***Official Big 12 Expansion Thread '16***
- Thread starter cyclones500
- Start date
I'll give him a B- if he pulls it off. Swap out Colorado and Arkansas for USC - UCLA and he'll get the A grade.
You can fly if you try
ESPN just bought huge stake in streaming digital company..pretty vague but they are going to launch it soon with direct to consumer streaming service of games...could this be new Big 12 network?
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-r...sney-company-acquires-minority-stake-bamtech/
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-r...sney-company-acquires-minority-stake-bamtech/
Check out part of this article out by Barry Tramel from Oklahoma- makes a lot of great points: http://newsok.com/article/5513165
-------
Too many things don't jibe.
The Big 12 went from an expansion-is-dead stance to let's-grow-by-40-percent literally overnight. This is a conference that moves with all the speed of a glacier. Suddenly it goes all reactionary?
The Texas schools, particularly the University of, long has treated Houston U. as persona non grata, both from a practical and a personal standpoint. Now, the Longhorns and Texas Tech, from the president on down, are lovey-dovey with UH and the Texas governor, championing the Cougars' cause.
A league that has conducted its previous member searches in relative quiet — and seen other conferences do the same, at least the successful endeavors — suddenly grabs a bullhorn and invites any school with an English department to fill out an application.
A league whose very existence is owed to the benevolence of the networks, which didn't want the Big 12 to die back in summer 2010 and thus paid 12-team money for a 10-team league, suddenly declares war on its media partners?
A league that for six years has accurately said in private that the chief impediment to expansion is a lack of quality candidates, suddenly wants to add four? The Big 12 is acting like the guy who can't afford a $5,000 Vega, so he buys a $10,000 Impala.
1. Big 12 fathers know the league is doomed, and that come 2025 and the end of the grant of rights that has tethered the members together, schools will go the way of the wind. So take all the money you can get now, which means milk the networks for $100 million extra a year, to be divided mostly with the current members and not with the newcomers.
2. Big 12 fathers, alarmed at falling too far behind the Big Ten and the SEC in media payouts, are using their TV contract to extort more cash and/or concessions from ESPN and FOX.
The former is quite depressing and the latter quite dishonorable, but truthfully, both are in the wheelhouse of this dysfunctional conference.
The Big 12, upon formation, could have established financial equality. Instead, because of selfishness and a lack of vision, the Big 12 created classes with the conference, the 12 Musketeers they most definitely weren't, and eventually the league fractured.
The Big 12 could have been the first to establish a conference network. Instead, because of selfishness and a lack of vision, the Big 12 is the last major conference without a league network.
The Big 12 could have added Louisville and West Virginia five years ago, putting the conference on the threshold of the desired 12-school format. Instead, because of selfishness and a lack of vision, Louisville went to the ACC and the Big 12 has been scrambling ever since.
So it's conceivable that the current Big 12 ploy was hatched foolishly but realistically. Conceivable that Big 12 presidents just couldn't think of anything else to do.
But I vote for the poker. Commissioner Bob Bowlsby is a smart guy. He knows what he's doing, even if his conference often doesn't.
Some Big 12 schools don't want to add two schools and no Big 12 school wants to add four. No Big 12 administrator can be thrilled with any combination of prospective new members.
When Texas schools and Texas U. are flying the Houston flag, you know something is up. What might be up is a plan that gives the Texas schools relief from political pressure, with the faith that their partners to the north won't vote in UH. What might be happening is not an OU/Texas disagreement, but an OU/Texas conspiracy.
I say the Big 12 is playing poker. It doesn't want more members. It wants more money. Your call, ESPN and Fox.
-------
Too many things don't jibe.
The Big 12 went from an expansion-is-dead stance to let's-grow-by-40-percent literally overnight. This is a conference that moves with all the speed of a glacier. Suddenly it goes all reactionary?
The Texas schools, particularly the University of, long has treated Houston U. as persona non grata, both from a practical and a personal standpoint. Now, the Longhorns and Texas Tech, from the president on down, are lovey-dovey with UH and the Texas governor, championing the Cougars' cause.
A league that has conducted its previous member searches in relative quiet — and seen other conferences do the same, at least the successful endeavors — suddenly grabs a bullhorn and invites any school with an English department to fill out an application.
A league whose very existence is owed to the benevolence of the networks, which didn't want the Big 12 to die back in summer 2010 and thus paid 12-team money for a 10-team league, suddenly declares war on its media partners?
A league that for six years has accurately said in private that the chief impediment to expansion is a lack of quality candidates, suddenly wants to add four? The Big 12 is acting like the guy who can't afford a $5,000 Vega, so he buys a $10,000 Impala.
1. Big 12 fathers know the league is doomed, and that come 2025 and the end of the grant of rights that has tethered the members together, schools will go the way of the wind. So take all the money you can get now, which means milk the networks for $100 million extra a year, to be divided mostly with the current members and not with the newcomers.
2. Big 12 fathers, alarmed at falling too far behind the Big Ten and the SEC in media payouts, are using their TV contract to extort more cash and/or concessions from ESPN and FOX.
The former is quite depressing and the latter quite dishonorable, but truthfully, both are in the wheelhouse of this dysfunctional conference.
The Big 12, upon formation, could have established financial equality. Instead, because of selfishness and a lack of vision, the Big 12 created classes with the conference, the 12 Musketeers they most definitely weren't, and eventually the league fractured.
The Big 12 could have been the first to establish a conference network. Instead, because of selfishness and a lack of vision, the Big 12 is the last major conference without a league network.
The Big 12 could have added Louisville and West Virginia five years ago, putting the conference on the threshold of the desired 12-school format. Instead, because of selfishness and a lack of vision, Louisville went to the ACC and the Big 12 has been scrambling ever since.
So it's conceivable that the current Big 12 ploy was hatched foolishly but realistically. Conceivable that Big 12 presidents just couldn't think of anything else to do.
But I vote for the poker. Commissioner Bob Bowlsby is a smart guy. He knows what he's doing, even if his conference often doesn't.
Some Big 12 schools don't want to add two schools and no Big 12 school wants to add four. No Big 12 administrator can be thrilled with any combination of prospective new members.
When Texas schools and Texas U. are flying the Houston flag, you know something is up. What might be up is a plan that gives the Texas schools relief from political pressure, with the faith that their partners to the north won't vote in UH. What might be happening is not an OU/Texas disagreement, but an OU/Texas conspiracy.
I say the Big 12 is playing poker. It doesn't want more members. It wants more money. Your call, ESPN and Fox.
Arkansas would immediately be the #3 athletic department in the B12 and the Arizona schools would deliver Phoenix so that scenario would get you a solid A IMO.
Can someone explain this to me....It came from a Texas board..not sure how accurate it is:
Looks like UC is a lock with the voting blocks, and UCONN is ahead of us. I hope that with the added weight of ESPN, that nudges us in.
From Shaggy Bevo:
To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.
The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.
This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!
The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;
Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN
Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.
In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak
Looks like UC is a lock with the voting blocks, and UCONN is ahead of us. I hope that with the added weight of ESPN, that nudges us in.
From Shaggy Bevo:
To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.
The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.
This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!
The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;
Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN
Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.
In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak
My one complaint about this is how they set up the blocks. Why didn't they do five blocks with two schools each? Like Kansas schools, privates, ISU/WVU, T. Pubs, and Oklahomans?
I just think it's strange that the new members are in a block together when they probably don't want the same things.
Same with the tech, UT, and Baylor because in the past Baylor has been very pro expansion and the other two have been against it. Also rumor around the mill is Baylor is very against UH because they feel like UH will hurt their recruiting and they don't want to lift up another Texas program.
Last one about the blocks is OU apparently wants a strong academic school and you can maybe guess ISU and KU agree with that because they are AAU. Why do we want Memphis? some Oklahoma writer said OU was against Memphis a few days ago.
Well, conspiracy theory in me says that the blocks were formed to take power away from the dissenting schools by splitting them uo. ISU with OU, KSU with OSU, and Baylor with Texas. I hope this means that OU and Texas can't outvote ISU in the block and get expansion passed without GOR extensions even though there may be three schools that oppose it.
I can definitely see your concern. But unless I'm mistaken, isn't this just about expansion, not GOR?
My guess is ISU, KU and OU preliminary expansion choices were closely aligned. Strictly a guess, but I think the three can agree on UC-BYU-UCONN as the top 3 and each one had a different #4.
The other blocks were able to agree to their top 4 and compromise within the block as to the ranking within the block.
Just to be clear, I think the blocks were based upon the initial preferences and not assigned by the Big 12.
The cable companies aren't writing those checks. It's the networks, primarily ESPN/ABC and FOX.
After all the PAC rumors, I will be a little disappointed if we don't get any of them.
Several schools not named Texas and Oklahoma have tied Big 12 expansion to an extension of the GoR. Therefore, when you talk expansion, you also talk GoR extension.
Let's save that for when we make the Final Four and I'll join you followed by a polar plunge in to LaVerne.
I always enjoy reading other teams forums on expansion to see who their fan base thinks should join.
While on the UH scout they act like it will be 14 teams and it will be UH, Memphis, UConn, and Cincy.
I would be surprised if we left out BYU and I would 100% rather get some pac schools but it's just interesting seeing what other schools think.
Any thoughts on that block of schools?
While on the UH scout they act like it will be 14 teams and it will be UH, Memphis, UConn, and Cincy.
I would be surprised if we left out BYU and I would 100% rather get some pac schools but it's just interesting seeing what other schools think.
Any thoughts on that block of schools?
I agree except I'll probably streak down I-394 and purify myself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka.
I wouldn't. Now that the LGBT community has gotten involved, BYU is toxic. Adding BYU at this point would be like the Big 12 endorsing homophobia.
I've got my tinfoil hat on now. Let me go on record as saying I was previously a big proponent of BYU. Plenty of people weren't. The story may have been "encouraged" by Provo's enemies.
I still think this is cover for Texas - say lot of nice things about UH in public, so that in private you can dump them. Later you can say "Gee Whiz we sure tried to get you in buddy, but the rest of the conference just wouldn't have it".
This better not be some UT ploy like in the movie Carrie. If it is, there's no way I'm getting locked in the gym during prom when UH is voted prom queen.
Sure, I'll get drunk and possibly lucky if my date and I can find some private time and neither of us throws up. However, I'm not sure it's worth it to get assaulted by a high-pressure hose or crushed by some falling object.