*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
Neinas needs replaced with a permanent commissioner who wants a conference championship as soon as possible if the article is correct and he doesn't want expansion.
I agree to an extent. Neinas is trusted by everyone, which is desperately needed, but so is 12 teams. Chuck needs to stay around just long enough to where everyone is comfortable and trusting of each other and then right before the tier 1 contract we need to expand to 12 and appoint a new commish.
Nienas and the presidents/ADs are pushing for expansion to 12 schools. One of them needs to be ND to make it worthwhile.
12 is a must for ISU and the conference. Several teams will end up with an additional loss. Will the Big 12 meet their bowl tie ins? Would Texas Tech have preferred to play ISU instead of say Tulane? I would like to see every Big 12 team play a BCS or BCS buster opponent every year if they get back to 4 non-conference games.
This is the plan IMO. I disagree with those who think we should go to 12 teams right now. As you said, wait till just before the Tier 1 contract.
I don't know why we would wait until the next contract negotiations, especially with all the new schools coming in at 50% payouts. I think it is much better long term for the conference to get the best schools now and go up to twelve for 2012 or 2013.
I've heard this a lot, and I understand why this is said, but don't you think the bidders on the next contract will notice and include in their bid the very real possiblity that they are bidding on less than what is in the Big 12 at that time? If they see the Big 12 was honestly working to get back to what the contract holder had bid on this go around they will be more confident that they will be treated in the spirit of the contract in the future. If you play the system to get every little cent now, you will pay for it later.
I concede the point may very well be moot, as I'm sure all contracts going forward will have detailed clauses covering expansion and contraction of the conferences and changes to the compensation based on those variables.
I agree with this and I don't think that you need ND to make it worthwhile. Go to 12 with an 8 game schedule and a championship game. Then make it a conference bylaw that all teams must schedule at least one BCS team in the nonconference. That gives the TV partners some decent matchups in exchange for the extra conference game. For the extra two teams, Louisville is a must. Then grab either BYU or USF.
Exactly. I think people on here have faulty assumptions that 12 team league = 8 conference games.
Pac 12 = 9 conf. games
Big 10 = 9 conf. games in 2017
ACC = going to 9 conf games
Big East will almost assuredly go to 9 conference games to squeeze out as much TV revenue as possible to remain competitive revenue wise with other BCS conferences
The only conference that says they're not going to 9 conference games is the SEC with 14 teams. They'll have 6 division games, 1 protected rivalry, and will play each of the remaining 6 teams at home once every 12 years.
I'd be really interested to see how much revenue difference there would be in going to 12 with Louisville and BYU as opposed to going to 12 with our 2 lost schools of A&M/Mizzou. I agree with Nienas that if you're going to expand that it has to be quality, but how much quality difference is there in someone like Louisville vs. someone like Illinois (just to throw a name out there).
Yeah, something is going on behind the scenes here. I don't know if it has to do with AQ status of a future big east, changes to the BCS system, or lawsuits of when teams change leagues, but this was supposed to be done by at least last week.
Sounds like Air Force might be getting cold feet, and they're trying to decide whether to substitute in San Diego State or BYU, or both and expand to 14 by inviting 9 teams.
I'm still not convinced that Mizzou makes it to the SEC next year.
- Status