:sad: I really hoped they would go away this time and we'd replaced them with 3 BE schools and/or BYU.
*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
:sad: I really hoped they would go away this time and we'd replaced them with 3 BE schools and/or BYU.
I can absolutely buy into that line of thinking. Just like ESPN ponying up major money to UT for a Longhorn Network in a bid to cut off forseen competition of a greater Big 12 network at the pass. Fox would likely have the inside track on something like that--they developed the TV stuff for the B1G network. ESPN/ABC is carefully protecting their turf.
Interesting to see how it shakes out.
Yeah.. i think the power ESPN has in the sports world, especially college definitely would merit some investigation.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
Bill Snyder has joined the chorus of those calling for a 12-team Big 12.
Assuming that we decide on 12 (and Mizzou stays), does anyone support adding SMU and Houston and sewing this thing shut?
Pros
--Within geographic footprint, keeping all schools within a few hundred miles of the I-35 corridor
--Houston has decent football and some basketball clout (albeit historical), while SMU is on the uptick and brings quality academics
--They'd surely accept, could start play in 2012, and aren't in danger of being poached by the SEC/Big 10/PAC in the future
--It would set up a pretty neat divisional structure with 6 old Big 8 teams in the North and 6 old SWC teams in the South
--Minimizes Big 12's culpability in partially destroying the Big East
Cons
--No expansion into new television markets
--Worse football than WVU/Cincinnati/Louisville/BYU
--Much worse basketball than above schools
--Gives Big 12 little room for expansion in the future if the Big 10/ACC/SEC eventually gobble up the Big East remnants and become superconferneces
--Would probably receive more revenue than they'd generate
Basically, I think academics are a wash, so it comes down to whether the Big 12 prefers higher revenue and slightly better athletics to geographic proximity. I'm intrigued by the amazing basketball league the Big 12 could become with WVU/Cincinnati/Louisville/BYU, but I'd love to see the Big 12 buck the trend and say that, rather than being spread as far and thin as possible to optimize TV revenue, it's more important to have schools with similar cultures, similar commitments to athletics and academics, and that exist within 1,000 miles of each other where alumni are most concentrated.
Assuming that we decide on 12 (and Mizzou stays), does anyone support adding SMU and Houston and sewing this thing shut?
Pros
--Within geographic footprint, keeping all schools within a few hundred miles of the I-35 corridor
--Houston has decent football and some basketball clout (albeit historical), while SMU is on the uptick and brings quality academics
--They'd surely accept, could start play in 2012, and aren't in danger of being poached by the SEC/Big 10/PAC in the future
--It would set up a pretty neat divisional structure with 6 old Big 8 teams in the North and 6 old SWC teams in the South
--Minimizes Big 12's culpability in partially destroying the Big East
Cons
--No expansion into new television markets
--Worse football than WVU/Cincinnati/Louisville/BYU
--Much worse basketball than above schools
--Gives Big 12 little room for expansion in the future if the Big 10/ACC/SEC eventually gobble up the Big East remnants and become superconferneces
--Would probably receive more revenue than they'd generate
Basically, I think academics are a wash, so it comes down to whether the Big 12 prefers higher revenue and slightly better athletics to geographic proximity. I'm intrigued by the amazing basketball league the Big 12 could become with WVU/Cincinnati/Louisville/BYU, but I'd love to see the Big 12 buck the trend and say that, rather than being spread as far and thin as possible to optimize TV revenue, it's more important to have schools with similar cultures, similar commitments to athletics and academics, and that exist within 1,000 miles of each other where alumni are most concentrated.
I dont think so.
Seriously, this move would be beyond dumb. At 9 so we add 3 texas schools that just completely split the pot? No. At least some others would add new markets. And i dont see why anyone would want SMU. Theyre a tiny little school that was only good years ago because they cheated so hard the NCAA dropped the hammer on them. And itd be even worse to add them with TCU, we dont need 2 small private schools in the DFW area.
You can list about 10 other options that would be better than adding SMU\TCU\Houston.
I would add 2 if they can find two good ones (not SMU or Houston). I think it would be silly to worry about dividing the pot if, by doing so, it makes the conference stronger long term.
I thought my earlier post was still on this page otherwise I would have quoted it. Sorry about that:
Louisville and BYU make so much more sense and add a lot more to the total picture.
With an extra $20 million in TV money, Louisville would be a top10 athletic mudget and they have won a ton of championships in the BigEast. Geographically, they are okay and the obvious draw of the hoops addition makes them a no brainer over any Texas-based school. Louisville is an undervalued market from a marketability pespective - its superior to New Orleans from a media consumption and attention standpoint.
BYU is a nomad who desperately wants a seat at the BCS table and this is their best shot at it. They have a nice brand with a nice tradition in football and have all the Mormon eyeballs inaddition to a nice market in SLC. Geography is their big drawback.
Well yeah. Ive not been a fan of adding TCU, but ive said im fine with adding them as #12 if we add 2 other strong candidates (like Lville,WVU, BYU). Adding 3 from texas however would just be dumb.
The marquee matchups from adding Florida State would bring way more money than the 7 million in TV viewers from adding Mizzou.
People get too wrapped up in TV sets. If it was all about TV's, the Big 10 would never have added Nebraska. Marquee games are worth far more than additional TV sets.
The fact that ISU has been terrible in football and basketball over the past 6 years has far more to do with why we haven't gotten into the Big 10 than the fact that we don't add TV's.
Last edited:
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
The brightest side I can see to 3 more Texas teams is the chance to chant "SWC, SWC, SWC" at the end of games. That's the only thing I see that I can pretend is a bright side.
HoopsTournament
Well-Known Member
My post has nothing to do with TV sets. When this began a rumor came out (that I buy into) about SEC programs agreeing not to pursue programs in the footprint meaning UF wanted to keep FSU out, USC wanted to keep Clemson out and UGA wanted to keep GT out. I agree with you on Missouri and I think the SEC wants Virginia Tech as their 14th team which might be problematic due to VT's relationship to UVA.
Adding Clemson, GT, and FSU would make for a really awesome conference football-wise. It would be fun to watch a lot of those games. No chance it happens but it would get them to 16.
I've read about a gentleman's agreement keeping them and a few other schools out that share states with current members. Who knows...everyone has their sources. You can quote me now as the source on this.
Not necessarily. As much as it makes me nauseated to say it, they are a national brand. I was surprised to learn a few years ago that I could listen on the radio to every kNU football game up here in Minnesota. Why? Because there were enough Husker fans up here that they could and would contribute to subsidizing radio coverage on a local station.
TV sets don't necessarily just have to be in the state where the school is.
- Status