football programs in Div 1.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      AAU.
      Basketball all time royalty.

      Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      Wildcat, I have no opinion as to whether KSU really has the same value as KU. Having said that, we all know that KU is one of a very few schools that get value through basketball. And academics. For the two leagues that might want Kansas, the B1G and maybe the P12, that AAU membership is really a big deal.

      I also cannot see the SEC going to KSU. The SEC does not need anyone and certainly would only take schools with obvious value to the league.

      Bluntly, the B1G will not take a school that is not AAU, with the possible exception of schools like OU or FSU (or of course, ND). That leaves a real problem for KSU, without regard to its other merits.

      KSU might have lots to offer, but there is no where to go.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Wildcat Jeff,

      “OK I am a KSU homer, but not sure why KU gets mentioned as third most likely to get plucked after UT and OU????”

      Because it’s a MBB king like UT and OU are in CFB. Also it’s a state flagship and AAU member so the presidents like it’s academics. KU has almost 4 times the endowment of KSU and is a considerably better school by reputation and rankings.

      “KSU has the third most wins in football of league teams since the league formed in 1996.”

      KSU has been terrible essentially every year since the Depression that Bill Snyder wasn’t coaching. Even he will have to retire soon. Can anyone else make that program successful? Most people doubt it. Also, frankly, Snyder’s extreme use of JUCO players hurts the reputation of KSU as a program and as a school.

      “KSU enrollment has grown around 8k more per year to 25k same as KU.”

      KU still has a lot more alumni, though.

      “There is a lot of passion and much more TV veiwers for KSU than KU in football.”

      Only masochists voluntarily watch KU football. How many watch KSU when they’re bad? We know KU hoops will be good and bring viewers. Even in their best years, KSU doesn’t draw a large national audience.

      http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

      I looked at audiences in 2014 and 2015. KSU only topped 1M viewers against ranked teams or UT. Those were also the only games KSU had on major networks (ABC, Fox, ESPN). If KSU was a draw they’d get more national exposure.

      I don’t dispute they outdraw KU though.

      “Really see the other 8 current schools besides UT and OU as very similar in value. Anyone strongly disagree and why if so.”

      As I said, KU is a MBB king with a national following. And for B10 consideration, KU and ISU are the only others acceptable academically although the B10 has zero interest in ISU.

      If you look at value to P5 conferences, only those 3 have any. If you consider value to G5 conferences, then you could differentiate the other 7. Unfortunately for you, KSU would probably be 9th or 10th (possibly ahead of only ISU). TT, TCU and Baylor at least provide TX access. OkSU is viewed as more successful and is somewhat close to TX plus OK is bigger than KS. WV has a history of success and fans just as rabid as anyone’s. KSU and ISU are little brothers in small states. ISU has strong academics while KSU has some recent CFB success, so it depends on what they want.

      Like

  33. vp19 says:

    If it’s expansion to 12 — Houston (Texas politics) and Cincinnati (to give WVU a neighbor).

    If it’s expansion to 14 — Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Memphis. Connecticut gets it only if ESPN strong-arms the Big 12.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Memphis: 3rd-best school in Tennessee (at best); commuter school; mediocre academics; no history of sustained success in football.

      If it gets a bid, it’s a pure recruiting play plus FedEx dollars, and I don’t think that’s how a university president thinks.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Geography might play a factor — somehwat in-between the Cinci/WVU eastern flank and the Okla/Tex southern half of the Big 12. In that vein, I’d probably go with Tulane if it had FedEx $$$.

        Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        “If it gets a bid, it’s a pure recruiting play plus FedEx dollars, and I don’t think that’s how a university president thinks.”

        And no actual guarantee of FedEx dollars. It seems like the FedEx dollars line has been used before, without the FedEx dollars actually materializing.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Its also a bet on the future. Memphis has always supported football well-USFL, WFL. Memphis had a period of football mediocrity from 2003-2005 (usually they are just bad) and averaged nearly 40,000 fans every year. They averaged 43,802 last year. If they get admitted, it will be based on a belief that membership in the Big 12 will enable them to fill their stadium and that fan support will enable sustained success. Its a bet on Memphis becoming the next Louisville.

        Like

  34. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/texas-a-m-assistants-suspended-for-degrading-comments-in-presentation-to-women/

    TAMU had to suspend 2 assistant coaches for providing a sexist presentation for the women’s football clinic the school runs every year.

    Head coach Kevin Sumlin apologized for not reviewing their slides in advance.

    “There is absolutely no place in our program or in our University community for inappropriate conduct or degrading comments towards women, or anyone, regardless of intent,” Sumlin said in the statement, adding he was “unaware” of the contents of the presentation.

    “We want to sincerely apologize to the passionate Aggie fans and to women everywhere for our failed attempt at humor during this week’s Aggie Football Chalk Talk and fundraiser,” another statement from Banks and Turner read. “We clearly understand now that our comments and slides were not appropriate or consistent with the values of our football program or our Department. We must do better, and we will.”

    Like

    • bullet says:

      You just wonder how anybody can think that is appropriate to show to women. Maybe they put it together while drinking with a bunch of male friends.

      Although people are a lot coarser and more open about sexual matters than they used to be.

      Like

  35. Realignment says:

    BYU
    Cincinnati
    Colorado State
    Houston

    Like

  36. bullet says:

    Some numbers on the candidates-the number of times ranked in the AP Poll and the number of times in the final top 10. Below the candidates are the Big 12 schools. One more school for comparison-Miami (Ohio) 42 weeks in poll and 2 times in final top 10.

    School weeks in poll times in final top 10
    BYU 242 —- 3
    Houston 184 —- 7
    Boise 127 —- 4
    Tulane 59 —- 2
    Colorado St. 43 —- –
    Cincinnati 41 —- 1
    USF 26 —- –
    UCF 11 —- –
    Uconn 6 —- –
    Memphis 6 —- –

    Oklahoma 783 —- 39
    Texas 702 —- 26
    West Virginia 272 —- 6
    TCU 220 —- 9
    Ok. State 212 —- 3
    Kansas St. 208 —- 6
    Baylor 189 —- 2
    Texas Tech 139 —- –
    Kansas 109 —- 3
    Iowa St. 40 —- –

    Like

    • Mark says:

      Is that list all time? Last 10 years or so would make more sense. Miami OH hasn’t been ranking in a very, very. very long time

      Like

      • bullet says:

        That’s all time. I don’t think a 10 year cycle makes much sense. Look at OU during the 90s or Alabama in the 10 years before Saban. Certainly more recent results matter more. Miami was top 10 with Ben R. as QB in 2003.

        All time demonstrates what a school is capable of. And the fact that Miami is still ahead of Cincinnati (who is ahead of UConn, USF, UCF and Memphis) even though Cincinnati spent 10 years in a BCS conference tells you that Cincinnati really hasn’t done that well in football. I think people significantly overvalue them, although programs can fundamentally change as Florida and FSU have in one direction and Minnesota and Pitt in the opposite.

        Houston gets underrated. If you exclude Boise (who really has no chance), Houston has more top 10 finishes than all the other candidates combined and more than all the Big 12 schools except UT, OU and TCU.

        Like

        • Mark says:

          How does anything before 2000 or even 2005 matter today? In 10 more years there is a strong chance that the G-5 might transition FCS. The resources spent on MAC football don’t make sense today, and they will seem really odd in 10 more years.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “How does anything before 2000 or even 2005 matter today?”

            How do you not think history isn’t important and informative? What is the best predictor of future performance? History.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Mark, compared to other college sports, football moves glacially. The roster sizes and equipment costs make it so. There are no football overnight-success equivalents of George Mason, Virginia Commonwealth or Florida Gulf Coast.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Guess the Big 10 should just kick out Michigan and Penn St. then. Its been about 10 years since either has done anything. Alabama the 10 years before Nick Saban didn’t look much better. I can show you similar 10 year periods for USC, Texas, OU and Ohio St. as well. Notre Dame had about a 20 year period of mediocrity before they made the BCS title game vs. FSU. They were still the most valuable property in college football (or at least 2nd).

            Like

          • Mark says:

            Yes, Penn State should have been kicked out of the Big 10, but that is for moral failure that continues today. I think Michigan makes a ton of money for the other schools, so I doubt they will be kicked out. I strong disagree that past performance is the best predictor of future results. I guess Chicago, Tulane, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Minnesota, St Mary’s etc etc are due for this season.

            I believe the amount of money spent on the coach and facilities, along with school location, is actually the best predictor of future success. Much better than past performance.

            Like

  37. Kevin says:

    If GOR isn’t extended with expansion I wonder if the conference begins to fold quickly. Not sure they would have the votes to fold but commitment would be nonexistent.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Kevin,

      “If GOR isn’t extended with expansion I wonder if the conference begins to fold quickly. Not sure they would have the votes to fold but commitment would be nonexistent.”

      Absolutely no way. The little guys would demand every penny they’re due under the TV deal. That’s 8 years at $25-30M each for 7-8 schools ($1.5B or more). The networks would only pay a small portion of that if OU and UT leave, leaving those 2 on the hook for the difference. Nobody can afford that kind of buyout. If it folds, it will be when the GOR ends. Maybe 1-2 years early at most.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        @Brian, The little guys would get every penny no matter what through the end of the current Big 12 contract. Any new adds are done pro-rata based on the existing contract. if UT and OK left tomorrow for another conference the total pie is virtually the same. In the long-run (after 2025) the television partners would not pay the little guys at the same rate

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Kevin,

          “The little guys would get every penny no matter what through the end of the current Big 12 contract.”

          Agreed, but for a different reason.

          “Any new adds are done pro-rata based on the existing contract.”

          New adds, yes. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a composition clause allowing the networks to renegotiate if current members leave. Only idiots wouldn’t include that clause for the B12 to protect against UT and/or OU leaving.

          “if UT and OK left tomorrow for another conference the total pie is virtually the same.”

          I highly doubt the networks would pay that total pie. That’s the issue. UT/OU or their new home(s) would have to cover the difference.

          “In the long-run (after 2025) the television partners would not pay the little guys at the same rate”

          Yes, and there’s nothing they can do about that.

          Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      If GOR isn’t extended with expansion I wonder if the conference begins to fold quickly. Not sure they would have the votes to fold but commitment would be nonexistent.

      No school has ever tried to skip out on a GOR. There’s a first time for everything, but it’s probably harder than most people think, and to my knowledge, no school has ever even seriously considered it.

      There will be no GOR extension without substantial consideration: otherwise, why would schools like Texas and Oklahoma lock up their rights for any longer than they have to? Jamie Pollard can rattle his saber all he wants, but ultimately he’s in a position of weakness. The league will exist as a power conference if Texas and Oklahoma want it to; Iowa State has no say in the matter.

      If the GOR stays as-is, then you could expect Texas and Oklahoma to start seriously looking at their options in the early 2020s—which doesn’t mean they will leave. After all, Texas basically killed the Pac-16 when it decided that keeping the Longhorn Network was more important to them. Five years from now, they may value it less; or, conferences wooing the Longhorns may decide that the network is less of an impediment than it was before.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “…when it decided that keeping the Longhorn Network was more important to them.”

        …when it decided that keeping the rights than enabled the future Longhorn Network was more important to them.

        There, fixed that for ya (before bullet notes the time line).

        Like

  38. DH says:

    In terms of expanding recruiting for the existing B-12 members, if you add Houston you will need Ohio, Tennessee, and Louisiana. BYU doesn’t help much in that area.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      In terms of expanding recruiting for the existing B-12 members, if you add Houston you will need Ohio, Tennessee, and Louisiana. BYU doesn’t help much in that area.

      It’s true that BYU does not help much with recruiting, but university presidents aren’t one-dimensional. If you make a list of, say, the 10 factors that matter to university presidents, BYU scores higher in most dimensions, than most of the realistically available candidates.

      If you choose a school as a pure recruiting play, you’ve got to be really sure it will deliver. Tennessee, for example, is a middling state, in terms of the number of FBS football players produced. Their best players are generally going to get snapped up by the University of Tennessee and schools in neighboring SEC states.

      How many star Tennessee players are you going to peel away per year, who wouldn’t have otherwise chosen the Big 12? And how much is that worth it to you, when Memphis otherwise brings very little to the table, in terms of academics, brand value, or historical competitiveness in football?

      Similar questions have to be asked about Tulane, although Tulane is far better in academics, and Louisiana is a far better state for recruiting, than Tennessee. However, I have not seen many lists that have Tulane as a candidate, so apparently those factors, without more, aren’t enough.

      Cincinnati certainly benefits from being in a recruiting-rich state, but as Frank has explained, the Bearcats help the B12 in multiple ways. They aren’t on the list only so that the B12 can recruit Ohio.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I don’t think anybody who gets added changes any school’s recruiting philosophy. Right now Iowa St. and WVU recruit Florida. Nobody else does much there. Adding UCF and USF isn’t going to change that. Now it could help (or hurt) WVU and ISU. Adding Cincinnati could help (or hurt) the schools that already recruit Ohio. Tulane might make some positive difference because Big 12 schools are close to Louisiana and already recruit there. But as is often mentioned with Houston, its possible that an addition can dilute recruiting.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      DH,

      “In terms of expanding recruiting for the existing B-12 members, if you add Houston you will need Ohio, Tennessee, and Louisiana. BYU doesn’t help much in that area.”

      They have Texas. They don’t really need to add any other recruiting grounds. They can already get a few people from the other top states to fill the holes. It’s not like UC, Memphis and Tulane will get them the top players in OH, TN or LA. OSU, UofTN and LSU will always dominate in those states.

      Like

  39. urbanleftbehind says:

    If they add 4, should the Big XII do an hour-long New Member Selection Show where the new teams are unveiled one by one (highest score/most votes to lowest)?

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Can they sit at a table with a dozen team baseball caps in front of Bowlsby and the three members of the composition committee?

      Like

      • bullet says:

        No. That’s ridiculous.

        They would use football helmets, not baseball caps.

        Our ten finalists are:
        Pull out a trunk filled with helmets and one at a time, line up helmets for Boise St., BYU, Colorado St., Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, UConn, USF and UCF.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Would be amusing watching Gee put a helmet on. I see dashboard bobble head dolls being sold in the student store of the invited school who’s helmet he selected.

          Like

          • largeR says:

            Don’t forget to pick up a helmet of a team not to be invited and pretend to put it on before setting it back down. That way you can utterly destroy their fan base!

            Like

          • bullet says:

            After PriceWaterhouseCoopers brings in a box with the bobble heads, Bowlsby calls out:

            And our most congenial prize, who will receive a 4 game home and home football series with Iowa St. and a 4 game home and home basketball series with Texas Tech is (pulls out Tulane bobblehead).

            Our 4th runnerup, who will receive a 2 game home and home football series with Iowa St. and a 2 game home and home basketball series with Texas Tech is (pulls out Memphis booblehead).

            ….

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Maybe go full Lee Corso and use mascot heads?

          Like

    • Brian says:

      urbanleftbehind,

      “If they add 4, should the Big XII do an hour-long New Member Selection Show where the new teams are unveiled one by one (highest score/most votes to lowest)?”

      First I think they need to make a list of demeaning challenges that they make the president of each school go through to “earn” their spot in the B12. It’d be great reality TV.

      Then stage a debate where all the presidents are on stage and a moderator spends an hour questioning them. It’d be like the Republican debates with 10 people fighting for air time.

      Finally have the B12 presidents retire to a “war room” where they deliberate while a bunch of analysts crunch the metrics on athletics, academics, TV ratings, etc for about half an hour.

      After that, you’re ready to do a reveal show with live cameras on each campus to show students celebrating if their schools makes it or crying if they don’t. Have Bowlsby come on and defend the presidents’s choices afterwards, preferably with a live Q&A session with fans to wrap it up.

      Like

  40. Marc Shepherd says:

    I have a question about site loading time. I frequently find that the rest of the page seems to have loaded quickly, and there’s a noticeably long wait for the two “bots” that show Frank’s Facebook and Twitter feeds at the upper left-hand corner.

    Does anyone else experience this, and can anything be done to speed it up?

    Like

  41. Iowa State’s stance going forward seems fairly simple: Do whatever it takes to keep the Big 12 stable.

    “If any institution would compel the current 10 members of the Big 12 to unanimously extend its grant of rights, then I would support that institution being a member of the Big 12,” Pollard said. “If they are not an institution that would compel everybody to extend their grant of rights, then Iowa State is not going to vote yes for that member.”

    http://cyclonefanatic.com/2016/07/williams-pollard-candid-on-big-12-expansion/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Smoothie King II,

      “Iowa State’s stance going forward seems fairly simple: Do whatever it takes to keep the Big 12 stable.”

      Are they willing to go back to vastly unequal pay to keep UT and OU happy?

      “What I know is that the 10 members of the Big 12 are not going to vote to extend their grant of rights unless the institutions or the television deal or both are something that is unanimous amongst the institutions,” Pollard said. “The grant of rights extension is only going to happen among the 10 current members if those numbers are so substantial that you want to stay that I am committed to the Big 12 for more than the next six years. That can happen in multiple ways.”

      However the ACC’s new deal certainly changed things. It left the Big 12 as the only Power 5 conference without a conference network (although the Pac-12 Network is kind of a joke) going forward, which also threatened the Big 12’s current position in conference revenue. As of last year, the Big 12 ranked third behind the Big Ten and SEC in conference revenue. The fear for the Big 12 is falling behind and dropping to No. 4, and eventually 5.

      “There is uncertainty, not within the Big 12 but will the television partners negotiate with us or do we have to force them to negotiate with us by adding members? Because if we add members they contractually have to give us more money,” Pollard said. “And perhaps they will choose to give us a lot of money but not add members. There are a lot of things that could happen.”

      It’s easy for ISU’s AD to say ISU won’t vote for someone, but he has no say in the matter. Will they really say no if UT and OU say they won’t extend the GOR until the TV deal gets extended in 6 years (and the networks say they want to wait til then to see what value the new members actually provide)?

      Like

  42. tigertails says:

    Big 12 teams earn $25M for tier 1+2 TV revenue/year from ESPN+Fox through 2024-25
    AAC teams get $2M in TV revenue through 2020. Mountain West teams get $1.7M. C-USA $500k. BYU gets $6-7M for their football home games from ESPN. Given the huge disparity in revenue between the Power 5 ‘haves’ & Gang of 5 ’have nots” – the Big 12 can use their pro rata clause as a loophole to jump from $250M to $350M then use the 4 expansion teams as serfs.

    TCU and West Virginia joined the Big 12 in 2012 and took 5 years to vest; getting their first full share this season… Let’s say the Big 12 now adds BYU, Cincinnati, Houston & Memphis… Here’s a fair 8 year plan since the Big 12 is offering the last life raft:

    Year 1 2017- $6M new teams / $32.6M current Big 12 teams
    2018 – $8M new / $31.8M current
    2019 – $10M / $31.0M
    2020 – $12M / $30.2M

    2021 – $14M / $29.4M
    2022 – $16M / $28.6M
    2023 – $18M / $27.8M
    Year 8 2024 – $20M / $27.0M

    This would pay the new 4 teams $13.0M/season – 6-7x more than the AAC and double BYU. The current ten Big 12 teams would make another $38.4 in revenue over the 8 years or $4.8/season each..

    Big 12 TV contract expires after 2024-25 season. ESPN/FOX will have paid the Big 12 an extra $800M for adding 4 teams. They might be pissed since they’re currently paying $96M over those 8 years for BYU, Cincinnati, Houston & Memphis. That $700M price hike could be what breaks up the Big 12.

    College Football Playoff also expires in 2025. Texas’ Longhorn Network with ESPN is $15M for 20 years from 2011 to 2030. ACC Network and Grant of Rights run 20 years through 2035-36. Notre Dame’s NBC contract is $15M/year and runs through 2025.

    I could then see 16-team conferences then with Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas moving and maybe bringing their little-brothers along for the ride:

    –Texas becomes an Independent and takes Notre Dame’s deal to join the ACC for all other sports; plays 5 games/year against the ACC and has to join if/when they join a football conference again. They could play Texas A&M, Oklahoma & Texas Tech to round out their annual 8 game ‘conference schedule.’ Mix in Arkansas, Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma State for games 9 & 10.

    –Oklahoma & Kansas to the B1G 16.

    –Oklahoma State & Kansas State (or TCU) to the SEC 16.

    –Colorado State & BYU to the PAC 14

    That’d leave 9 Big XII to raid from the AAC:
    EAST — Connecticut, ECU, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF
    WEST — Tulane, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Iowa State

    8 of these teams were part of the BCS before the Big East went under – could they stay a Power 5?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I could then see 16-team conferences then with Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas moving and maybe bringing their little-brothers along for the ride:

      –Texas becomes an Independent and takes Notre Dame’s deal to join the ACC for all other sports…

      –Oklahoma & Kansas to the B1G 16.

      –Oklahoma State & Kansas State (or TCU) to the SEC 16.

      –Colorado State & BYU to the PAC 14

      You are assuming events so unlikely that they border on ridiculous. Why would the SEC want the scraps of the B12? They are in a position of strength. They don’t have to expand again…ever. If they do, it has to be compelling. They aren’t taking the second-best schools (OKSt and KSU) in two low-population, low-growth states. Either they will get the flagship schools they want, or they’ll stand pat.

      Likewise, it is pretty unlikely that the Big Ten wants Oklahoma and Kansas without Texas. It is even less likely that the Pac wants a second Colorado school, or a religious institution. We don’t even know that the ACC wants a second prima donna member with a Notre Dame-like deal; or, that UT wants such a deal either.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      tigertails,

      “Big 12 teams earn $25M for tier 1+2 TV revenue/year from ESPN+Fox through 2024-25
      AAC teams get $2M in TV revenue through 2020. Mountain West teams get $1.7M. C-USA $500k. BYU gets $6-7M for their football home games from ESPN. Given the huge disparity in revenue between the Power 5 ‘haves’ & Gang of 5 ’have nots” – the Big 12 can use their pro rata clause as a loophole to jump from $250M to $350M then use the 4 expansion teams as serfs.”

      That’s the idea. But remember that those are average numbers, not the actual annual payments.

      “TCU and West Virginia joined the Big 12 in 2012 and took 5 years to vest; getting their first full share this season… Let’s say the Big 12 now adds BYU, Cincinnati, Houston & Memphis… Here’s a fair 8 year plan since the Big 12 is offering the last life raft:

      Year 1 2017- $6M new teams / $32.6M current Big 12 teams
      2018 – $8M new / $31.8M current
      2019 – $10M / $31.0M
      2020 – $12M / $30.2M

      2021 – $14M / $29.4M
      2022 – $16M / $28.6M
      2023 – $18M / $27.8M
      Year 8 2024 – $20M / $27.0M”

      The B12 would never set their schools up to have declining revenue like that. Try this:

      Assuming $25M is the average and the payout escalates $1.5M per year (starts at 20 and grows to 30.5):

      2016 – / $18.5M
      2017 – $6M / $25.6M
      2018 – 8 / 26.9
      2019 – 10 / 28.2
      2020 – 12 / 29.5
      2021 – 14 / 30.8
      2022 – 16 / 32.1
      2023 – 18 / 33.4
      2024 – 20 / 34.7

      But by 2024 the networks would be paying $30.5M per team, setting up an issue for 2025 unless the deal gets much bigger. A better plan would be for the B12 to save some of that money to slowly pay out in 2025 and beyond to keep the payment always increasing.

      2017 – $6M / $23.8M
      2018 – 8 / 25.3
      2019 – 10 / 26.8
      2020 – 12 / 28.3
      2021 – 14 / 29.8
      2022 – 16 / 31.3
      2023 – 18 / 32.8
      2024 – 20 / 34.3

      2025 – 35.0
      2026 – 35.5
      2027 – 36.0
      2028 – 36.5 (and the TV deal is self-supporting from here on)

      They could save less if they think the TV deal will grow, but I was being conservative and assuming it just got continued with the same terms ($1.5M growth per school per year based on the previous year).

      There are small tweaks they could make (smaller growth per year so it stays constant the whole time – about $1.1M per year), but this plan pays them an extra $3.8M per school through 2024 while providing continuous growth.

      “I could then see 16-team conferences then with Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas moving and maybe bringing their little-brothers along for the ride:”

      Why would they all end at 16? They’ve never all been the same size.

      “–Texas becomes an Independent and takes Notre Dame’s deal to join the ACC for all other sports; plays 5 games/year against the ACC and has to join if/when they join a football conference again. They could play Texas A&M, Oklahoma & Texas Tech to round out their annual 8 game ‘conference schedule.’ Mix in Arkansas, Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma State for games 9 & 10.”

      UT doesn’t want in the ACC for non-revenue sports. Besides

      “–Oklahoma & Kansas to the B1G 16.”

      Maybe.

      “–Oklahoma State & Kansas State (or TCU) to the SEC 16.”

      No. They aren’t taking schools like this. KSU brings nothing. OkSU has no value without OU.

      “–Colorado State & BYU to the PAC 14”

      No. The P12 already has CO and BYU has always been available for them. They will never add BYU and CSU has no value to them. It’d be like the B10 adding NIU.

      “That’d leave 9 Big XII to raid from the AAC:
      EAST — Connecticut, ECU, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF
      WEST — Tulane, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Iowa State

      8 of these teams were part of the BCS before the Big East went under – could they stay a Power 5?”

      No, they couldn’t. There isn’t a single power team in the bunch.

      Like

  43. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/07/31/baylor-strict-conduct-code-might-have-silenced-rape-victims/87884594/

    The Pepper Hamilton report may cause problems for BYU trying to get into the B12.

    The sexual assault scandal that took down Baylor University’s president and revered football coach also found a problem with a bedrock of the school’s faith-based education: a student conduct code banning alcohol, drugs and premarital sex that may have driven some victims into silence.

    Investigators with the Pepper Hamilton law firm who dug into Baylor’s response to sexual assault claims determined the school’s rigid approach to drugs, alcohol and sex and “perceived judgmental responses” to victims who reported being raped “created barriers” to reporting assaults. Some women faced the prospect of their family being notified.

    “A number of victims were told that if they made a report of rape, their parents would be informed of the details of where they were and what they were doing,” said Chad Dunn, a Houston attorney who represents six women who have sued Baylor under the anonymous identification of Jane Doe.

    Fresh off that scandal, how concerned might B12 presidents be about adding an even more strict school?

    Like

  44. Red says:

    If it were up to me, I’d add Houston and Tulane and keep it at a manageable 12 with the Red River being the dividing line. Texas, TCU, Baylor, TTech, Houston, and Tulane in the South (or Cotton) Division and OU, Okie State, KState, KU, IowaState, WVU in the North (or Orange) Division. Keep at least Texas/OU every year. Almost everyone in the North would get to play in Texas every year every other year twice (yes potential for @ Tulane & home to 2 Texas schools for someone but it would rotate around). Houston is going to get in because of politics anyway, but it also helps fend off SEC interest in Houston, to some degree, and adds former rivalries. Tulane is a historic suck in football, but adds New Orleans and the coveted AAU putting the Big12 even with the SEC at 4 AAU schools. What fans wouldn’t want to go on a road trip to New Orleans? The Big12 has no Vanderbilt, Duke, Northwestern, nor Stanford so why not get your own smart-kid private school? Sucks for WVU, but I hate that they are in the Big12 anyway. I would hate having UConn, Boise St, or Directional Florida. I wouldn’t care for Cinci, but could deal with them if the Big12 went to 14 with BYU.

    What will the Big12 do? Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they drew the school names out of a hat or threw darts blindfolded at a wall with the school logos on them!

    Like

  45. Duffman says:

    So if the folks on twitter on the fringes – not “The Dude” or “Tuxedo Yoda” types – are to be believed, it will be Houston and Cincinnati this week? Seems the Houston pick will be more political than substance and Cincinnati is the presidential option pick. If university presidents come from academics and not athletics then grading may look like this.

    Houston is the C student who has an uncle in state politics who sits on the committee that approves state funding for public schools in the state

    Cincinnati is the solid B student who has some A’s, mostly B’s, but no C’s. Steady with little or no real risk

    Everybody else seems to have at least a D or F that stops them

    Connecticut gets an A in basketball, but an F in travel distance
    Memphis gets an A in sugar daddy, but an F in academics
    BYU gets an A in sports, but a D or F in culture
    Rice gets an A in academics, but a D in location (B12 already in Texas)
    Colorado State gets solid C’s, but no real A’s or B’s
    Tulane gets A’s in location and academics, but struggles elsewhere
    San Diego State looks like Colorado State with better better GPA, but no A’s
    Twins (UCF and USF) has B’s but D’s offset them, notably distance
    Boise State gets a B in football, but as the jock, gets an F for everything else
    Air Force (Army and Navy are too far) gets the A in deportment, but not much else
    UNLV gets a B in basketball, but I’s for casinos instead of going to classes

    Like

      • Nathan says:

        I wonder if UT & OK can force their way out of the Big12/GOR immediately using the expansion as leverage. Basically “were leaving no matter what. If you don’t let us leave now we’ll veto expansion and you lose the extra $$$ that comes with expansion. Either way the XII isnt going to get anything near the same $$$ in the next contract either way so if you let us go now you can at least milk the current contact for the next 10 years”.

        This, of course, assumes that the media companies can’t block them leaving as well.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I wonder if UT & OK can force their way out of the Big12/GOR immediately using the expansion as leverage…This, of course, assumes that the media companies can’t block them leaving as well.

          The TV contracts aren’t public, but I would be shocked if they don’t protect the networks against the possibility of UT and OK leaving—and taking their media rights with them.

          Letting UT and OK out of the GOR would either void their media deal, or take such a huge bite, that no expansion could make up for it.

          Like

    • Kyle Peter says:

      http://www.landthieves.com/board/showthread.php?104865-CR-Part-))XII((-Conference-Hospice-amp-Realignment-Speculation/page141

      “I’ll believe that adding two/four G5 schools improves the Big Xii when someone can demonstrate how adding dog poop to stew improves the flavor.”~RocketCitySooner

      Apparently there are a great deal of Sooner fans not thrilled by expansion or extending the GOR. Some amusing quotes in their discussion.

      Like

  46. Tyson says:

    I believe Texas and OU have agreed to expansion as a way of ensuring a more seemless transition for themselves when they leave the Big 12. And Houston will certainly be a part of this expansion. It is a money grab, pure and simple, and who could blame them? They will offer a $3Mil/year cut to the new candidates, and the conference gets $22Mil per team to divide up among the existing ten teams. Adding Houston keeps the Big 12 presence in the state and gives a natural, non-private school partner for Tech staying behind. I believe Texas and OU have been given assurances that by offering their support for expansion candidates, they will not be challenged when they leave the conference in 4-5 years.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It is a money grab, pure and simple…

      College sports have been growing revenue (the more neutral term for “money grab”) since forever. Why would you expect now to be any different?

      Like

  47. Mike says:

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/08/01/Media/Big-12-TV.aspx

    The Big 12’s TV partners are pushing back on the conference’s plans to expand.

    ESPN and Fox Sports believe that expansion with schools from outside the power five conferences will water down the Big 12 and make it less valuable, not more, sources said. But the Big 12 is financially motivated to add more teams. A clause in the conference’s media deals stipulate that if the Big 12 expands, it would receive pro rata increases in its rights fees.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      If the networks, both of which have encountered some financial challenges in the last year with cutbacks and subscriber losses, decided to staunchly challenge the contracts, they could simply not pay the increases and force the conference to take them to court. ESPN and Fox would argue that the move to expand and charge the TV networks more money does not reflect the spirit of the original deals, which were signed four years ago. The conference, of course, can fall back on its contracts, which spell out pro rata increases.

      Another option would be to go along with the increases now and not support the Big 12 in 2025, when the grant of rights and the TV deals expire.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Interesting part that implies the B12should “repay” the “favor” that is claimed the nets did when keeping twelve team payments to the ten team conference instead of invoking the pro rata reduction of conference payments. This ignores that the continuation (along with LHN possibility) was significant in preventing the collapse collapsing at that time. That is what they were paying for. It wasn’t generosity.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          Interesting part that implies the B12should “repay” the “favor” that is claimed the nets did when keeping twelve team payments to the ten team conference instead of invoking the pro rata reduction of conference payments.

          Maybe I’ve said this before, but twelve teams playing eight games is 48 conference games plus a CCG. Ten teams playing nine games is 45 conference games. At the time, the “great Beebe deal” wasn’t as big of a favor* from ESPN/FOX’s perspective as people think it was given how undervalued the Big 12’s contract was at the time.

          *For those that don’t know/remember conference contracts are priced using conference games only

          Like

          • Brian says:

            This expansion would add 9-18 conference games plus 4-8 OOC games to the inventory. The schools might not be big brands, but ESPN and Fox can still sell ads for those games and or subcontract them out to recoup the money. The extra inventory should help make up for the lesser brands.

            Besides, are they really worse brands than KU and ISU in football? BYU is a solid brand and is treated as a P5 school by the other conferences for scheduling purposes. UC has been decent and was in a BCS conference. UH was great last year and used to be in a power conference.

            The networks can try to negotiate but their lawyers will them they don’t have a leg to stand on in court. It’s not like the B12 is adding D-III schools.

            Like

    • neomodernism says:

      I believe the solution for the big xii and ESPN-fox:
      1. Expand with four teams. As the networks are concerned about brand dilution, take BYU, navy and Air Force as these are national brands.
      2. Graduate the payment to the expansion schools. Take “profit” to buy out ESPN of the LHN and convert it to a Big xiv network. The conference now own the network, win. ESPN gets out of a money losing LHN, win. Texas gets paid for the LHN, win.
      3. Sign GoR with the big xiv network to start when the current one expires. Lease the network to ESPN & Fox.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Small problem, UT doesn’t want to lose the LHN. When they originally talked about setting it up they were willing to lose money on it to have the exposure. Now that they get $15M per year they will definitely not let it go. We’ll see in 2031 if they keep it or not. And the rest of the B12 is not going to give all their money to UT to buy out the LHN deal anyway.

        Like

        • neomodernism says:

          Year 1 or expansion: each expanded team gets 10 millions and the conference pockets 60 millions (25 millions per expanded team from the networks) to buy out the LHN and convert it to the Big xiv network, 15 millions of which goes to UT.
          Every year after that the conference pot shrinks as the expansion teams make more; continue the buy out till done and honor UT’s 15 millions till original contracts expire.
          UT gets its money but loses the LHN
          The conference actually owns its own network (rather than ESPN/fox) and come 2026 the conference owns the GoR rather than the networks; plus the elephant LHN won’t be there anymore.
          ESPN gets out of having to pay UT for the money losing LHN

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            So Iowa St, KSU, etc pay UT ESPN’s payment out of their own (conference) pocket? Great…(sarcasm)

            Like

          • neomodernism says:

            No
            Instead of the conference splitting the money 10 ways, the conference buys out the LHN.
            Each school never received any of it to begin with.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Ok. Instead of putting a larger amount in ISU, KSU, etc pocket let’s take less and pay UT what ESPN owes with the difference. Thank you cards from Bristol make it all better…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            neomodernism,

            “Year 1 or expansion: each expanded team gets 10 millions and the conference pockets 60 millions (25 millions per expanded team from the networks) to buy out the LHN and convert it to the Big xiv network, 15 millions of which goes to UT.”

            That does nothing to help the problem I mentioned. UT doesn’t want to give up the LHN. You’d have to pay them a lot more than the $15M they get from ESPN to get them to give up LHN if they would agree to drop it at all. So at best they start out with $30M extra ($3M per school). Is it worth adding 4 teams for that?

            “Every year after that the conference pot shrinks as the expansion teams make more; continue the buy out till done and honor UT’s 15 millions till original contracts expire.”

            The LHN deal runs until 2031. The B12 TV deal runs until 2025. By then, at the latest, the newbies would expect full shares. So everyone is going to sacrifice money for 6 more years to pay UT? I’ll believe that when I see it.

            “UT gets its money but loses the LHN”

            You still have to convince them to do it. They don’t have to say yes. It isn’t really abuot the money for them, it’s the exposure.

            “The conference actually owns its own network (rather than ESPN/fox)”

            That’s worked really well for the P12 so far.

            “and come 2026 the conference owns the GoR rather than the networks;”

            The conference always owns the GOR. That’s what the schools grant the rights to. The conference then shops those rights to networks.

            “plus the elephant LHN won’t be there anymore.
            ESPN gets out of having to pay UT for the money losing LHN”

            Great for ESPN, terrible for the ISUs of the B12.

            Like

          • neomodernism says:

            So big xii expansion is just a money grab?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            So big xii expansion is just a money grab?

            As if that’s anything new…?

            Like

          • neomodernism says:

            Money grab now
            Lose out later

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Lose out later

            More like…doomed either way, so you might as well make the money while it’s there to be made.

            Like

          • Wildcat Jeff says:

            I don’t believe the BIG XII is “doomed”. The league teams still make more money from football/sports annually than the ACC or PAC12. That may change over time and that is why these decisions are crucial. BYU instantly adds money to every member’s pockets. Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis, or others could add money over time. Boise, Neb. FSU, Baylor, KSU and others have grown over time. Yesterday the AP put out the top 100 ever. KSU before the mid-90s never would have made it in the top 100. Now they are 44! Also competition makes the NFL and CFB! Competition creates drama! Widening the gap in CFB and calling for junior members in the BIGXII is stupid cause is lessens the drama. We already hate watching the SEC play only 9 games per year against the P5! The other three games are not worth watching because you know the outcome! No competition, no drama!

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Wildcat Jeff,

            Thinking like a fan, not a president.

            Like

  48. Tyson says:

    It doesn’t matter if the new additions are valuable or not…the networks contact stipulates pro rata increases. Texas and OU, and the rest of the conference for that matter, don’t care too much about harming any so-called “relationship” with the networks as there is now an implicit understanding that the Big 12 as it is now constituted will cease to exist. For the teams that are going to be left behind this is called “making hay while the sun is shining.” Not the Big 12’s problem that the contract favors them.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      It doesn’t matter if the new additions are valuable or not…the networks contact stipulates pro rata increases.

      I don’t think we’ve seen the exact language.* There may be some language in the contract that could give ESPN/FOX some wiggle room. If so, we won’t know until they head to court.

      *Was the Big 12’s contract entered into evidence in the O’Bannon suit? I can’t remember.

      Like

      • Tyson says:

        I certainly don’t know if it is clearly spelled out or not, only repeating what I have read; that said, I gotta believe that the sudden move towards embracing expansion is due to the contractual certainty of a huge payout

        Like

        • Mike says:

          I certainly don’t know if it is clearly spelled out or not, only repeating what I have read; that said, I gotta believe that the sudden move towards embracing expansion is due to the contractual certainty of a huge payout

          Its in the Big 12’s best interest to make it sound like its guaranteed. If ESPN/FOX do have wiggle room they don’t want them to use it.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        The Pac 12 contract was. Don’t remember about the Big 12 contract, but I’ve seen people list detailed numbers on the payout by year through 2025 that indicates they got those numbers from somewhere.

        Like

    • PJ says:

      It seems daft for the university presidents of the Big XII’s ‘little 8’ to use expansion at this time to simply cash out. Shouldn’t the president of, say, ISU be thinking about positioning his school to be in the most valuable/viable conference possible in 2030 and beyond? Thinking along those lines, is it a good risk to support adding Tulane and/or Memphis now (along with Cincinnati and maybe + 1? ) in the expectation they will both use the time and exposure to develop into something more valuable than any of the other realistic options that will be available 10 years from now, whether or not Texas and Oklahoma leave?

      Will BYU stick around should Texas/Oklahoma leave? How valuable is BYU if they plan to follow those one or both out the door? Are they worth the risk?

      Could Texas (and maybe Oklahoma) try and negotiate a ND-ACC like arrangement with the Big XII?

      Is SEC membership a realistic option for Oklahoma? How about independence?

      What affect does the potential (inevitable?) expansion of the playoff have on ‘little 8’ thinking? How about Oklahoma and Texas?

      The evolution of the P5 into the P4 is inevitable – its consolidation is now plain for all to see. Given the playoff committee’s emphasis on sos, the gradual weakening of Texas/Oklahoma’s long-term position – potentially accelerated by expansion – seems clear. Unless the playoff somehow makes an accommodation for this both will have to leave.

      Like

      • dtwphx says:

        I have to think the option/dream of pulling someone from the ACC in 2025 that would immediately be on par, disappeared with the ACC gor extension.
        So the option is now to grow some schools (2 or 4) over the next 10 years, where the networks are forced to overpay for those schools.
        Hopefully in 10 years, when the contract is up, the new schools will have improved sufficiently to not hurt the conference.

        But I do think Texas is agreeing to expansion to position themselves in the conference to play teams that they want to play. Splitting into divisions will allow UT to dissociate themselves from teams that they don’t want to have as close a connection to. The larger the conference (14 or 16), the more it doesn’t really matter who’s in the other division of your conference.
        So, from ISU’s perspective, how do you add value to the conference in 10 years time, while also constructing a division for Texas and Oklahoma that they are happy with?

        I think that is where adding Houston comes in. If you have a division of TTech, Texas, Houston, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, plus 1 or 2 more. You have a division of mostly public universities from OK and TX. In this scenario Texas doesn’t have to play ISU, KSU, WV as often, so it doesn’t matter as much if they are in the conference.

        ISU just needs to be reasonably confident that the 2 or 4 teams that come into the conference will add value in 10 years time.

        Liked by 1 person

        • BruceMcF says:

          “I think that is where adding Houston comes in. If you have a division of TTech, Texas, Houston, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, plus 1 or 2 more. You have a division of mostly public universities from OK and TX. In this scenario Texas doesn’t have to play ISU, KSU, WV as often, so it doesn’t matter as much if they are in the conference.”

          For a two-team expansion, would the two Private Texas schools in their division be enough to satisfy the games in Texas needs of Kansas State and Kansas? Or would they prefer Houston combined with TCU in their division?

          Like

  49. bullet says:

    What is really significant about this article is that it is saying the Big 12 is negotiating with the networks. It is confirming that they have a package or alternative group of packages to discuss with the networks.

    Like

  50. bullet says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17191475/in-big-12-expansion-oklahoma-sooners-leverage-motivation-unclear

    Little different tone than the SBJ article which says ESPN/Fox will fight expansion. In this article, the ESPN writer, after talking to someone in the industry, basically says ESPN/Fox have no leverage and “…ESPN and Fox can only ask and hope….”

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      ESPN and Fox can only ask and hope

      Legally, if the contract requires pro rata payments for new members, with no further conditions, then the networks have to pay. If they signed a deal they now regret, then too bad.

      As a practical matter, it is often a bad idea to screw your long-term business partner, even if you have every right to do so. This is what the B12 has to weigh.

      Like

      • Tyson says:

        This is the point, Marc…in all likelihood Texas and OU (the drivers in this discussion) are proceeding under the assumption that they will no longer be a part of the Big 12. Now it’s possible the teams that will be left behind in the scenario might want to soften the blow to the networks in return for consideration the next go-round, when the Big 12 will be negotiating without Texas and OU and (perhaps others) as part of the inventory. Seems to me that the Big 12 teams not named Texas or OU would have EVERY reason to milk this thing for all it’s worth for the present, unless they are given assurances they won’t be dropped once the big boys leave

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          …in all likelihood Texas and OU (the drivers in this discussion) are proceeding under the assumption that they will no longer be a part of the Big 12.

          The thing is, I am not as convinced as you are, that they consider this “likely”. Sure, they want to keep their options open, but that doesn’t mean they’ll leave. After all, when they had a serious offer a few years ago (the P16), they wound up staying, because UT preferred to create the LHN and keep the royalties to itself.

          I am far from convinced that any other league wants Oklahoma and/or Kansas, if they don’t get Texas too. And if the LHN is ultimately considered a success (however UT defines that), then UT may decide to stay in the B12, and OU could have nowhere else to go.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Would ESPN pay for realignment vaccination booster (LHN extension) in return for stopping/limiting this expansion?

            I still don’t see LHN GOR going away before it expires in ’31.

            Like

      • ccricer55 says:

        Wonder if UT would block expansion for an extension of LHN…?
        A booster dose of realignment vaccination.

        Like

      • Doug says:

        ESPN and Fox can only ask and hope

        Legally, if the contract requires pro rata payments for new members, with no further conditions, then the networks have to pay. If they signed a deal they now regret, then too bad.

        As a practical matter, it is often a bad idea to screw your long-term business partner, even if you have every right to do so. This is what the B12 has to weigh.

        What’s to stop ESPN/FOX saying OK go ahead and expand and oh BTW UT & OU are joining the BIG and we’ll indemnify UT & OU for their GOR payments. Further more we’ll have to renegotiate our original agreement with you (Big 12) because UT & OU are no longer members.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          A tortious interference lawsuit with punitive damages would stop them. And ESPN really has to tread lightly to avoid anti-trust scrutiny over the long run. When you have such disproportionate market power, you have to be careful when throwing your weight around.

          Like

  51. Geo says:

    The addition to the Big 12 won’t work. The Big 12 needs to breakup. Big 10 should expand to 18 teams as should the ACC, SEC, and Pac 12. All with 18 teams. No divisions. Pods of Six. Top 2 play in conferance championship game. Each team plays 9 Conference games – one rival game (within POD) and two more in POD, then three games against the two remaining pods, flipping every two years for home and home and to ensure playing everyone in your conference (Home and Home) every four years and playing your rival every year. 18 times 4 equals 72 teams. This means identifying 8 worthy programs to add to these conferences (after the Big 12 break up – 10 teams) to add to these four conferences. ND, BYU, Army, Navy, Air Force, UC, BSU, Col St, UConn, Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, etc… Can be determined who,is in and who is out. The remaining left out teams can re configure with geography and have a seat in the expanded 8 team playoff. Those left out should configure 4 other smaller conferences. They can have all their champions play a final four type of thing to see who gets in the big tournament. The big conferences should have to play 2 other big conference teams every year. The smaller conferences can play the big boys out of conference – 1 game or 2 games to round out scheduling but Big Boys can’t play FCS while the smaller four can to round out schedules. Done. You can thank me later when I am at Kramers … Geo

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Your 4 x 18 scenario isn’t going to happen…but if the B1G wants to grab Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, could Iowa State pull a Virginia Tech and sneak in as member #18? It could be an academic and political trade-off for inviting non-AAU OU (the old “think like a university president” syndrome). It also creates a reasonably good East-West split:

      West: Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
      East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Northwestern

      The state of Iowa then becomes the West equivalent of the state of Indiana (two B1G members in a relatively small state). ISU has excellent fan support for a beleaguered, tradition-poor athletic program; give it B1G branding and that will only amplify.

      Like

      • dtwphx says:

        Endgame options in the mid 2020s?:
        – Oklahoma and Texas to SEC16
        – Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Missouri to B1G18
        – Texas, TTech, UH, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas as a 6 team division of PAC18
        – Texas, TTech, UH, Oklahoma, OSU, Memphis remain as a division of Big12.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Why is that described as an endgame? If the power conferences collapse from five to four, with the Big12 becoming the mythical “best of the rest” conference … and the same economic incentives are in place that drove that restructuring … why wouldn’t the next event be a collapse from four to three?

          And if under current economic incentives, there is a stable position that is larger than three, why would it have to be at four? Why couldn’t it be at five? Why assume that THIS move by the Big12 is not the “end game” in and of itself?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            And every conference that has been 14 or 16 or more, at Division I or Division II, has eventually split. The larger you are, the less likely you have enough in common to stay together.

            Like

          • dtwphx says:

            BruceMcF, “endgame” was meant to mean where Texas and Oklahoma expect to be in 2030.
            I think bullet 4 is the most likely scenario, keeping the big12 together, but Texas and Oklahoma dissociating themselves from teams in the conference that they don’t want a close connection with. (by putting them in the opposite division)

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I think bullet 4 is the most likely scenario, keeping the big12 together, but Texas and Oklahoma dissociating themselves from teams in the conference that they don’t want a close connection with. (by putting them in the opposite division)

            You aren’t really “dissociating” with teams in the opposite division: you still play them fairly often in football, and annually in all other sports.

            What’s more, you create a situation where the South division almost always has the stronger champion, and a comparatively weak team can ruin a likely playoff berth by pulling a CCG upset.

            Like

      • Husker1 says:

        I think if the Big 10 were able to get Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, I think the most likely 4th team would be Missouri. Yes yes, they are in a great conference, but I think they would still prefer the Big 10, plus they would reunite with old Big 6, Big 8, Big12 rivals. I think it would be too compelling for them. I just don’t see Texas going to another conference that splits earnings evenly, unless the money is so much better then what they earn in total including the LHN.

        As a husker fan, this is my dream scenario.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Geo,

      “The addition to the Big 12 won’t work.”

      Possible.

      “The Big 12 needs to breakup.”

      Needs to? Why? Breaking up would be bad for most of the current members.

      “Big 10 should expand to 18 teams as should the ACC, SEC, and Pac 12.”

      Why? What 18 schools are out there that would add value to all those conferences? And why would they want 18 schools? You’d rarely play many of the schools.

      “All with 18 teams. No divisions. Pods of Six.”

      The power conferences have never been all the same size. What’s their incentive to do so now? Why wouldn’t one get to 20+ and another stay at 16 or fewer?

      If they’re doing that, why not just lock some games and schedule as a conference? It works like pods but doesn’t force you to make clear cut groups.

      1 group of 18:
      9 games = 3 locked + 6 rotating through 14 others (play 43% of the time)
      9 games = 4 locked + 5 rotating through 13 others (play 38% of the time)
      9 games = 5 locked + 4 rotating through 12 others (play 33% of the time)

      3 pods of 6:
      9 games = 5 locked in pod + 2 rotating through each pod of 6 (play 33% of the time)

      “Top 2 play in conferance championship game.”

      Top 2 pod champs or just top 2?

      “Each team plays 9 Conference games – one rival game (within POD) and two more in POD, then three games against the two remaining pods, flipping every two years for home and home and to ensure playing everyone in your conference (Home and Home) every four years and playing your rival every year.”

      What’s the point of making pods if you only lock 1 game? Does MI get locked with OSU or MSU? Why should the fans of either team accept their rivalry going to 50% of the time when there are better plans?

      “18 times 4 equals 72 teams. This means identifying 8 worthy programs to add to these conferences (after the Big 12 break up – 10 teams) to add to these four conferences.”

      If there were 8 worthy schools out there that want to join a conference then the B12 wouldn’t be have spent years struggling with expansion.

      ” ND, BYU, Army, Navy, Air Force, UC, BSU, Col St, UConn, Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, etc…”

      ND doesn’t want in a conference. The others have been available for a long time and nobody has decided to make them an offer? What makes them B10/ACC/SEC/P12 worthy now?

      “The remaining left out teams can re configure with geography and have a seat in the expanded 8 team playoff.”

      Why would the playoff let in 8 if they’ve dropped to 4 power conferences? The CCGs are already the quarterfinals at that point. They certainly wouldn’t create a seat for the G5.

      Like

      • Geo says:

        Relax Brian. This is just a blog. It is for fun.

        The Big 12 will come apart if someone leaves so why not just make it happen. As I said all those schools will end up in one of the big four conferences.

        The POD system is based on that these 18 conferences have about 6 traditional powers. It’s not perfect but the PODS are strictly for scheduling and it allows you to play every team twice in four years. It also means that you don’t play all thee good teams one year the a bunch of bad teams two years later…

        It’s a balance.

        F*ck NOtre Dame. I don’t care what they want. It’s my fantasy so they have to join a conference…

        Not every conference is expanding with better teams. That isn’t the point. They get solid teams in different markets – all so the Big 4 conferences have basically a balance that allows The Obama Type People of the world happy. Those being people who scream Fair all the time.

        Don’t have an 8 team playoff. Have 4 with the conference championship game essenrtially being the first round. Of course none of this will happen. Abou 98.87 percent of this blog is shit that will never happen.

        Like

    • Matt Oh says:

      I don’t see why a B1G 17 couldn’t also be an option. UT, OU, and KU to the B1G, two locked games in football for every team and seven more conference games per year = playing all non-locked teams 2 of every four years with home-and-homes. Teams play the two to their right and left as the below:

      MD-UT-OU-KU-NU-Iowa-Minn-UW-NW-Ill-UI-PU-MSU-UM-OSU-PSU-RU-MD

      Loses some traditional rivalries but keeps everybody playing everybody quite often, and gives UT an east coast game. Not likely, but it’s an option while you wait for a good #18.

      Like

      • PJ says:

        An odd number of conference games among an odd number of schools isn’t feasible as it doesn’t even out.

        Like

        • Doug says:

          An odd number of conference games among an odd number of schools isn’t feasible as it doesn’t even out.

          One and one reason only the BIG would have an odd number of teams, is the hope/expectation of a small private Catholic school in northern Indiana joining someday.

          Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I don’t see why a B1G 17 couldn’t also be an option. UT, OU, and KU to the B1G, two locked games in football for every team and seven more conference games per year = playing all non-locked teams 2 of every four years with home-and-homes.

        Except, NCAA rules require divisions to stage a conference championship game — and I don’t see the B10 (or any other league) giving that up.

        Maybe the rule will change, but it would put the Big Ten in a rather awkward position of campaigning for the very flexibility that they recently opposed.

        An odd number of conference games among an odd number of schools isn’t feasible as it doesn’t even out.

        It’s definitely feasible; other conferences have done it. The Big Ten did it for 21 years.

        There are definite drawbacks: not all teams can play nine conference games, and at least one team must have a bye every week of the conference season (unless they play OOC). But it can be done. (Not that they would, nor am I supporting this.)

        Like

  52. Eric says:

    The narrative for most I’ve heard is that the Big 12 needs to be pro-active and expand. This is one of the few issues with realignment I have disagreed with Frank and seem to be disagreeing with most. I actually think the Big 12 is far more stable at 10 than it will be at 12/14 for several reasons.

    1. It’s quite possible that expansion only works financially long term with a conference network in place. The biggest reason Texas remains is that they can keep the LHN. They might grudgingly give it up at some point, but doing so means there are few incentives anymore for staying in the Big 12 and if they leave, it won’t be alone.

    2. Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more. If these new members aren’t really at least the average value of the rest of the conference though, you are going to make ESPN/FOX upset and you still have to work with them and eventually renegotiate.

    3. Along those lines, consider that in a 10 team conference right now, you have Texas football, Oklahoma football, and Kansas basketball. That is 30% of the conference right there with extreme value properties. In particular Texas/Oklahoma football is probably a very disproportionate part of the value of contract. New members are not worth the same things and you risk diluting the value of those brands by making the money spread further. I’ll grant this isn’t quite that simple as you do also expand them into new markets, but you are getting far more limited markets with most these additions than past ones gave other conferences.

    4. Ten teams is now different and the Big 12 got made fun of some for it. Different isn’t necessarily bad though as it brings attentions and encourages fans to defend the conference (and build support for it in the process). Think of Notre Dame and the flack they get for being independent and then consider if they are worth more independent or in a conference. I’d argue the former all day.

    5. The round robin in football and double round robin in basketball means playing everyone twice. You feel very connected to the conference.

    In short, I think the Big 12 is stronger and more secure with 10 and expansion is actually a short term plan that endangers the long run survival more than the opposite being true.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It’s quite possible that expansion only works financially long term with a conference network in place.

      You are basically saying that the Big 12 is doomed. If they are doomed, they might as well earn the money now, while it’s sitting there on the table.

      Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more.

      Why necessarily short term? There is no reason to promise Cincinnati that it will ever make as much as the others. They could get a 20% share from now till eternity, and would still be making more than they’d ever have in the American. I don’t expect their deal to be that bad; but by the same token, they shouldn’t receive a full share until they are worth it, which might be never.

      In effect, bring them in as permanent junior partners, with an arduous path to full partnership.

      Ten teams is now different and the Big 12 got made fun of some for it. Different isn’t necessarily bad though as it brings attentions and encourages fans to defend the conference (and build support for it in the process).

      Different isn’t necessarily good, either.

      Think of Notre Dame and the flack they get for being independent and then consider if they are worth more independent or in a conference. I’d argue the former all day.

      You have the flak backwards. Notre Dame doesn’t care what its opponents think. They care what their wealthy donors would think, if they joined a conference. But they’re the only school that treats independence as a birthright. Most schools that have been FBS independents, have gotten out of that status as soon as they could.

      The round robin in football and double round robin in basketball means playing everyone twice. You feel very connected to the conference.

      By that argument, no one should have expanded.

      Like

      • Jae-VT says:

        [i]Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more.[/i]

        [b]Why necessarily short term? [/b]There is no reason to promise Cincinnati that it will ever make as much as the others. They could get a 20% share from now till eternity, and would still be making more than they’d ever have in the American. I don’t expect their deal to be that bad; but by the same token, they shouldn’t receive a full share until they are worth it, which might be never.

        In effect, bring them in as permanent junior partners, with an arduous path to full partnership.

        I believe the short term may refer to the fact that if the Big-12 were to squeeze as much money from Fox and ESPN, those two media entities may not do business with the Big-12 when the current media contract ends.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Jae-VT,

          “[i]Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more.[/i]

          [b]Why necessarily short term? [/b]”

          You have to use less than and greater than signs, not square brackets [ ], to get the HTML coding to work. Like this not [i]like this[/i].

          Like

      • Eric says:

        I am not saying the Big 12 is doomed without a network, but I am saying it’s possible, that at 12/14 members it might need a network in order to remain competitive financially. I am actually more confident at 10 without one as I feel the worth of the bigger schools doesn’t have to be spread as far along with the high revenue CCG (which will be added regardless) and CFP/Sugar Bowl money.

        I think there is absolutely zero chance that any new members are not made whole. They can make the buy-in process longer, but they are not going to be known as having junior members. I can’t prove that, but I would be stunned if they did.

        On the round robin, it’s not a be all/end all, but it is a nice feature to have, especially if you are trying to make a conference feel connected. Most the rest of the conferences have lost some of that with expansion (I know I feel far less connected to the Big Ten than in the past). It one reason to remain as is, just not the only reason.

        Going somewhat on a tangent, but on Notre Dame. I understand the wealthy donors of Notre Dame don’t care about the flak, but at the same time, I think being different actively helps the Notre Dame brand. It hasn’t been a great 2 decades for them, but people seem to hate them just as much around the country. That’s not a bad thing for Notre Dame. People tune in for what they hate as much as for what they like.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I think there is absolutely zero chance that any new members are not made whole. They can make the buy-in process longer, but they are not going to be known as having junior members. I can’t prove that, but I would be stunned if they did.

          I would be absolutely stunned if they add a school like Memphis, and promised them the same payout as Oklahoma and Texas, after a few short years. (Of course, this is the league that made its name with one dumb move after another, so I am ready to be stunned.)

          I think being different actively helps the Notre Dame brand.

          I agree with you there. Without a doubt, Notre Dame’s brand gets a boost from its independence, something no other top program has.

          But this does not mean that all differences are good. Sometimes, it just means that you’re behind. I haven’t seen anyone else suggest that having fewer teams is a feature that fans find intrinsically compelling. Rather, it’s a reminder of the Big 12’s instability — that a league with “12” in its name has only ten members; that it suffered the worst losses of any power conference.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “I would be absolutely stunned if they add a school like Memphis, and promised them the same payout as Oklahoma and Texas, after a few short years.”

            What do you mean by a few short years? He said they can make the buy in process longer. I doubt anyone will join if permanently segregated in an inferior position compared to there conference “mates”. And I doubt the conference would want to brand itself so permanently inferior it requires junior members to fill its ranks.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            What do you mean by a few short years?

            I mean, the length of the current TV deal. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Memphis is going to be the peer, even of the lowest of the current Big 12 schools, by then. To award them a full share, when they have not earned it, is to commit league suicide.

            Because this is the Big 12, that is probably what they will do.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      I’ve reluctantly come around to believing Boren. I used to believe as you do. With 12 you have better chances at the playoffs, which is crucial for national perception. The Big 12 gets dissed constantly for being smaller. You have fewer seats at the table. If everybody else was 12 that’s not a big difference. When they are 14, that’s 40% bigger. You could make another 12 team conference if the B1G, SEC and ACC went down to 10. The B1G and SEC have more power and that won’t change. But they can put a dent in it. On the playoff committee, basically the G5, Big 12 and ACC get their token seats while the B1G, SEC and Pac dominate the committee. They replaced a B1G coach with another retired B1G coach. The 4 coaches are all from those 3 conferences. You also get a better chance of getting ranked and you have more TV games. You get noticed more with a bigger conference.

      I think its important not to dilute by adding multiple weak programs, especially in football. But BYU is not dilution. Houston had more success during their time in the SWC than most P5 schools have had in comparable time. Cincinnati did ok in the Big East and had a couple of really good seasons. All 3 also have solid basketball programs. Beyond that, you are risking adding someone who will be the homecoming opponent for Kansas.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Houston had more success during their time in the SWC than most P5 schools have had in comparable time.

        Except, it turned out they were cheating during most of their successful years.

        Like

  53. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17201971/ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-notre-dame-fighting-irish-top-ap-all-top-25

    The AP has released an all-time top 100 based on their poll.

    For the first time since that first poll in 1936, the AP has compiled an all-time Top 100 based on a formula that counts poll appearances (one point) to mark consistency, No. 1 rankings (one bonus point) to acknowledge elite programs, and a bonus for AP championships won (10 points).

    AP All-Time Top 25
    No. 1 Ohio State, 1,112 points.
    No. 2 Oklahoma, 1,055.
    No. 3 Notre Dame, 1,042.
    No. 4 Alabama, 993.
    No. 5 Southern California, 974.
    No. 6 Nebraska, 901.
    No. 7 Michigan, 894.
    No. 8 Texas, 822.
    No. 9 Florida State, 714.
    No. 10 Florida, 674.
    No. 11 LSU, 655..
    No. 12 Penn State, 647..
    No. 13 Miami, 642..
    No. 14 Tennessee, 624.
    No 15 Georgia, 572.
    No. 16 Auburn, 570.
    No. 17 UCLA, 535.
    No. 18 Texas A&M, 447.
    No. 19 Michigan State, 443.
    No. 20 Washington, 430.
    No. 21 Arkansas, 412.
    No. 22 Clemson, 411.
    No. 23 Pittsburgh, 356.
    No. 24 Wisconsin, 336.
    No. 25 Iowa, 329.

    SEC – 8 (4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21)
    B10 – 7 (1, 6, 7, 12, 19, 24, 25)
    ACC – 4 (9, 13, 22, 23)
    P12 – 3 (5, 17, 20)
    B12 – 2 (2, 8)
    Ind – 1 (3)

    Rest of B10:
    36. PU
    37. MN
    40. UMD
    50. NW
    51. IL
    72. IN
    86. RU

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://collegefootball.ap.org/top-100

      The AP release has more details on each of the top 25.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      There’s a considerable distance between #7 (Michigan) and #8 (Texas) — not that this surprises me. But I would bet that, in many Longhorns’ fans’ minds, they are much better than the #8 program in the history of the AP poll.

      Like

      • 27-25 and 76-37-5, so yeah, scoreboard says:

        Um, yeah, given how Texas has a winning record against 7 of the 9 teams they’ve played in the top 11.

        Look at their methodology, this list vastly overvalues AP awarded ‘championships’, which until relatively recently were not decided on the field, but rather via a beauty contest ranking. Look at how often those end of the regular season polls have been wrong when it came to predicting the conference championship game winners, and then again how the next week’s rankings have been wrong predicting bowl games. But somehow after the bowl games their rankings were suddenly more accurate?

        Especially since for most of the period in question the ‘top 2’ teams didn’t play each other. Even with the BCS there was strong dispute most years on if the top 2 ranked team were really the best 2.

        I’d like to see that list without the vastly skewing 10 points awarded for a mythical AP title. Stick with 1 pt for ranked and 2 pts for ranked #1. That would still be skewed by bias, but not as much.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Precisely as I would expect a Texas fan to put it.

          Like

          • TOM says:

            Texas is perhaps the most underachieving program in the history of the game. Not that they don’t have a very good history…but with all of the advantages…they should easily be Top 3 and probably #1. I don’t know if it’s just been bad luck, sticking with the wrong coach(es) for too longer or what.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Well Texas is #3 in wins all time, behind only Michigan and Notre Dame.

            Like

        • Ross says:

          It’s also missing over 30 years of college football, so it’s not as if it’s a true all-time ranking.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            It’s also missing over 30 years of college football, so it’s not as if it’s a true all-time ranking.

            A “true” all-time ranking isn’t possible, as there is no accepted methodology for ranking programs across the entire history of college football. You could make up your own ranking, but it would simply be “Ross’s method,” no more “true” than the others.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            The ranking doesn’t even attempt to use the entirety of college football history. In this sense, describing it as an all-time ranking is false, despite the fact that it has been consistently referred to as such.

            There is also no accepted methodology for any period of time, let alone all of college football history. There isn’t even agreement within AP, seeing as a large number of people vote now and have voted over its lifespan – people with different priorities and biases. This is, however, beside the point – that this is no a true all-time ranking, regardless of how flawed or correct its methodology may be.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Ross,

            “It’s also missing over 30 years of college football, so it’s not as if it’s a true all-time ranking.”

            It’s exactly what it claims to be, an all-time AP poll ranking. It doesn’t pretend to cover the years before that nor should it since the AP produced it in honor of their 80th season of AP polls.

            MI fans can still revel in their years of college rugby success before most people drove cars.

            Like

        • TOM says:

          Without digging into the methodology…does it truly “overvalue” NC”s. If so…I’d certainly expect Bama to be #1. OSU has half the AP NC’s as the Tide.

          Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “Um, yeah, given how Texas has a winning record against 7 of the 9 teams they’ve played in the top 11.”

          Keeping things in perspective…

          Ohio State 2-1
          Michigan 1-0
          Florida State 2-0-1

          Like

          • TOM says:

            With the relatively small sample size for Texas against most of the Top Ten…not sure what his point is. It would be like using a single head-to-head App St – Mich game as a key metric when comparing the programs across their entire histories.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          27-25 and 76-37-5, so yeah, scoreboard,

          “Um, yeah, given how Texas has a winning record against 7 of the 9 teams they’ve played in the top 11.”

          So what?

          “Look at their methodology, this list vastly overvalues AP awarded ‘championships’,

          I’d like to see that list without the vastly skewing 10 points awarded for a mythical AP title. Stick with 1 pt for ranked and 2 pts for ranked #1. That would still be skewed by bias, but not as much.”

          It doesn’t change much. AL drops behind USC and MI passes NE. Outside the top 10, TN passes Miami and WI ties Pitt. UT is exactly where they were, #8 with a sizable gap in each direction.

          RANK TEAM TOTAL
          1 OHIO STATE 1062
          2 OKLAHOMA 985
          3 NOTRE DAME 962
          4 USC 924
          5 ALABAMA 893
          6 MICHIGAN 874
          7 NEBRASKA 861
          8 TEXAS 792
          9 FLORIDA STATE 684
          10 FLORIDA 644
          11 LSU 635
          12 PENN STATE 627
          13 TENNESSEE 604
          14 MIAMI (FL) 592
          15 GEORGIA 562
          16 AUBURN 550
          17 UCLA 535
          18 TEXAS A&M 467
          19 MICHIGAN STATE 433
          20 WASHINGTON 430
          21 ARKANSAS 412
          22 CLEMSON 401
          23 PITTSBURGH 336
          23 WISCONSIN 336
          25 IOWA 329

          Like

      • Brian says:

        And an even bigger gap to #9 FSU. It makes it fairly clear who the kings have been.

        If B10 teams would’ve won national titles in proportion to the rest of their success MI would be higher and OSU would have a bigger lead.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Well if you look at it, the most frequently mentioned kings are 1-10 and 12 & 13. Then the 4 SEC “princes” are 11 and 14-16. Not a large gap before #17 UCLA, but then it starts to slide off rapidly. One thing this does is it does count preseason polls. Not that would change it much, but it does tilt it more towards those teams already at the top.

          Like

          • PJ says:

            Its interesting to note that, excluding Alabama, every one of the top 8 played an annual game (Oklahoma played two) against another top 8 school until very recently (Oklahoma/Nebraska).

            Liked by 1 person

        • TOM says:

          In entire AP era…sure. But go back 4-5 decades (my lifetime) and FSU would be at or very near the top. This is why it’s somewhat pointless to cover so much ground. Just like when they try to compare teams from different eras.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            TOM,

            “In entire AP era…sure.”

            Which is the entire point of an all-time AP top 25 list.

            “But go back 4-5 decades (my lifetime) and FSU would be at or very near the top.”

            Every school can cherry-pick periods of success. Why should we cater to FSU or any other school? Feel free to produce your own version of the list based on the past 50 years or whatever period you prefer.

            “This is why it’s somewhat pointless to cover so much ground.”

            It’s not pointless, it just doesn’t flatter FSU. This list is just a measure of history. It says nothing about the teams today.

            Like

          • Absolutely correct, the list is biased towards schools that have played football longer. If you were to use a points per year system schools like FSU, Boise St. and Miami would be much much higher.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            singlewhitealcoholicseekssame,

            “Absolutely correct, the list is biased towards schools that have played football longer. If you were to use a points per year system schools like FSU, Boise St. and Miami would be much much higher.”

            FSU started playing CFB in 1947 while the AP poll started in 1936. You really think those 11 years are holding FSU back? FSU went back to independence in 1951 after 3 straight years of dominating the Dixie Conference. They made the coaches poll in the 60s several times. They hired Bowden in 1976. They joined the ACC in 1992. When in there are we allowed to start counting FSU football?

            From 1960 on FSU is 10th in total AP poll appearances (compared to 9th place on the list above). They jump to 3rd if you wait until 1976 but that seems unfair to everyone else to basically only count the years with their best coach ever. If we take the last 50 years (1966 on) then FSU moves to 8th.

            Miami has been playing since 1926. They played in the Orange Bowl in 1934 and again in 1946, so they were a real program back then. So why shouldn’t the whole history of the AP poll count for them? Do we have to wait until Schnellenberger arrived in 1979? Since then Miami is 10th in total appearances. Since 1966 (50 years), Miami is 17th in appearances.

            Boise only moved to I-A in 1996, so their lack of history is factor. On the other hand, many would counter that the lack of history at Boise is part of the point. Everyone else has had time to suffer through droughts and long down times while BSU hasn’t. But since 1996 (20 years), BSU is 26th in total AP poll appearances.

            Like

          • TOM says:

            Brian,

            Come on. You can’t call the modern era of college football, whichever way you want to slice it…the past 25 years…the past 50 years…pick one…”cherry picking”. FSU has been a force during the most elite era of college football history.

            For the record, FSU (FSC at the time, oldest school in Fla) fielded teams at the turn of the last century. It wasn’t contiguous history and they weren’t remarkable teams…so they were lost to history after the FSCW era. A little known fact outside of FLA (that no one cares about, understandably). So 1947 is just the conventional program start date. Sorry…useless trivia.

            Like

          • TOM says:

            Brian,

            Come on. You can’t call the modern era of college football, whichever way you want to slice it…the past 25 years…the past 50 years…pick one…”cherry picking”. FSU has been a force during the most elite era of college football history. And since it’s also the era that I’ve actually lived to see first-hand…it’s the most important too =)

            Like

          • TOM says:

            sorry for double-post. i didn’t see my first one go through and re-typed it.

            Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Florida is a few spots higher than I would have expected & I’m surprised to see Iowa & (especially) Wisconsin move into the top 25. Barry Alvarez truly turned around the Badgers.

      Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17202608/north-carolina-tar-heels-skip-self-imposed-penalties-response-ncaa-charges

    UNC is trying to weasel out of NCAA punishment arguing jurisdiction, statute of limitations and other technicalities.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I haven’t figured out whether UNC’s objections have any merit. I read far enough to see that they are not pleading any excuses for the underlying behavior. But just as they are obligated to follow the rules, so is the NCAA. If the enforcement division actually did overstep the statute of limitations, exceed its jurisdiction, etc., UNC has every right to raise that.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        The statute issue really comes down to whether the string of events can all be considered together or if each thing has to be treated as an isolated incident.

        As for jurisdiction, they’re claiming that only the accreditation agency can punish them for running fake classes. Many would and have argued that they represent impermissible benefits since they were disproportionately used by athletes. Clearly that would be an NCAA issue if the latter argument holds.

        The bigger point is that rather than admitting the issues and self-imposing punishment that fits their actions, they’re trying to avoid punishment by lawyering their way out of it. It may even work, but this is exactly the wrong example they should be setting.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          But it is consistent with everything they have done so far. They’ve shown no remorse except at getting caught.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            They’ve shown no remorse except at getting caught.

            In other words, essentially the same as almost every program accused by the NCAA.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            North Carolina has carried it a bit further and went after one of their whistleblowers at the institutional level in a way that is pretty much unprecedented in the BCS era.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            UNC will kick all its other programs — including football — under the bus to protect its precious men’s basketball program. Even Kentucky wouldn’t go that far.

            Like

  55. houstontexasjack says:

    I don’t buy the notion that Fox and ESPN would seek retribution from the Big 12 for invoking the pro rata expansion clause. The contract runs until 2024-25 and renegotiation likely would not occur until a few years before then. By that point, the landscape of the value of sports rights fees may have undergone another major shift. I could see resistance and a legal fight depending on any ambiguities in the language of the clause–e.g. that it was intended only to apply to certain new members.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      I don’t think they really could or will seek retribution. I have no doubt they are displeased about paying their contractually obligated pro-rata increase for teams they’re not overly interested in.

      To that end, I could see say ESPN telling the Big XII something to the effect of the Big Ten negotiates two years before you, the Pac-12 a year before you. We don’t see you adding schools x and y doing anything to close the gap between those two conferences. That isn’t exactly retribution it would being honest.

      Like

      • Redwood86 says:

        if the Big 12 is guaranteed the same pro rata split regardless of size, why did it not expand long ago? Are we missing something here?

        BTW, if the Big-12 hoses the TV networks now, you can be certain that the networks will find a way to claw back some of the money – possibly by encouraging the collapse of the Big 12 prior to the next goround of negotations. And if the Big 12 goes away, Iowa State, KSU, Baylor, and West Virginia will almost certainly be screwed. TCU will be very vulnerable, and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State will have to lobby very hard.

        This is where the Pac-12 may successfully differentiate itself from the BiG and SEC. It is very comfortable pairing weaker sister schools with prize schools.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “if the Big 12 is guaranteed the same pro rata split regardless of size, why did it not expand long ago? Are we missing something here?”

          UT didn’t/doesn’t favor expansion.
          Pro rata only applies to T1. Not ncaa or FB playoff/bowl money.
          No “no brainer” schools available.

          Like

        • vp19 says:

          How much of that is a result of geographic isolation, being west of the Continental Divide? It simply will seem unfair if Wake Forest, a small private college, has found harbor in a BCS conference while Iowa State — an AAU public institution whose stadium is nearly twice as big as Wake’s, with far more consistent fan support in both football and men’s basketball — eventually is set adrift.

          Like

          • @vp19 – For better or worse, it really isn’t fair. The ACC is simply a stronger and more tight-knit league than the Big 12, so Wake Forest is going to have less risk than Iowa State. The Big Ten simply isn’t interested in Iowa State at all and it’s very unlikely that the University of Iowa would have any political leverage to get them in.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            It simply will seem unfair if Wake Forest, a small private college, has found harbor in a BCS conference while Iowa State — an AAU public institution whose stadium is nearly twice as big as Wake’s, with far more consistent fan support in both football and men’s basketball — eventually is set adrift.

            Life’s not intrinsically fair. Once upon a time, Rice was in a power conference too, and got “set adrift.”

            Wake Forest didn’t just stumble into the safe harbor of a BCS conference. It was a founding member of the ACC, and before that, was in the Southern Conference with many of the same schools. They’ve always considered Wake a peer.

            In the fan fantasy world, where all the conferences disband, forget their rivalries, and start choosing up sides again, as if it were sandlot baseball, perhaps Wake would be the 70 pound weakling that doesn’t get picked. But that’s not the world we are in.

            Like

          • Wildcat Jeff says:

            The new world could be only P5 power schools that break away from the NCAA! If the top 40 to 64 broke away in 2036 and only played each other the media rights would go up by double in value. It would be huge!

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Jeff, it looks as though you are suggesting that the P5 schools split from the NCAA and get one big media contract. Assuming that the SEC and the B1G continue to have significant financial advantages over the other conferences, why would they want to do that? It would simply move money to other schools.

            The SEC and B1G are not likely to want such a deal.

            If the P5 split football from the NCAA, what happens to all other sports? Would the NCAA agree to a split of football and keep everything else? What about G5 schools? They would likely be adamantly against a split, so the G5 would want the P5 completely out of the NCAA.

            Obviously March Madness would not be the same without the P5 teams.

            That would be an interesting situation.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The new world could be only P5 power schools that break away from the NCAA! If the top 40 to 64 broke away in 2036 and only played each other the media rights would go up by double in value. It would be huge!

            If the top 40 schools really wanted to “only play each other,” they don’t need to break away from the NCAA. No NCAA rule is standing in the way of them doing that now. All that’s stopping them is the GORs they signed.

            But the top 40 don’t actually want this. Remember, if the top 40 only played each other, then half of them would have losing records.

            If the P5 split football from the NCAA, what happens to all other sports? Would the NCAA agree to a split of football and keep everything else? What about G5 schools? They would likely be adamantly against a split, so the G5 would want the P5 completely out of the NCAA.

            The G5 need the P5. They are in no position to dictate terms.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Wildcat Jeff,

            “The new world could be only P5 power schools that break away from the NCAA! If the top 40 to 64 broke away in 2036 and only played each other the media rights would go up by double in value. It would be huge!”

            1. The top 40 aren’t going to leave a bunch of conference-mates behind any time soon.

            2. Why break away from the NCAA just to have to build your own bureaucracy that does all the same things?

            3. Can you imagine all the lawsuits and government interference any attempt to do that would bring?

            4. The money would be huge but there’s no way the players would still be considered amateurs, so the schools wouldn’t gain much if at all.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Marc, I inarticulately stated my point. I meant that I believe that if the P5 wanted to pull football out of the NCAA, as a strategic matter, the G5 would push to force the P5 out completely. The reason for that push would be to convince the P5 to stay in the NCAA.

            I agree that the G5 does need the P5 to an extent.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Redwood86,

          “if the Big 12 is guaranteed the same pro rata split regardless of size, why did it not expand long ago? Are we missing something here?”

          The ACC extending their GOR and getting the ACCN was the tipping point. Before that, the B12 was leaning towards not expanding.

          “BTW, if the Big-12 hoses the TV networks now, you can be certain that the networks will find a way to claw back some of the money”

          They can’t claw it back, they can just not have to pay it in the future.

          ” – possibly by encouraging the collapse of the Big 12 prior to the next goround of negotations.”

          That smacks of legal issues to me.

          “And if the Big 12 goes away, Iowa State, KSU, Baylor, and West Virginia will almost certainly be screwed. TCU will be very vulnerable, and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State will have to lobby very hard.”

          There’s some chance the B12 goes away without expansion, too. They have to make a risk/reward judgement.

          “This is where the Pac-12 may successfully differentiate itself from the BiG and SEC. It is very comfortable pairing weaker sister schools with prize schools.”

          Are they comfortable with it or is just what has happened? Now that money matters a lot more I’m sure the P12 is less than pleased to have OrSU and WSU sucking up money. The 4 Cali schools and the 2 AZ schools are all solid members in different ways. CO and Utah are singles. So really you’re talking about just OrSU and WSU.

          The SEC has pairs in MS, TN and AL with some clear little brothers. The B10 has them in IL, IN and MI. I don’t think the P12 is quite as unusual as you make it sound. The only real difference would be the willingness to accept little brothers now. The P12 was willing to do it for UT and OU but not OU alone. Nobody has offered to do it for KU. Probably nobody else would accept TT to get UT but the P12, but are we even sure the P12 would do that now?

          Like

          • Redwood86 says:

            Yes, “we” are sure that the Pac-12 would still take Texas Tech to get UT. In fact, I think the Pac-12 would let Texas name 3 schools to bring along if that’s what it would take to land the Longhorns.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I’d be more sure if it wasn’t for LHN. I’m pretty sure they’d still accept TT to get UT, but LHN may be a bigger obstacle than it appears.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Bowlsby once said OU president Boren is a very persuasive guy. Those stats showing a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs with 12 and a ccg did their persuading as well.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Yes, “we” are sure that the Pac-12 would still take Texas Tech to get UT. In fact, I think the Pac-12 would let Texas name 3 schools to bring along if that’s what it would take to land the Longhorns.

            I don’t know how you could be sure, because the Pac-12 already turned down that deal once — because UT wanted the ability to create its own Tier 3 network, that it would not share. At the time, the Pac-12 considered that a deal-breaker. Maybe they’ve changed their minds, but we don’t know that.

            Bowlsby once said OU president Boren is a very persuasive guy. Those stats showing a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs with 12 and a ccg did their persuading as well.

            If you were the Commissioner of the B12, you’d be buttering up the president of Oklahoma too.

            I didn’t find those stats very believable at all. Remember, UAB had a fancy expert report recommending it drop football, only to realize that it was a terrible mistake. You can find an expert to recommend just about anything.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The results of their simulations were pretty logical. Having more teams and divisions meant the top teams were less likely to beat each other during the season and would create a SOS bump in the ccg.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The results of their simulations were pretty logical. Having more teams and divisions meant the top teams were less likely to beat each other during the season and would create a SOS bump in the ccg.

            When the Big 12 had a CCG, Texas and Oklahoma won 10 out of 15 times, and they always meet in the regular season. Of the 5 CCGs not won by UT or OU, only one winner is still in the league (KState).

            This is the difference between an abstract statistical study, and the realities of the way the teams are aligned and scheduled.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            And the winner usually didn’t play Nebraska or whoever the North division title winner was. Rematches were not very common. And the runnerup in the division often got a BCS bowl.
            So it worked pretty well with 12 and a title game-except for the title game upsets!

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            And the winner usually didn’t play Nebraska or whoever the North division title winner was. Rematches were not very common.

            That is true, but the original B12 was a “three-king league”. They divided 2-1, with Nebraska in the weaker North division. With Nebraska gone, UT and OU will almost certainly be in opposite divisions with a locked crossover. Once you split them, I would expect rematches to be a lot more common.

            Also, the B12 originally didn’t play 9 conference games, so there were fewer crossover game. I don’t believe anyone sees them going back to 8 games.

            Like

  56. Redwood86 says:

    For the Big 12, BYU should be considered a no-brainer.

    I suppose UT’s opposition is due to fear its veto power being diluted to the point of ineffectiveness?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Redwood86,

      “For the Big 12, BYU should be considered a no-brainer.”

      Many same the same thing about the P12 and yet they have no interest in BYU.

      “I suppose UT’s opposition is due to fear its veto power being diluted to the point of ineffectiveness?”

      Why would BYU be any different than almost any other school for that? Why can’t a top academic school like UT resist BYU for the same reasons P12 schools do?

      Like

      • Redwood86 says:

        UT does not equal the Big 12. UT is arguably the only academically prestigious school in the entire conference. I doubt the rest of the conference has any qualms about BYU’s academics.
        Aside from UT, and perhaps Oklahoma, no other school in the conference brings as big a following as BYU. Add to that a consistently competitive sports program, and – for the Big 12 – it is a no-brainer.

        As for the Pac-12, it can also afford to be more selective than the Big 12 because of greater stability and strength. That said, if Utah did not exist, the Pac-12 might need to be more flexible about BYU.

        Anyway, I think the Big 12 is doomed to fall apart when new TV contracts are negotiated. There will be a bidding war for Texas, and it will finally join a prestigious conference befitting its position. Personally, I want the Pac-12 to nab’em. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I am not sure that the BiG has a better shot than the ACC or Pac-12 due to problematic geography. Methinks that analysis would make for a good next FranktheTank column.

        Like

        • Redwood86 says:

          By the way, given that Seattle, Portland, Arizona, and Utah are amongst the fastest-growing areas of the country, the Pac-12 may be much better-positioned to entice Texas than you think. 2 deadweight schools out of 12 compares favorably to the humongous amounts of deadweight in the ACC.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Redwood86,

            “By the way, given that Seattle, Portland, Arizona, and Utah are amongst the fastest-growing areas of the country, the Pac-12 may be much better-positioned to entice Texas than you think.”

            I don’t think I ever claimed the P12 wasn’t decently positioned to entice UT. UT has at least 2 good options (the ACC only makes sense to me in a ND-like deal). It’s more about what UT wants rather than one being obviously better than the other.

            “2 deadweight schools out of 12 compares favorably to the humongous amounts of deadweight in the ACC.”

            Yes, but maybe that means that the ACC will offer something nobody else would.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Redwood86,

          “UT does not equal the Big 12.”

          No, but UT is the keystone of the B12. If they don’t want a certain school in, the rest would be wise not to aggravate them by overriding UT. After all, UT can leave whenever they want while most of the others don’t have good options. They need to appease UT if they have any hope of keeping the B12 together.

          “UT is arguably the only academically prestigious school in the entire conference. I doubt the rest of the conference has any qualms about BYU’s academics.”

          I’d guess many of them have some concerns about research that is forbidden, actions that aren’t allowed, interference from the church in education, etc. That’s the portion of the academics that bother presidents about BYU, not the quality of their math classes. Baylor was forced upon them and at least they will play on Sundays. With the recent reports saying the Baylor honor code was part of the problem in their scandal, are they looking to add another school that’s even more strict?

          KU and ISU would certainly argue about academic prestige as AAU members. Maybe TCU and Baylor would, too, since everyone defines prestigious universities differently. Regardless, I’m not claiming anyone would resist BYU because they are a bad school.

          “Aside from UT, and perhaps Oklahoma, no other school in the conference brings as big a following as BYU.”

          KU and their hoops fans would argue that point, but it’s probably true (or at least close to true) in football.

          “Add to that a consistently competitive sports program, and – for the Big 12 – it is a no-brainer.”

          Clearly it isn’t because the B12 could’ve added BYU at any point along the line and they still haven’t.

          “As for the Pac-12, it can also afford to be more selective than the Big 12 because of greater stability and strength. That said, if Utah did not exist, the Pac-12 might need to be more flexible about BYU.”

          Good luck convincing the California schools to approve BYU.

          “Anyway, I think the Big 12 is doomed to fall apart when new TV contracts are negotiated.”

          Entirely possible and maybe even probable.

          “There will be a bidding war for Texas, and it will finally join a prestigious conference befitting its position.”

          I’d argue that the B12 was prestigious when UT joined and only lost that prestige in the past 10-12 years once NE and then CO fell off. They were at 12 with a CCG well before the B10 or P12 and OU and UT were top programs.

          “Personally, I want the Pac-12 to nab’em. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I am not sure that the BiG has a better shot than the ACC or Pac-12 due to problematic geography.”

          As long as they don’t join the SEC I don’t really have a huge preference. They are the only logical expansion for the P12, so in that sense I root for the P12. With UT the P12 can get to 14 or even 16. Without them, I think they stay at 12.

          As for geography, I think it’s problematic no matter where they go. The nearest school in the B10 is NE at 823 miles away while in the P12 it’s UA at 893 miles and for the ACC it’s GT at 954 miles. Within 1000 miles, the B10 has 6 schools with 2 more really close. The P12 has 3 within 1000 miles while the ACC has 4 or 5 (depends if ND counts). The point is that they’re flying anywhere they go, but the B10 is still slightly closer than the P12 and ACC. The SEC is by far the closest P5 conference to UT outside of the B12.

          B10 pros:
          ET and CT teams (better time zones for viewers)
          NE is an old foe
          Great research academics
          $$$

          P12 pros:
          UT might strike a better deal (keep LHN, bring TT, etc)
          Access to CA
          Fewer football kings to contend with means easier CFP access
          Solid academics

          ACC pros:
          UT might strike a better deal (keep LHN, bring TT, etc)
          Access to FL and other SE states
          Good academics
          ET teams

          “Methinks that analysis would make for a good next FranktheTank column.”

          I don’t know that it should be next, but it would be a solid topic after this round of B12 expansion plays out.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The Big 12 in 2010 had 7/12 members in the AAU, 58.3%. Only the Big 10, Ivy and barely the Pac 10 (6/10-60%) had a higher % in Division I.

            Like

          • Wildcat Jeff says:

            Back then, 2010, the Big XII was on par with any conference! UT and Beebee ruined the Big XII! Some visionaries talked of a conference network but they sat on their hands in the 2000s and they are on the verge of no longer existing in 2025!

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            They almost were gone in 2010.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Aside from UT, and perhaps Oklahoma, no other school in the conference brings as big a following as BYU. Add to that a consistently competitive sports program, and – for the Big 12 – it is a no-brainer.

          As Brian noticed, it must be a “brainer”, because they could’ve added BYU at any time, and chose not to. The last time the B12 expanded, I don’t think it was even seriously considered.

          That said, if you stipulate that the B12 must expand, I do think BYU is the best candidate on the board. The state government of Texas has pretty much demanded that Houston has to be the other, so those are your two schools, if they stop at 12.

          Personally, I want the Pac-12 to nab’em. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I am not sure that the BiG has a better shot than the ACC or Pac-12 due to problematic geography.

          This is exactly what Frank means, when he refers to “thinking like a fan”. Regardless of which league it joins, UT athletes are going to be flying to every game. Once you are in the airplane, there isn’t a meaningful difference between, say, 1000 miles and 1200 miles. Distance of the airport to campus is far more meaningful, unless we are talking about huge differences in flight time.

          In the Pac-12, UT would be playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times. On the whole, the Pac-12 is not as prestigious academically as the B10. (The P12 has Stanford and Cal, but it has a lot of dead weight too.) Then, you consider that the B10 has a far better payout and a conference network that is actually successful.

          However, the Pac-12 has fewer expansion options, so it might be more flexible about the LHN than the B10 is willing to be — although that is speculation. We don’t know what the parties’ views will be in 2025.

          Like

          • Redwood86 says:

            I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW academically outrank every school in the BiG except Northwestern and Michigan. Colorado is a quality school, as apparently is Arizona now. ASU seems to be getting better and Utah is an up-and-comer. The only deadweights are Oregon, Oregon State, and WSU. The BiG, OTOH, has mostly middle of the pack schools with a couple of notable laggards. The academic quality of the BiG may be more consistent (i.e. – more evenly distributed around the median), but it may be a real stretch to say that it is higher than the Pac-12.

            As for UT playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times, that would not occur much in football. ESPN and Fox are not going to put Texas in the 10:30pm eastern time slot too often – that would be stupid. But in sports like basketball, yes, the weekday games in CA and the northwest would be at 9pm central. But those would be over by 11pm – so not sure how undesirable that is. BTW, focusing on this is thinking like a “fan”.

            It is not thinking like a fan to say that Texans, from the very top to the very bottom, would probably prefer to travel to Arizona, California, and Colorado (which is where many Texans have 2nd homes) than to Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Jersey, and Maryland. And I imagine, for a Texan, traveling to Seattle would beat going to Michigan.

            Finally, things have changed a lot since 2010. The Pac-12 now almost certainly recognizes that it really needs Texas in its conference. Sharing of 3rd-tier revenue is undoubtedly a big issue. But, excessive intransigence risks jeopardizing the conference’s standing over time.

            Like

          • Redwood86 says:

            Another point on Texas: I suspect there are many more Texas alums in Pac-12 territories than in BiG territories – which is a consideration.

            As for BYU being a “brainer”, I think we can agree that over the past 10 years the Big 12 has had the least brainy management of all the power conferences. As a Stanford alum, I can tell you that Bowlsby is ok – he knows how to hire a football coach – but definitely has his weaknesses too (doesn’t know how to hire a basketball coach and is not a good operations guy).

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Redwood86:

            So an AAU school is deadwood?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW academically outrank every school in the BiG except Northwestern and Michigan.

            It depends what gets ranked. I looked at the 2014 report of Top American Research Universities, which I think is a fair proxy for what university presidents care about.

            Yes, the top of the Pac-12 is very strong. But it has six schools that are “worse” than the Big 10’s best 12. (The Big Ten has two outliers, but none below the Pac-12’s worst school.)

            Michigan: 2
            Wisconsin: 3
            Washington: 4
            UCLA: 8
            Stanford: 9
            Minnesota: 14
            Ohio State: 17
            Cal: 18
            Penn State: 19
            Northwestern: 27
            Arizona: 28
            USC: 29
            Texas: 30
            Purdue: 31
            Illinois: 32
            Michigan State: 36
            Maryland: 37
            Iowa: 42
            Rutgers: 45
            Utah: 50
            Colorado: 55
            Arizona State: 58
            Washington State: 68
            Iowa State: 79
            Nebraska: 82
            Oregon State: 83
            Kansas: 98
            Indiana: 104
            Kansas State: 109
            Oklahoma: 125
            Oregon: 144

            As for UT playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times, that would not occur much in football. ESPN and Fox are not going to put Texas in the 10:30pm eastern time slot too often – that would be stupid. But in sports like basketball, yes, the weekday games in CA and the northwest would be at 9pm central. But those would be over by 11pm – so not sure how undesirable that is. BTW, focusing on this is thinking like a “fan”.

            It is not “thinking like a fan,” because members of the UT administration have cited this as an issue in various interviews, so apparently they care about it. Football drives re-alignment decisions, but the times of football games are no advantage in the Pac-12. If it were, I agree that football would probably win. But with game times being a neutral issue for football, the detriment for other sports becomes a consideration.

            I imagine, for a Texan, traveling to Seattle would beat going to Michigan.

            Now, that’s thinking like a fan (assuming that is even true—I don’t know).

            As for BYU being a “brainer”, I think we can agree that over the past 10 years the Big 12 has had the least brainy management of all the power conferences.

            We do agree on that, but there are many, and not just B12 management, to whom the purported “obviousness” of BYU is not entirely clear.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Redwood86,

            “I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW academically outrank every school in the BiG except Northwestern and Michigan.”

            By what metrics?

            https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/country/93/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only

            Times Higher Education World University rankings:

            3. Stanford
            13. Cal
            16. UCLA
            21. MI
            25. NW
            32. UW
            36. IL
            50. WI
            65. MN
            68. USC

            That’s 5 and 5 for the top 10 from the 2 conferences.

            75. PSU
            90. OSU
            99. MSU

            8 to 5 in favor of the B10 in the top 100.

            113. PU
            117. UMD
            123. RU
            127. CO

            11 to 6 in favor of the B10 in the top 50 in the US.

            “Colorado is a quality school, as apparently is Arizona now. ASU seems to be getting better and Utah is an up-and-comer. The only deadweights are Oregon, Oregon State, and WSU.”

            Rest of the P12:
            163. UA
            182. Utah
            189. ASU
            251-300. OrSU
            301-350. UO
            351-400. WSU

            “The BiG, OTOH, has mostly middle of the pack schools with a couple of notable laggards.”

            Rest of the B10:
            201-250. IN & IA
            301-350. NE

            What pack are they the middle of, exactly? 11 of the 14 members are ahead of “quality school” Colorado. 13 of 14 are ahead of the P12’s 3 deadweight members.

            “The academic quality of the BiG may be more consistent (i.e. – more evenly distributed around the median), but it may be a real stretch to say that it is higher than the Pac-12.”

            13 of 14 are AAU members. 11 of 14 make the top 50 in the US versus 6 of 12 for the P12.

            Granted, Times HE isn’t the only ranking system. Let’s look at ARWU.

            http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015.html

            2. Stanford
            4. Cal
            12. UCLA
            15. UW
            22. MI
            24. WI
            27. NW
            29. IL
            30. MN
            34. CO

            Again it’s an even split in the top 10.

            43. UMD
            49. USC
            60. PSU
            61. PU
            64. RU
            67. OSU
            90. UA
            93. ASU & Utah
            99. MSU

            11 of 14 B10 schools make the top 50 in the US (also top 100 in the world) versus 9 of 12 P12 schools, very comparable.

            Rest of the P12:
            151-200. OrSU
            301-400. UO & WSU

            Rest of the B10:
            101-150. IN
            151-200. IA
            201-300. NE

            Still an edge at the bottom for the B10.

            “As for UT playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times, that would not occur much in football. ESPN and Fox are not going to put Texas in the 10:30pm eastern time slot too often – that would be stupid.”

            UA and ASU only play night home games for much of the season due to the heat. Besides, the networks would like to draw better ratings in the late slots. They will put UT there some just like they do USC. In 2015 USC had 3 regular season games start at 9pm ET or later and another at 8:55pm. 2 of those started at 10:30pm or later.

            “But in sports like basketball, yes, the weekday games in CA and the northwest would be at 9pm central. But those would be over by 11pm – so not sure how undesirable that is. BTW, focusing on this is thinking like a “fan”.”

            Actually, presidents worry about players getting back to campus really late when they have classes the next day.

            “It is not thinking like a fan to say that Texans, from the very top to the very bottom, would probably prefer to travel to Arizona, California, and Colorado (which is where many Texans have 2nd homes) than to Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Jersey, and Maryland. And I imagine, for a Texan, traveling to Seattle would beat going to Michigan.”

            UT is over 90% in-state students. The most non-residents come from CA, but #2 is IL.

            http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/student-life/diversity/#

            CA – 98
            IL – 64
            NJ – 28
            CO – 27
            OH – 17
            AZ, MD – 15
            PA – 14
            MI, WA – 7
            MN – 5
            OR – 4
            IN, WI – 3
            IA – 2
            NE, UT – 1

            So the school is pulling from both regions about equally. As to where the alumni live, that’s harder to find out. Perhaps bullet can provide more info.

            “Finally, things have changed a lot since 2010. The Pac-12 now almost certainly recognizes that it really needs Texas in its conference. Sharing of 3rd-tier revenue is undoubtedly a big issue. But, excessive intransigence risks jeopardizing the conference’s standing over time.”

            It’s hard to predict what presidents will do sometimes.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Redwood86,

            “Another point on Texas: I suspect there are many more Texas alums in Pac-12 territories than in BiG territories – which is a consideration.”

            It is a consideration, but that’s hard information hard to find online usually. Perhaps a UT alumnus can pass on that info. I’m sure CA has a lot in part because it’s so big and has nice weather. What I’ve found online seems to show that the next state is NY, so I think UT alumni go everywhere.

            “As for BYU being a “brainer”, I think we can agree that over the past 10 years the Big 12 has had the least brainy management of all the power conferences.”

            That doesn’t make you right and them wrong. They spent more time looking at more data and thinking like presidents than you have.

            Like

  57. Brian says:

    Frank tweeted several links of interest here.

    http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-continues-support-for-big-12-expansion-with-g5-teams.html

    This is an opinion piece arguing that Fox is still supporting B12 expansion. Unfortunately many people seem to be taking it as factual reporting.

    http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansion-tv-contract-espn-fox-1957715979.html

    In contrast, Andy Staples reports that both networks are fighting this.

    For the networks, this will not stand. Their opening salvo came Monday in the form of a story by John Ourand and Michael Smith in The Sports Business Journal. Based on conversations with people on various sides of the deal, that stance has not changed. In fact, the longer the Big 12 goes without explaining or clarifying its expansion intentions, the more the networks will dig in. ESPN and Fox are different companies and have different styles of doing business. ESPN, perhaps because it has many avenues with which to negotiate with the Big 12 (the Sugar Bowl contract, deals with leagues the Big 12 might poach from, the corporate partner program) has taken a slightly softer tone. Fox, which doesn’t have as many deals to leverage in a negotiation, has taken the more aggressive tone. Regardless of their differences, executives at both networks feel the Big 12 is violating the spirit of the original deal.

    http://www.campusrush.com/aac-big-12-expansion-new-media-tv-deal-1956747135.html

    Meanwhile, Pete Thamel looks at how new media companies might be very important to the B12 and AAC in the near future.

    It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Big 12’s long-term plans are predicated on cashing in from alternative broadcast sources, which could include Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Netflix or some broadcast medium that’s yet to have been invented.

    In a fitting twist, the appetite of those non-traditional broadcasters will best be gauged by none other than the AAC. The AAC’s television deals expire in 2019, which means that it will get a chance to be a guinea pig for bringing so-called “new media” to the table. “Anyone with eyes can tell that the big Internet companies—I wouldn’t even call them new media, they’re not anymore—are going to be bigger players,” AAC commissioner Mike Aresco told SI.com on Tuesday. “There’s no question. TV is TV and media is media. You can watch a game on a pie plate.”

    Aresco said that the league is in talks with Amazon to broadcast some of its women’s basketball and non-revenue sports as soon as this year. Amazon has more than 50 million subscribers to its Prime Video service. While nothing is finalized, that offers a small window into a new world.

    All 3 pieces are worth reading, but I don’t put a lot of stock in the first opinion piece since prominent reporters are saying the opposite.

    Like

  58. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/17208637/district-attorney-asks-baylor-bears-pepper-hamilton-investigation-access

    The DA in Waco has asked Baylor for full access to the entire Pepper Hamilton investigation.

    Sources told ESPN that the DA’s office has relayed an informal request to Baylor officials for access to the information from the Pepper Hamilton investigation. The DA’s office is seeking to determine if the findings contain evidence of additional crimes by student-athletes, sources said.

    Prosecutors also want to know if there is evidence of criminal conduct by Baylor coaches, faculty or staff in connection with sexual assaults by students.

    Like

  59. bullet says:

    Good article on the status of Big 12 expansion from Dallas, where they talked to “5 school and industry sources”:

    http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/08/03/houston-cincinnati-among-schools-vying-big-12-bid-espn-fox-thrilled-expansion-talks

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Good read, but if you want cliff notes:
      2 or 4 almost certain
      maybe by 9/1, but good chance of slipping to October
      UH/Cincinnati/BYU top 3 but nobody has 8 votes
      CSU/UConn/Memphis/UCF clustered for #4
      Fox and ESPN probably posturing as Fox probably wants expansion

      And as for the wishful thinking from all contenders not named Houston and the skepticism from a lot of people around the country and in Big 12 territory in defiance of all common sense, Texas is strongly supporting Houston.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The lack of common sense I’m referring to is the denial that the governor might have actually meant what he said.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Not the Gov so much – that makes some sense. My curiosity is with UT supporting. Trying to rebuild the SWC? Cause that was so much fun? (Maybe Rice has hope)

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            My curiosity is with UT supporting. Trying to rebuild the SWC?

            Doesn’t the Governor have a number of his own hand-picked people on the UT board?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Over time he has all 9. So basically the UT and TT presidents are effectively his employees. But more important is that he has influence over the budget. If he really means what he says (and there is no reason to believe he doesn’t) and gets backed by the Lt. Governor (who is a UH alum), then presidents would be very wise to cooperate.

            Even if somebody else got brought in on an 8-2 vote, there could be negative repercussions on UT and TT from some of the legislature. UH has a substantial presence there.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Even if UT really had a choice, there are a lot of reasons for choosing UH. They get universally dissed both within and without the Big 12 footprint, which I find pretty interesting. They are in Big 12 territory already. And they don’t draw well. But you have to consider the other options-UConn, USF, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, Colorado St. and BYU. All but BYU fail to draw well.

            1. Houston has a history of success. They have been ranked 184 times in the AP poll. That is 2nd behind BYU among the contenders and more than all the rest combined. They have finished in the final top 10 7 times. That is more than all the other contenders combined including BYU. Its also more often than every Big 12 member but UT, OU and TCU. They have 5 final 4s. Only Cincinnati with 6 has more. UConn has hardware but has only been there 5 times. Only Kansas, of course, and Oklahoma St., who has 6, have more among current members. Houston has had success in other sports and does have 16 NCAA championships in golf. Other than UConn and BYU, I doubt any of the others have any in any sport.

            2. Presence. Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC teams are playing neutral site games in Houston (and Dallas). Being there improves your visibility for recruiting and connecting with alumni (see Big 10 and Rutgers). Houston is a big base for Big 12 alumni and its the nation’s 4th largest city and 5th largest metro (DFW #4).

            3. Home crowds. Other than BYU and perhaps Cincinnati for WVU only, the other contenders would generate negative interest in Big 12 stadiums. Houston has a chance to re-kindle rivalries and generate interest in the 6 southern schools. UH was, for a time, UT’s 2nd biggest rival. Also see #1. Good opponents generate interest.

            4. TV ratings. We don’t have the detailed TV analysis. We don’t know what it showed. It probably showed BYU #1 and the others close. But UH would have been near the top. We know in the AAC contract UH was the newest member and yet was one of the 4 “Class A” members along with 10 year members, UConn & Cincinnati as well as Temple. Virtually all games are national now. There is too much emphasis on “new markets” and not enough on the impact nationally. UConn, USF and UCF haven’t even been in the top division 20 years. A lot of casual viewers probably don’t know they play football. Memphis and Colorado St. have generally been pretty bad at football (which is 80-85% of the revenue). 15 years ago, Cincinnati was no different than Memphis. In any event, UCF, USF, Memphis, and Cincinnati don’t own their market (pretty much the same for CSU) and are in smaller markets than Houston. UConn is in a relatively small state. Again, see #1. Good opponents generate interest.

            5. Academic reasons. From UT’s standpoint, a better, more attractive UH relieves the considerable pressure on Texas to expand its enrollment beyond the 50,000 they have maintained for the last 35 years. UT thinks it can’t maintain quality with more students. A lot of really good students in Texas who can’t get into UT or A&M head out of state, sometimes to lesser schools than UH. Those kids and their parents complain to the legislature.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            I’m not anti-UH, but you’re really stretching some of these points.

            UH hasn’t been in a power conference since the SWC collapsed in 1996 and was only in the SWC for 25 years, so they’ve been out of a power conference almost as long as they were in one. UC was in the Big East/AAC for 8 seasons as a BCS conference and the AAC has been G5 for just 2 years. BYU is treated as a P5 team for scheduling purposes by multiple P5 conferences right now.

            “1. Houston has a history of success. They have been ranked 184 times in the AP poll. That is 2nd behind BYU among the contenders and more than all the rest combined.”

            UH has finished ranked in the final AP poll twice in the past 25 years and 5 times in the past 35 years. UC has finished ranked 4 times in the past 10 years and made 2 BCS bowls. BYU has finished ranked 8 times in the past 25 years and 14 in the past 35 including a national title.

            Even UConn and UCF managed BCS games. UH hasn’t seen a major bowl since 1984, the same time BYU was winning the national title.

            “They have finished in the final top 10 7 times.”

            But only once in the past 25 years and twice since the 70s.

            “That is more than all the other contenders combined including BYU.”

            It’s also ancient history. SMU used to be a power, too. So did MN. At some point the history loses it’s influence.

            “There is too much emphasis on “new markets” and not enough on the impact nationally.”

            Unless, of course, an expanded B12 tries to form a B12N in the future.

            “UConn, USF and UCF haven’t even been in the top division 20 years.”

            No, but two of them made BCS games while UH has been in G5.

            “15 years ago, Cincinnati was no different than Memphis.”

            15 years ago UC was a decent team in C-USA. 10 years ago they were in a BCS conference and preparing to win 10 games in 5 of the next 6 seasons and 9 in 7 of the next 8.

            “In any event, UCF, USF, Memphis, and Cincinnati don’t own their market (pretty much the same for CSU) and are in smaller markets than Houston.”

            But UH doesn’t own Houston either. The question is how many eyeballs do they add. The problem for UH is that many of their fans already watch the B12. That’s much less true for the others.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            What UH did in the SWC demonstrates what they can do in a major conference. UConn and USF didn’t do nearly as well when they were in the Big East. Neither did Cincinnati. Cincinnati spent 10 years in a BCS conference and only has been ranked 4 more weeks than UH was in CUSA in the last 20 years. Getting in a BCS bowl and getting ranked is a lot easier when you were in a BCS conference, especially the #6 BCS conference. UConn ended up 8-5 the year they got a BCS bowl.

            Anybody but BYU and Houston are a risk that they will flop. I think the evidence indicates that UConn, USF and UCF would be at best 10th in a 12 team Big 12 and quite possibly 12th. UConn and USF were bottom half in Big East (often bottom quarter) in a conference where West Virginia was the biggest power. UCF went winless only two years after a BCS bowl win.

            As for Cincinnati’s history, its rival Miami has spent more weeks ranked in the AP Poll despite being in the MAC. They also have more top 10 finishes (2 vs. 1).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            1/6th of the Houston market added is more than 100% of Memphis. Its more than 50% of Cincinnati and more than 1/3 of Orlando or Tampa. Houston doesn’t have to add as big a % in order to bring more local fans.

            There are roughly 16% more people in Texas and an 8% larger area than Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee combined. And its growing quicker. Those 5 states have 8 SEC teams. And 4 of those schools have won an MNC since the beginning of the BCS era. 6 P5 teams in Texas is not too many.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “What UH did in the SWC demonstrates what they can do in a major conference.”

            No, it demonstrates what they could do in a major conference back then. Things change. UH would be coming in as a G5 school and would be facing a very different landscape than in the 70s and 80s.

            “UConn and USF didn’t do nearly as well when they were in the Big East. Neither did Cincinnati.”

            I’m not pretending they did. But results from the 80s don’t carry much weight in today’s world.

            “Getting in a BCS bowl and getting ranked is a lot easier when you were in a BCS conference,”

            Yes, and UH spent 25 years in a power conference while the others didn’t. Perhaps you should modify your statements about how impressive UH’s performance is since they were the only ones to spend so long in a power conference.

            “Anybody but BYU and Houston are a risk that they will flop.”

            Everyone is a risk that they will flop. One or two bad hires and a program is derailed.

            “1/6th of the Houston market added is more than 100% of Memphis. Its more than 50% of Cincinnati and more than 1/3 of Orlando or Tampa. Houston doesn’t have to add as big a % in order to bring more local fans.”

            Yes, and that still doesn’t show that UH brings more new eyeballs. How much of the Houston market did the B12 already have? Of the remainder, how many will be brought in by adding UH?

            Like

  60. Mike says:

    Oh [Redacted]

    Like

  61. Kyle Peter says:

    8/1

    Follow

    jessicalarson
    ‏@sooner2016
    UT and OU are both talking to the B1G. OU is also talking with the Pac 12 – was stated on SiriusXM 84 this afternoon.
    ————————————————–
    Think it’d be great if UT pushing for more Texas school’s into the Big 12 would ease their departure to the B1G.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      My first question on reading such things, is always: does this person have a demonstrated track record of being right about conference realignment?

      Otherwise, it’s just another Bluevod or Dude of WV.

      Like

      • Kyle Peter says:

        Marc – I always think that also. I share posts/tweets based only on the conversation/topic. Not on if it is a legitimate source or not. As such she only states she heard the rumor, not who said it. Could be Joe Shmoe calling from the local Waffle House parking lot.

        Like

  62. Doug says:

    Texas to the B1G is the only move that Texas can make that can equal and/or better the move by TAMU to the SEC. There seems to be something fishy to me about Texas pushing for the inclusion of UH into the B12 – like, look we’re going to support UH’s inclusion into a bigger conference but you’d better not stand in our way when we move to the B1G.

    Liked by 2 people

  63. dirwin7 says:

    Texas to the B1G is the only end game that makes sense, it’s the only move Texas can make that’ll trump TAMU’s move to the SEC. Their support of UH into the B12 seems very fishy to me, like they’re cutting a deal to leave the B12 for the B1G, by getting UH into the door of the B12.

    Liked by 2 people

  64. dirwin7 says:

    The issue with Texas to the B1G is who comes with them?

    I speculate that, given the present situation, the presidents prefer in this order:

    1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
    2. Kansas (Better academics than OU)
    3. Oklahoma (Worse academics than KU)

    Fans prefer:

    1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
    2. Oklahoma (Better football than KU)
    3. Kansas (Better basketball than OU)

    So, is it either KU or OU?

    Texas likely wants to stay tied to OU, and they’re likely not going to move to the B1G with Kansas and not OU. Therefore, I think if the B1G wants Texas, they’re taking OU too. Also, Nebraska would like OU as well, they would also like Kansas, but they’d prefer OU over KU.

    Yes, the RRR could continue if Texas goes to the B1G and OU goes to the SEC, but it’s never the same unless you’re in the same conference, and much harder to schedule.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Brian says:

      dirwin7,

      “The issue with Texas to the B1G is who comes with them?

      I speculate that, given the present situation, the presidents prefer in this order:

      1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
      2. Kansas (Better academics than OU)
      3. Oklahoma (Worse academics than KU)

      Fans prefer:

      1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
      2. Oklahoma (Better football than KU)
      3. Kansas (Better basketball than OU)”

      I’m not sure the presidents would put KU ahead of OU. Yes they prefer KU’s academics (AAU member, slightly higher ranked) but expansion is also about money and OU brings much more of that. Add in NE favoring their old rivalry and a much needed infusion of power into the B10 West and it’s hard to favor KU. Maybe they go to 18 and add both OU and KU as well as an eastern school (UConn for even more hoops power?) if UT demands more than 1 partner.

      Besides, it may be more about what UT wants than what the B10 presidents prefer. Either OU is acceptable or they aren’t.

      “So, is it either KU or OU?”

      If they only bring one, then yes.

      “Texas likely wants to stay tied to OU, and they’re likely not going to move to the B1G with Kansas and not OU. Therefore, I think if the B1G wants Texas, they’re taking OU too.”

      That would be my guess. With 9 conference games, they don’t want the RRR locked on top of that.

      Like

      • Doug says:

        If the BIG did add UCONN it would also be another hockey team and give the conference an even number of teams.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          If the BIG did add UCONN it would also be another hockey team and give the conference an even number of teams.

          Although true, hockey will never be the reason any school gets a B10 invite. In addition, the Huskies are relatively new to Division I hockey (less than 20 years) and have an all-time losing record. They wouldn’t add much excitement—even to those who think hockey ought to figure in the decision.

          Like

  65. dirwin7 says:

    Think if you’re Texas – you were in the B12, a totally respectable conference that you ruled. It was never the best conference but it was good, you had yourself, OU, Kansas, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, these are all institutions that carry some weight. The rest of the league was…meh. Then all of a sudden you lose 4 of the top 7 schools in the league. What’s worse is that your biggest rival, TAMU, the school you’ve been having a biggest dick contest with since the beginning of time goes to the SEC and gloats about it (remember the SECede shirts?). Now you’re left in a conference with 3 top schools and a bunch of schools you feel you’re better than and Texas is becoming SEC territory because no one wants to watch Baylor (even though Baylor has been good) play Iowa State, they want to watch TAMU play Alabama.

    The only thing you can do to take back the glory and to take back attention to you, is to go to the B1G, where you’re back to playing Nebraska, where you can play OSU, Michigan, PSU, Michigan State, Wisconsin, maybe Oklahoma comes along for the ride too.

    The ACC doesn’t do it, and I don’t think the Pac12 does it for you either. Let’s face it, the ACC and P12 have some good football teams at the top, but they’re not die hard football conferences, and the fanbases really don’t care all that much.

    Liked by 2 people

    • wmtiger says:

      Pac 12 works but the $ is better in the B1G

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        @dirwin7 has a point: the Big Ten is the only move UT can make that tops the move A&M made. I just don’t know how much that figures in their decision.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Doubt $s are the deciding factor. Academics, location, and the ability to help TT. OU with the same helping ability re OkSU. There is, or at least was, only one place that would offer four for two.

        One power conf (P16) dominating near 1/3 of the U.S. population vs the other three sharing a bit over 2/3 might be more attractive than eastern centric media might think.

        Like

        • dirwin7 says:

          I really don’t think helping Texas Tech is what Texas cares about – that was the “Tech Problem”. But the Tech Problem is possibly why getting UH into the B12 helps Texas with. Think about it, if UH is added to the B12, now you have 5 schools in the State of TX in the B12, UT, TCU, Baylor, UH, and TT. When Texas had the Tech Problem you only had UT, Baylor, and TT. Now, if UH is added and UT wants to jump ship to the B1G, Tech doesn’t have the political pull it did before to stick with UT, because now there’s 4 other institutions that are trying to use their political pull to either go along with UT or keep UT in the B12. If UT decides to leave, and say that TT tries to play politics and go along with, now you’ve got TCU, UH, and Baylor saying “us too”. But they know that all 5 aren’t going, and the other three aren’t going to let TT go without them. So, what happens is they end up succeeding only in keeping TT with the other 3, letting UT go away.

          Having the 4 remaining schools, TCU, UH, TT, and Baylor in the same conference isn’t great but darn, it isn’t too shabby either. They can create/keep a conference together with honestly, pretty similar institutions such as Iowa State, KSU, OkSU, and WV (Kansas and OK are likely gone). And add in that if the B12 adds U Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU, your conference is listed below, it’s not a Power 5, but it’s not the AAC either, you can work with this:

          TCU
          UH
          TT
          Baylor
          U Cincinnati
          Memphis
          WV
          Iowa State
          KSU
          OkSU
          BYU
          South FL/U Cent. FL

          Liked by 1 person

          • ccrider55 says:

            I’m sure the PAC would swap KU for TT.

            You really think TT is going to vote for increasing the likelihood of being left behind (voting UH in)? TT’s only ticket out/up IF B12 dies is with UT. If we can see that so can they.

            Point is there was an offer (the only one logical) that took two Texas public schools. Two aren’t going the B1G or SEC. I suppose a twenty plus ACC might, but again only with UT.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “One power conf (P16) dominating near 1/3 of the U.S. population vs the other three sharing a bit over 2/3 might be more attractive than eastern centric media might think.”

          If they all cared equally about college sports that would hold more weight. But we all know that CFB fans are concentrated in certain regions more than others. It’s the number of CFB viewers that matters and the western population is relatively light on CFB fans.

          Like

    • Chet says:

      If you want to think like a university president, and not like a sports fan, then consider these facts:

      https://mup.asu.edu/Top-Universities

      Total Research x $1000:

      2012 : A&M = 669,968 / UT = 549,312
      2011 : A&M = 682,553 / UT = 558,377
      2010 : A&M = 666,516 / UT = 531,412
      2009 : A&M = 630,655 / UT = 506,369
      2008 : A&M = 582,365 / UT = 493,294

      Like

      • Chet says:

        Here are additional facts to consider:

        Total Research x $1000:

        2012 : Texas Tech = 105,147
        2011 : Texas Tech = Not Available
        2010 : Texas Tech = 106,220
        2009 : Texas Tech = Not Available
        2008 : Texas Tech = Not Available

        In other words, A&M has total research that is greater than UT & Texas Tech combined.

        Of course, the above total research for UT is for UT-Austin only and not the entire UT-system.

        Anyway, my point here is that UT and A&M are also academic rivals not only athletic rivals.

        Like

      • Mack says:

        UT concerned about A&M? UT put up those numbers without a medical school on its Austin campus. The research $$ of UT MD Anderson exceed UT-Austin and are almost equal to A&M. UT has 3 other health related campuses in the top 100 research universities. In any case, the Dell (good indication of funding source) College of Medicine is opening this year on the Austin campus. With the amount of $$ going to medical research, the UT Austin campus will be blowing past A&M research $$$ in future years.

        Like

      • Chet says:

        From the same link (*):

        https://mup.asu.edu/Top-Universities

        In the intense competition for national and international prestige, universities seek funds from multiple sources to improve their research productivity and performance. As we have demonstrated elsewhere in the work of The Center for Measuring University Performance (MUP Center), the essential element for academic research success is money. While it is possible for a rich university to perform poorly in the research competition, poor institutions are unable to provide the resources needed for their faculty and staff to deliver significant amounts of high quality research. The cost is high because almost everything research requires is expensive. This is especially so in the most important domains of science and engineering, the primary benchmarks for academic institutional prestige.

        Not only do science and engineering (S&E) projects require expensive space, elaborate equipment, and significant staff support, but faculty and other expert science and engineering personnel command high salaries and are often tempted by offers from competing institutions. Faculty mobility and the replacement of retiring colleagues generate additional costs as each new S&E faculty member comes with a requirement for extensive startup costs in equipment and laboratories along with salaries for new highly specialized non-faculty technicians, post-docs, and stipends for graduate students. Frequently, as well, a new distinguished hire will bring along additional tenure level faculty colleagues in allied fields who will have their own startup costs.

        Universities seek money for research from every possible source. Internal budgets from tuition and fees (and in public universities from state appropriations) provide core academic support and subsidize research expenses. In addition, donors, competitive federal grants, foundation grants, state government grants and contracts, local government projects, corporate contracts, and other grants or contracts from public or private agencies (domestic and international) all serve to sustain an institution’s research mission.

        This search for funding is particularly critical because few S&E or other research projects sponsored by outside agencies pay the full cost of producing the work. The difference between the sponsors’ funding and what the work costs to deliver must be covered from some other source, usually internal university funds from tuition and fees, state appropriations, earnings on endowment, and annual giving. While it may appear that increasing amounts of sponsored research is a good thing, generating more dollars to spend on research productivity and quality, the more sponsored research a university does the more internal funding is required to make up the difference between the sponsors’ funds and the full cost of the work.

        Increased scale in a university research enterprise, especially in S&E disciplines, however, does provide a significant benefit because the more research activity the university generates the more cost sharing is possible for administrative and especially regulatory support, infrastructure, and some equipment technicians. While many of these expenses are included in the indirect cost charged to grants, these payments generally cover only around 25% of the full cost.

        (*) Tracking Academic Research Funding: The Competitive Context for the Last Ten Years; Diane D. Craig and John V. Lombardi, The Center for Measuring University Performance; The Top American Research Universities, 2014 Annual Report.

        Like

  66. Whodoes says:

    Take BYU and Boise State for football only.
    Take Colorado State and Cincinnati for all sports.
    Take Wichita State and either Gonzaga or Dayton for non-football sports.

    Like

  67. houstontexasjack says:

    UT acquired good acreage just south of the 6-10 loop,not too far from the Texas Medical Center, for their research campus. UH responded by protesting UT’s access to the permanent university fund, a multi-billion dollar fund, and publicly sent a letter requesting the legislature grant UH access to that fund. Other UT satellite campuses, such as in the Rio Grande Valley and San Antonio were less-than-thrilled with the idea UT would be diverting its resources into the Houston area. Legislators in their areas gave quotes to papers and UH just might have had momentum to pull off stopping UT’s plans or, worst of all for UT, getting access to the PUF. As with the US’ agreement to withdraw Jupiter missiles from Turkey in the Cuban missile crisis, UH will not publicly say they are giving a quid pro quo to back off opposition to the campus and, more importantly, push to hack off a big portion of the PUF for UH’s use. However, 2017 is a legislative year in Texas (our legislature meets only in odd-numbered years) and UH just might quietly not have opposition to UT’s plans in its legislative priorities before the session kicks off. Helping get UH into the Big 12 has a lot of benefits for UT.

    Texas Tech’s support is a bit harder to pin down. One thought is that, with another state institution in the conference, Tech could better coordinate with UH to do some damage to the PUF if UT were to leave in the future. I am less familiar with Tech’s priorities at this point–I know they recently started a medical school in El Paso and may be looking to grow in that part of the state–but winning over Houston-area legislators with support wouldn’t hurt their interests.

    Like

  68. bob sykes says:

    The deciding factors might be Fox and ESPN. Ruthenberg at Enid News, OK, claims that the networks are balking at providing any new money if expansion occurs.

    http://www.enidnews.com/sports/local_sports/ruthenberg-throwing-cold-water-on-hot-big-expansion-talk/article_93859070-43b7-5cdd-a5ef-96c85ffeb02f.html

    They’re probably on solid ground. The contract was signed when the B12 had 12 teams, so an expansion back to twelve might not invoke the additional money clause. An expansion to 14 might only get additional money for two schools, not four. So, the B12 is looking at a dilution of the payments per school, and that should put the kibosh on expansion.

    Aside possibly for BYU, the other candidates don’t appear to bring any P5-like value to a P5 conference, which is a good enough reason not to expand. The B12 is in the position that its parts are worth more than the whole. Perhaps they should negotiate a parts sale to the other P5 conferences.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The deciding factors might be Fox and ESPN. Ruthenberg at Enid News, OK, claims that the networks are balking at providing any new money if expansion occurs.

      Actually, all he’s done is to cite a Sports Business Journal article that’s a week old. That article is entitled to some weight, but almost every conceivable permutation has been “reported” by someone. It’s hard to know who to believe.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      bob sykes,

      “The contract was signed when the B12 had 12 teams,”

      No, they signed a new deal with 10 members that included the GOR.

      Like

  69. Redwood86 says:

    I knew you guys might be missing something in this Big 12 expansion equation. It never has really stood to reason that if the Big 12 could easily make a pile of money by adding any old school that they would not have already done it.

    The key issue: does the contract directly link the amount of money paid to the number of teams in the conference, and is it clear that the networks have been ignoring such language to the Big 12’s benefit? If so, Big 12 is hosed.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Redwood86,

      “I knew you guys might be missing something in this Big 12 expansion equation.”

      Yes it’s us. And every single journalist covering the issue. And every source within the B12. We’re all wrong because you disagree.

      “It never has really stood to reason that if the Big 12 could easily make a pile of money by adding any old school that they would not have already done it.”

      1. The pile of money won’t be all that large per school.
      2. They have to agree the expansion would help the conference and not hurt it.
      3. They have to agree on specific schools to add.

      It took a lot of analysis to show that being smaller was hurting them in the playoff. This same group had several schools against a CCG despite the obvious windfall. Getting 8 of 10 schools to agree on something this important isn’t easy, especially with the expansion options available to them.

      “The key issue: does the contract directly link the amount of money paid to the number of teams in the conference,”

      Everyone says it has a pro rata clause. The deal was signed when they had 10 members. The lack of specificity of schools they could add was plausibly explained as well. The networks may feel this expansion violates the spirit of the deal, but it won’t violate the letter of the deal or the B12 wouldn’t do it.

      “and is it clear that the networks have been ignoring such language to the Big 12’s benefit? If so, Big 12 is hosed.”

      They signed a new deal when they were at 10 members. Nothing was being ignored.

      Like

  70. Mike says:

    Update from Blauds.

    https://tmgcollegesports.com/2016/08/05/big-12-focusing-on-adding-only-2-schools/

    According to sources familiar with the process, the Big 12 is now focusing on adding two–not four– schools .. And while multiple schools will receive consideration, the front runners appear to be BYU–but probably in a football only scenario–and either Connecticut or Cincinnati.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      Also:

      Left out of this equation are schools such as Houston, Memphis and UCF. Other schools mentioned such as Tulane, Boise State, Colorado State and USF were never considered front runners.

      None of this certain because the Big 12 has taken on the look of a political convention with back room deal being made as schools gather support.

      and

      Houston was considered a front runner with political support from the Texas governor’s office as well as the University of Texas administration. But there is very little support for the Cougars from the Big 12 schools north of the Red River. Houston needs 8 of 10 votes to get approval, which means it needs support from Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas or Kansas State. Right now, the votes are not there. which is why deals are being proposed.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      But we’ve also been told there is no interest in football-only members and that UH almost has to get in or UT will try to block expansion.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        That’s why this report makes no sense. There also has been some indication that OU was an early backer of UH (Dave Sittler’s articles). Sounds he is getting someone’s preferred result.

        I think a BYU football only combined with UConn for all sports is one of the lowest two team probabilities out there.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It reads like TMG Sports added Bluevod as a consultant.

      Like

  71. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17226092/woman-accusing-florida-gators-players-sexual-assault-boycotts-title-ix-hearing

    Why do schools have such problems dealing with sexual assault cases? How hard is it to find an unbiased judge/lawyer?

    A woman who accused Florida football players Antonio Callaway and Treon Harris of sexually assaulting her in December is boycotting a Title IX hearing because the university appointed a Gators football booster to adjudicate the case.

    The U.S Department of Education allows schools to establish their own structure for adjudicating Title IX complaints within certain guidelines and standards. The agency requires anyone involved in the grievance procedure to have adequate training in handling complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence — and to be unbiased. A letter the agency sent to colleges and universities in 2011 states, “a school’s investigation and hearing process cannot be equitable unless they are impartial. Therefore, any real or perceived conflicts of interest between the fact-finder or decision-maker and the parties should be disclosed.”

    Florida officials appointed attorney Jake Schickel to serve as a hearing officer. Schickel, a founding partner of a Jacksonville, Florida, law firm, has a bachelor’s degree in political science and law degree from Florida. He is also a past trustee of Florida’s Levin College of Law.

    A former track and field athlete at Florida, Schickel, 68, is a Scholarship Club donor to Florida Football Boosters, which requires annual contributions of $4,800 to $8,599, according to a 2014-15 Year In Review program published by the UF athletics department. According to the documents, Schickel is also a 3-Point Club donor to Florida basketball, which requires annual contributions of $2,000 to $4,999.

    “To be clear, this letter is not intended to cast any aspersions about Mr. Schickel’s character or his service to his alma mater,” Clune wrote in an Aug. 2 letter to Hass. “However, UF should never have asked him to serve as an objective reviewer and decision-maker on this matter when the claim has been brought against a star member of the very team for which both he and his law partners have provided considerable financial support.

    “Quite frankly, short of finding a relative of Mr. Calloway, I’m not sure how UF could have found someone with more conflicts [than] Mr. Schickel.”

    Brett Sokolow, executive director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, a nonprofit association for schools, colleges and universities, said if Florida is choosing someone with such deep ties to the athletic department and university, it opens up any potential decision to a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education or a Title IX lawsuit.

    “The obligation for a Title IX investigation is for it to be impartial and completed by somebody whose perspective is objective. All of those associations with the university certainly raise the issue of potential bias,” he said. “How would the alleged victim feel like she’s getting a fair shake?”

    “I’m not even sure it’s ethical under the state ethics rules for the attorney to take on this engagement, given his donations and other boosting of the athletic program,” he added.

    He said any such conflicts should have been disclosed to both sides of the Title IX complaint. Clune said the information was not disclosed and that his firm discovered it on its own.

    Like

  72. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2016-rio-olympics-by-college-team-conference-pac-12-dominates-representation/

    A look at the number of Olympians by school and by conference. This is where the conference of champions really shines.

    1. Cal — 50
    2. USC — 48
    3. Stanford — 43
    4. UCLA — 34
    T5. Florida — 30
    T5. Michigan — 30
    7. Texas A&M — 27
    8. Georgia — 26
    T9. Arizona State — 25
    T9. Texas — 25

    11. Penn State — 24
    T16. Indiana — 17
    19. Wisconsin — 16
    22. Ohio State — 14

    Pac-12 — 273: Cal – 50 | USC – 48 | Stanford – 43
    SEC — 206: Florida – 30 | Texas A&M – 27 | Georgia – 26
    Big Ten — 154: Michigan – 30 | Penn State – 24 | Indiana – 17
    ACC — 137: Florida State – 21 | Virginia – 18 | North Carolina – 17
    Big 12 — 100: Texas – 25 | Oklahoma – 8 | Kansas State – 8

    Like

    • SoCalBucky says:

      Yup, the PAC is huge in the non-rev summer Olympic sports. Kudos. Great athletes…..It also has 5-6 incredible academic institutions…..just wish the fans out here gave a sh*t….

      Do you a breakdown by conference for all Olympians (including the most recent winter games)? It’d be interesting to see how much ground the B1G makes up…..I’m sure a clear #2

      Like

  73. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/nebraska-football-braces-for-potential-end-of-program-defining-sellout-streak/

    Is NE’s sellout streak in jeopardy?

    The definition of what it means to be a Nebraska fans is slowly, inevitably changing. Financial, social and inevitable events have forced Huskers everywhere to consider the unthinkable.

    The streak of streaks is in danger of ending.

    Indicators are there: It’s becoming OK to miss a game. Attendance is down for the first time since 2011. OK, the decline is only 1,251 per game (1.3 percent), but it’s enough to raise Big Red flags for something other than touchdowns.

    There are actual TV commercials advertising tickets. Earlier this year, Huskers.com reportedly was selling 50-yard line seats (albeit at $400 a pop).

    In May, a Nebraska fundraiser told the Associated Press the streak almost ended last year on three different occasions. Jack Pierce said he had to call “friends of the program” to buy up tickets that had been returned by the opponent.

    To some, it’s a referendum on what it means to watch live sports these days. The game continues to thrive, but college football attendance is down overall for the fifth consecutive year.

    Clearly, the temptation to relax at home in a recliner with a beer not available a college stadium is more than a temptation. It’s a national trend.

    “The thing that concerns me most is the generational shift,” Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick said. “I suspect you’re seeing that more than anything else at Nebraska.

    “Forty-year season ticket holders are dying and their children don’t have the same passion, or they have more multi-faceted lives. For me, it’s less about the alternative ways of viewing the game than it is a decision not to view the game at all.”

    Simply put: The challenge for most ADs these days is to create the game-day feeling of the world’s largest living room.

    “What I find with a lot of the younger people I encounter,” Swarbrick said, “is they don’t want to dedicate four or five hours to anything. They’re always getting information. They’re always in motion.”

    “You’d be crazy not to be engaged in [fan amenities].”

    “We had to work like the devil to keep the streak going,” said former Nebraska AD Bill Byrne, who arrived from Oregon in 1992. “We were close to not selling it out. They had been worried for several years prior to that.”

    Shortly thereafter, Nebraska won three national championships in four years. Ticket demand wasn’t an issue. Ticket supply was. Nebraska claims to be the only Power Five program without competition from another Power Five or the NFL team in its state.

    Byrne inherited a streak built on winning with strong, ground-based football. Just like harvest time, it was nothing flashy. Starting with Devaney in 1962, the Huskers won at least nine games in 38 of the next 40 years. But since that 2001 season, Nebraska has gone through four coaches. It hasn’t won a conference title since 1999.

    That makes 2016 critical for more than sellout reasons. Second-year coach Mike Riley is coming off the program’s second losing season (6-7) since 1961.

    The answer to the angst may be as simple as Nebraska becoming a factor in the Big Ten West.

    Like

    • Mark says:

      Very interesting article. Nebraska is just far enough from Omaha to make the trip a pain and take up most of the day. With a lackluster team, few visiting fans from many Big 10 schools and many non-traditional, low profile games on the schedule, it makes sense.

      It won’t be easy – without a natural strong recruiting area and no games in Texas, Nebraska is destined to be prince instead of a king if they aren’t already.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        It won’t be easy – without a natural strong recruiting area and no games in Texas, Nebraska is destined to be prince instead of a king if they aren’t already.

        Nebraska has never had “a natural strong recruiting area,” and they never played regularly in Texas, aside from their comparatively brief stint in the B12.

        I do think the schedule is now working against them. In the Big 8, Nebraska played plenty of ho-hum games against Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, etc., but those at least were games with tradition. Most of Nebraska’s current opponents don’t have that, and a tilt against Purdue does not exactly set the pulse racing.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “I do think the schedule is now working against them. In the Big 8, Nebraska played plenty of ho-hum games against Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, etc., but those at least were games with tradition. Most of Nebraska’s current opponents don’t have that, and a tilt against Purdue does not exactly set the pulse racing.”

          NE is also caught in the same scheduling trap as MI. This year’s B10 home slate is IL, MN, PU and crossover UMD. In odd years they get WI, IA, NW, a king (OSU for now) and another crossover. If the sellout streak ends, it’ll likely be in an even year.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            It’s the Michigan problem—but worse, because of the general weakness of the West division. The years Michigan faces OSU and MSU on the road, they always have Penn State at home, and the crossovers are generally at least reasonable:

            Wisconsin, Illinois (2016)
            Wisconsin, Nebraska (2018)

            Other potential crossovers include Minnesota (Brown Jug rivalry), Northwestern (Chicago connection) and Iowa (generally a strong opponent). If Illinois or Purdue is on the schedule, generally they’ll make that the Homecoming game.

            Like

  74. Brian says:

    sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    The preseason Coaches Poll is out.

    1. AL
    2. Clemson
    3. OU
    4. FSU
    5. OSU
    6. LSU
    7. Stanford
    8. MI
    9. ND
    10. TN

    11. MSU
    MS
    UH
    TCU
    15. IA
    UGA
    USC
    UW
    OkSU
    UNC

    Baylor
    OR
    UL
    UCLA
    UF

    27. WI
    34. NW
    38. NE
    49. IN

    SEC (6) – 1, 6, 10, 12, 16, 25
    ACC (4) – 2, 4, 20, 23
    B10 (4) – 5, 8, 11, 15
    B12 (4) – 3, 14, 19, 21
    P12 (5) – 7, 17, 18, 22, 24
    Other – 9, 13

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Some analysis of the poll:

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/08/04/preseason-amway-coaches-poll-top-25-outlooks-for-the-season/88045302/

      Brief outlooks for each team.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/rankings/2016/08/04/amway-preseason-coaches-poll-college-football-playoff/87977056/

      What can the poll tell us about the playoff?

      * You don’t have to be top 5 but you want to be top 20
      * Half of the top 3 teams have made it over the past 2 years
      * It’s good to be #6 and bad to be #7

      http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/friday-five-most-overrated-teams-in-the-2016-preseason-coaches-poll/

      5 most overrated teams:
      1. TN
      2. UW
      3. LSU
      4. USC
      5. OSU

      His comments on OSU:
      This is a bit of a nitpick, but Ohio State begins the season ranked No. 5 in the Coaches Poll. Normally, this wouldn’t be a big deal. Ohio State is just one of those teams that begins every season near the top of the polls and usually in the top five. I actually believe Ohio State will win the Big Ten this season, which would likely place them in both the top five and the College Football Playoff. My only contention is that I’m not sure the Buckeyes should start this high considering all the talent the team lost off the roster.

      The Buckeyes should be in the top 10, but I’d like to seem the new guys prove it a bit more before I put them in the top five. Now, that said, I look at the teams ranked behind Ohio State, and I don’t see any team I believe should definitely be ranked ahead of the Buckeyes.

      I agree that OSU seems too high with so many new faces playing. OSU may become a top 5 team but they can’t be on day one. Losing to OU should fix that problem, though.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Another one:

        http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/gallery/preseason-coaches-poll-ranking-who-is-number-one-080416

        The 10 biggest errors in the poll:
        Overrated – AL, OU, Stanford, MSU
        Underrated – LSU, TN, IA, OkSU, UNC, Baylor

        Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        I don’t get too riled up about the preseason polls because many of the teams (particularly this year) have quick tests. tOSU is a good example. Maybe 5 is too high, but Oklahoma is week three. So, tOSU will either prove worthy of a top five ranking or prove to be over-rated.

        Personally (I am a cynic), I think there is also some rating hype involved in these rankings. tOSU might be too high, but the networks/media manufacture a top five match-up by putting tOSU at #5.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          This is the coaches poll so it’s hard to see how the media are manufacturing anything with this.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            This is the coaches poll so it’s hard to see how the media are manufacturing anything with this.

            Except…I’m not sure how thoughtfully a Pac-12 coach considers Tennessee. Maybe they rank the Volunteers high because they [or more likely, the SIDs actually filling out the poll] have heard that they’re “supposed to be good this year.”

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Except…I’m not sure how thoughtfully a Pac-12 coach considers Tennessee.”

            Not at all thoughtfully.

            “Maybe they rank the Volunteers high because they [or more likely, the SIDs actually filling out the poll] have heard that they’re “supposed to be good this year.””

            That’s entirely possible, but they aren’t doing it to engineer a top 5 match-up on ABC which is what he’s implying. And there are lots of non-TV media members hyping teams like TN. They don’t benefit from any one team outranking another. Most times it really is just innocent hype.

            Like

  75. Brian says:

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/mailbag-how-the-college-football-playoff-could-be-forced-to-add-four-more-teams-080416

    Stewart Mandel’s mailbag has some relevant questions:

    #1 is about playoff expansion.

    Will a playoff slate of FSU, Clemson and two SEC teams this year result in an eight-team playoff down the line, or does that scenario (all four playoff teams coming from two conferences) need to happen multiple times for an eight-team playoff to gather enough support?

    — Krishnendu Roy, Valdosta, Georgia

    First off, let’s acknowledge that preseason rankings rarely come to fruition. One or more of those four teams is going to wind up going 8-4 or worse, and somebody I don’t even have in my Top 25 is going to finish 11-1. And while we’ve always known there will be a day when the committee takes two teams from one conference, the possibility of them doing it twice in the same year is very remote given the emphasis placed on conference championships. The other Power 5 leagues would have to produce a bunch of 9-3 champions.

    But if it did happen, we’d see a level of backlash that would make even the BCS blush — ESPECIALLY if two of the four are LSU and Alabama.

    Within the sport, I sense less momentum for expanding the playoff today than I did two years ago. Four has gone very well so far. It feels right. It’s barely impacted the regular season. Eight, on the other hand, completely redefines the sport, likely requires a complete separation from the bowl system and, while inevitable, is not going to happen anytime soon. Initially, I said it would come halfway through the 12-year contract. I no longer see that as a possibility.

    But I’ve also long maintained that the driving impetus for playoff expansion will not be money or TV ratings like so many assume, but rather the inherent discomfort that comes with five conferences playing for four spots. Someone is always going to be the unlucky loser. The Big 12’s exclusion in 2014 has sent that conference into an existential crisis that’s still playing out today. The Pac-12 was much more accepting of last year’s result, but imagine the outcry from its fans if it happens two years in a row.

    So, if you’re one of those clamoring for this thing to go to eight – and for the record, I am most definitely not – you should root for the two-teams-from-one conference scenario to start occurring regularly. The more leagues that experience watching the playoff from the sideline, the more their collective angst will grow.

    I agree that 2 teams from 2 conferences is highly unlikely. They’d almost have to be from opposite divisions and not have played each other during the season. It would require a freak loss (weather, injury that has since healed, blown call, etc) preventing one of them from making the CCG and/or several 3-loss P5 conference champs. That said, he’s right that champs getting left out will probably be the driving force for going to 8 teams. Where he may be wrong is that the B12 could go away in 2025 just when the current playoff ends. There’s no need to expand it if there are only 4 power conferences because then any champ left out deserved to be left out.

    #2 is about B12 expansion.

    Here’s your weekly Big 12 expansion question. During the previous round, the Big 12 seemed to be a step behind the other major conferences. Do you think bruised egos in the Big 12 leadership might lead to the league being the first to jump to 16 teams? They have a wide selection of teams and could leave few good options for other leagues in this next round of musical chairs. I could see them expanding with Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU, UCF & USF.

    — Joshua Moran, Spring, Texas

    Bruised egos – or perhaps more accurately, wallet envy — are a big reason the Big 12 is even considering expansion. But given the SBJ report earlier this week that ESPN and FOX are pushing back against the Big 12 for trying to add perceived inferior programs, coupled with the general sense I have that the presidents may have a hard time agreeing on the same two schools, 16 seems very far-fetched. It would net the league more money but water down its product to the point where it might as well exist in some sort of new classification between Power 5 and Group of 5. It would feel desperate.

    Given the presidents’ impetus appears to be primarily a cash grab – milking those TV contracts for as much of that pro rata money as possible – I initially guessed the league would shoot for 14. With a couple weeks’ reflection, though, 12 now seems much more likely. Presumably you could get eight of 10 presidents to agree on two schools, perhaps Cincinnati and Houston. Plus, it does the least to alienate the league’s TV partners short of scrapping expansion altogether (which could still happen mind you), and it gives the best hope for a smooth integration of the newbies. The larger you go from there, the more scattershot the final product will become.

    Mandel sounds reasonable there. 12 is a decent compromise that gets them some money but isn’t too abusive of the TV contract. Going to 16 would be taking too big of a bite all at once I think as integrating 6 new schools would be chaos.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      And a few more relevant to things we’ve discussed here.

      Stewart, Can you please explain why the Big Ten is considered so much more valuable than the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12? Outside of two marquee football programs (Ohio State and Michigan), maybe three if you argue for Penn State or Nebraska, its “penetration” of the New York City (Rutgers) and DMV (Maryland) media markets, and huge alumni bases, I struggle to see how the Big Ten can be so much more valuable than those three conferences.

      — Dan Pellegrino, Chicago

      You mostly answered your own question, but conveniently, the AP’s all-time rankings released Tuesday also offers a pretty telling clue. The Big Ten claims three of the top six in Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska, and Penn State is in the Top 15. By contrast, the Big 12 (Texas and Oklahoma) and ACC (Florida State and Miami) have two schools ranked that high, the Pac-12 one (USC). All of those schools have enormous numbers of alumni and rabid national fan bases. Basically, it’s the stuff of TV executives’ dreams.

      I will say that the Big Ten is not quite as clear-cut the most desirable TV conference as it was roughly a decade ago. Post-ACC expansion, it no longer claims the largest population footprint, even if Rutgers and Maryland are included. And from a purely on-field standpoint, it’s hard to argue the SEC isn’t a more desirable product. The Big Ten and SEC will both be printing money for years to come, in large part because of their conference networks. It’s not like the other three aren’t doing well themselves, but there’s a clear gap between the two groups.

      Yes, outside of several hugely successful programs, large markets and gigantic alumni bases, why is the B10 so valuable? Mandel skipped over mentioning the strength of CFB fandom in the midwest compared to the west or east coasts as another reason if the questioner didn’t provide enough reasons.

      When comparing programs’ historical significance, what do you consider the modern era? When scholarships were limited (more parity)? The BCS? The end of the College Football Association? I have a great appreciation for history, but also have a hard time thinking of Navy, Minnesota and Syracuse as top-level programs despite their successes 50+ years ago.

      — Stephen Schott, location unknown

      Good question. Eventually, history will treat the start of the BCS (1998) as the beginning of a completely new era, much the way we now downplay national championships schools claim from prior to the AP poll (which began in 1936). Decades from now, it will seem completely archaic that the sport ever operated without an official championship game. But right now, that distinction still feels a little too fresh for those of us who grew up on the old bowl system.

      From a competitive standpoint, I would argue the “current” era of college football began in 1995 with the implementation of the 85-scholarship limit. That and several other major changes that took place around the same time – mass conference realignment and the advent of conference championship games; the implementation of overtime (’96); the first seeds of the spread-offense craze – all made the sport feel very different by the late ‘90s than it did just a decade earlier.

      Taking a broader view, most would agree that the sport’s “modern” era began when integration fully took hold. Obviously, that took place over the course of a couple of decades, not at a specific date, but the famous 1970 USC-Alabama game in Birmingham – when Sam “Bam” Cummingham and the Trojans’ all-black backfield embarrassed Bear Bryant’s all-white Tide — is widely seen as the milestone that prompted Alabama and the other remaining southern outliers to start recruiting black players.

      So again, it’s not as simple as, 1969 was the old era, 1970 the new era, but the larger social changes of the ‘60s directly impacted the transformation of college football.

      I think the best answer is to weight historical results because there is no clear cutoff. I’ll often use post-WWII since things were so screwy during the war and the game was very different in the early days. I also use 50 years as a rolling cutoff that seems reasonable (1966-2015). It includes a lot of history that older fans remember without being completely unrecognizable for modern fans. It’s also getting close to the end of integration in CFB. Jumping to 20 years or 1996 may be the right choice when discussing the current status of programs since it includes some history but is largely focused on what just happened, but I think it ignores some important history that is relevant to how programs develop and the reputations they have. For TV things I could see using 1984 as the end of the old era thanks to the Supreme Court.

      Now that the AP has released its own all-time rankings, I think it is time for you to update your 2012 Kings and Barons rankings and compare your current rankings to the AP’s all-time rankings.

      — Kris, Austin, Texas

      Well, I don’t really need to. The AP’s Top 13 programs are the exact same 13 that I dubbed the Kings of the sport.

      Sorry again, Georgia.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I would say sometime in the 60s would fit as the beginning of the modern era. 1968 would be my choice.

        There are a lot of things to argue for the 60s.
        1. Unlimited substitution was allowed in 1965.
        2. As you mention, integration was under way. First Black players in SWC and SEC were in 1965 at SMU and Kentucky.
        3. The Colts/Giants sudden death game in 1958 and founding of the AFL in 1960 brought pro football to a new height of popularity.
        4. Joe Namath’s 1965 400k contract with the Jets forever changed the dynamic between college and the pros.
        5. The baby boom combined with Vietnam lead to massive growth in the universities.

        As for 1968 specifically:
        1. Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue tied for the Big 10 title in 1967. It took Purdue another 30 years to win a title and Minnesota and Indiana still haven’t. Indiana went to the Rose Bowl and lost 10-3 to USC and OJ Simpson.
        2. Wyoming was invited to the Sugar Bowl after the 1967 season. It would be 40 years before another WAC team appeared.
        3. The 1967 final AP poll had Indiana, Wyoming, Oregon St. and Purdue in the top 10.
        4. The 1968 poll was 1. Ohio St., 2. Penn St., 3. Texas, 4. USC, 5. Notre Dame, 6. Arkansas, 7. Kansas, 8. Georgia, 9. Missouri, 10. Purdue, 11. Oklahoma, 12. Michigan, 13. Tennessee, 14. SMU, 15. Oregon St., 16. Auburn, 17. Alabama, 18. Houston, 19. LSU, 20. Ohio. That looks like something that would be much more likely to happen today as it is filled with traditional powers.
        5. From a practical matter, the AP poll started ranking the top 20 instead of only the top 10 as in 1962-1967.
        Also happens to be the first full season I personally remember as I only remember a few games from 67.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          You could also argue 1985, the year after BYU won its MNC. The powers have really dominated since then. And 1984 was when OU and UGA won the Supreme Court case that ended the NCAA monopoly on TV. And the Florida schools started becoming players.

          There’s a good argument for sometime between 1989 when FSU joined the ACC and 1996 when the Big 12 was formed as major realignment changed the game.

          Now 20 years down the road, they will probably talk about 1998, the start of the BCS era, 2010 the start of the second realignment era or 2014, the start of the playoff era. The latter two dates also correspond with the increase in nationally televised games, that seem to be breaking up some of the domination of the traditional powers.

          Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        If you’re defining the “modern era,” only two events stand out. The first was the rise of the NFL, which has meant that any good player automatically thinks of college football as a path to a potential pro payday. It’s hard to pin an exact date for when this transition happened, but @bullet’s #4 (Joe Namath’s NFL contract) is as good as any.

        The other was the 1984 Supreme Court decision, which ended the NCAA’s monopoly on televised football. This led most of the former independents to join conferences, and exacerbated the gulf between the haves and have-nots.

        A number of other suggestions don’t have the same weight, e.g., the introduction of overtime games. Although most fans prefer decisive game to ties, the sport wasn’t fundamentally altered because of it.

        You could also argue 1985, the year after BYU won its MNC. The powers have really dominated since then.

        The powers dominated before then, too. In the thirty seasons before BYU’s title, 27 titles were won by “the usual suspects” (teams everyone recognizes as kings or princes today). Minnesota, Syracuse, and Pitt are the only ringers in that list.

        Not to take anything away from BYU, but their title required a remarkable series of events to break their way. That could still happen today, but like any remarkable series of events, it remains unlikely. Every AP football NC, since the inception, was a team in one of today’s P5 conferences, except for BYU and Army’s two titles in the 1940s.

        A month or two ago, one of the football journalists posted an entirely serious article about how Houston could win the NC this year. Three things would need to happen:

        1) They need to go 12-0, including wins over Oklahoma and Louisville.
        2) Their victims need to have strong overall seasons, so that #1 is meaningful
        3) At least two P5 conferences need to crown weak champions.

        All of these are possible.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “If you’re defining the “modern era,” only two events stand out. The first was the rise of the NFL, which has meant that any good player automatically thinks of college football as a path to a potential pro payday. It’s hard to pin an exact date for when this transition happened, but @bullet’s #4 (Joe Namath’s NFL contract) is as good as any.

          The other was the 1984 Supreme Court decision, which ended the NCAA’s monopoly on televised football. This led most of the former independents to join conferences, and exacerbated the gulf between the haves and have-nots.

          A number of other suggestions don’t have the same weight, e.g., the introduction of overtime games. Although most fans prefer decisive game to ties, the sport wasn’t fundamentally altered because of it.”

          Those are events that impacted the world of CFB certainly, but to deny that events like integration were important to the game on the field is silly. That marked the end of an era for several northern schools. Or the I-A/I-AA split when former powers like the Ivies officially dropped to a lower level. Or the beginning of scholarship limitations that allowed for more parity since the kings couldn’t stockpile all the best players.

          Depending on what you’re talking about, the modern era might need different definitions.