This thread is the most perfect example why this site can't have nice things. We broke CF with the last megathread, and a number of posters are looking to break the site again...
***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
This. I think that we are in a unique position to completely destabilize the ACC/pick up the pieces should someone else do it. We have six spots to get the conference to sixteen. I think it's definitely a plus when we can approach potential ACC schools as a package and say, "Look, you will basically have your own division with lower travel costs, etc." While regionalism obviously doesn't mean much in expansion, I think it's just another card that Big XII can play and others (B1G, SEC, PAC-12) cannot. I'm not worried this time around, but I hate all this crap because I remember what it was like last time around and it isn't fun to be a Wake Forest fan right now.
I realize it is likely you have already considered this, but the thought on adding Louisville to the Big 12 was not about what FSU thought of UL, but what the state of North Carolina thought. A subtle difference (I admit maybe too subtle). UL was about breaking up the ACC, and the fastest way to do that is to make the state of North Carolina unstable. Clearly the powers of the ACC preferred UL, which gives some credence to UConn and Cincy not contributing as much in regards to stability.
I also disagree that it is certain UConn would have appeased FSU. Even prior to the recent movement caused by Maryland bolting, FSU has made it clear that they are not happy with the conference in regards to its lack of consideration to football (and how that leads them to being a 1 loss team not in the running for the NCG).
That is definitely a must read for several B12 expansionist loons in this thread, especially those foolishly pining for Louisville.
I'm not worried about the next decade.
I'm worried about what happens AFTER it. Once our GOR is up, who knows what the college landscape will look like. It wouldn't take much to believe another school would want to ditch, starting another domino effect.
Our conference leaders couldn't give a **** about long term stability, even if this current situation does achieve it. They got a great deal in the next decade, so they'll take it and revisit it again when they can. If there's a better deal out there, they're going to take it. Texas will always act in their own self interest, and Iowa State will always be one of the most vulnerable if any moves are made.
I don't think anyone out there believes the Pac-12, B1G, or SEC are going away now, in a decade, or in thirty years from now. Can you really say the same thing about the Big 12? My confidence is lacking.
I want whatever move guarantees Iowa State's long-term security. And I think that has little correlation to how much money we currently make with the big boys spreading the wealth.
I'm worried about what happens AFTER it. Once our GOR is up, who knows what the college landscape will look like. It wouldn't take much to believe another school would want to ditch, starting another domino effect.
Our conference leaders couldn't give a **** about long term stability, even if this current situation does achieve it. They got a great deal in the next decade, so they'll take it and revisit it again when they can. If there's a better deal out there, they're going to take it. Texas will always act in their own self interest, and Iowa State will always be one of the most vulnerable if any moves are made.
I don't think anyone out there believes the Pac-12, B1G, or SEC are going away now, in a decade, or in thirty years from now. Can you really say the same thing about the Big 12? My confidence is lacking.
I want whatever move guarantees Iowa State's long-term security. And I think that has little correlation to how much money we currently make with the big boys spreading the wealth.
If I were a Cyclone fan, I would be a little bit worried. I wouldn't be overly-concerned but it would make me a little uneasy. Heck I'm a Jayhawk fan and it makes me a little concerned. I would absolutely like KU to be in the Big Ten but it wouldn't make me feel good about what that move may do to KSU and ISU. Those are the only two other teams in the league I feel any loyalty to whatsoever.
If the Big Ten were to ever invite KU they will say yes and that would probably signal the end of the Big 12 IMO. At some point it is no longer worth it for OU and UT to stay in this league/rebuild it. It has sustained 4 defections and I'm not sure it can survive 5. The reason being is that at that point it will be very difficult to add quality programs. No ACC team will leave at that point even if the money looks good because this conference looks toxic again. The Big 12 may be at high risk of dissolving because there may not be good enough choices to replace Kansas for OU/UT.
I'd be worried that OU/UT may no longer be willing to stay if they have to replace Kansas with another Big East/Conference USA member. I think it's likely at that point they just decide to revive the Pac talk and finally make the move knowing the best they can get to replace KU is Cincinnati/Memphis/USF etc. since no one from the other BCS league's will join the Big 12. The grant of rights are good and all, but just one team leaving could be the catalyst for the Pac to pounce on Texoma and render them useless.
If the Big 10 were to ever invite ISU they will say yes and that would probably signal the end of the Big 12 IMO. At point it is no longer worth it for OU and UT to stay in this league/rebuild it. It has sustained 4 defections and I'm not sure it can survive 5. The reason being is that at that point it will be very difficult to add quality programs. No ACC team will leave at that point even if the money looks good because this conference looks toxic again.
There is no reason for a Cyclone fan to worry about that. KU is getting the same offer from the Big 10 offer as ISU. When UT or OU decide they have lived with the GoR long enough, they will be the free-agents, not KU, not ISU.
That article does not refute a majority of the expansionist platform. Few are arguing that in the next decade the Big 12 will not survive while being the 3rd or 4th conference by influence and revenue per program. However, riding out the GoR as other conferences employ expansion based on a superior 3T revenue model is not stability.
+1
The only way I see KU leaving voluntarily is if there emerges a 'meh, who cares about football anyway' conference. I haven't heard all the details, but I've been hearing Dan Patrick make references to his take on superconferences and leaving the NCAA as resulting in 3 football superconferences and 1 basketball.
Not saying I buy into that, but to me, that's the only possible way that KU leaves...they find something to replace the money and stop the..."well sure, they're awesome in basketball, but sunuvabich, that football team, and everyone knows football is the moneymaker" treatment.
Saying CF's thoughts on expansion should be cause for the Big 12 to act has more validity than suggesting the Big 12 should act based on something said by Kevin Harlan.
I keep reading "long term stability" in this thread. What gets us long term stability? It obviously isn't the number of teams. We had 12 already. The ACC has (had, will have) 14. So, a conference network, then? Isn't the ACC working on that? So what brings long term stability? Money. If the money is good, the conference is stable. Number of teams, networks, regional footprints, traditional rivalries don't create stability if there is less money.
Find me a team that left a conference for one that paid them less money. If 10 teams gets us (the B12) paid as well as projections, we are as stable as any. If that happens, the GOR will be renewed. And we are fine.
Find me a team that left a conference for one that paid them less money. If 10 teams gets us (the B12) paid as well as projections, we are as stable as any. If that happens, the GOR will be renewed. And we are fine.
I still haven't heard anyone saying Kansas is gone mention the GOR. I said it before, but the GOR are strong because you're not going to challenge it unless you leave the league first. Even Texas would be hard pressed to leave and be in limbo until a court ruled on the TV rights. This isn't about money, its about whether another conference wants you without your home football games to televise.
The reason we went from 6 yr GOR to 13 yr GOR is to 1) show the strength of the conference, 2) protect from all urgently wanting to sign it again each year with the risk of one team refusing to do so. I believe it's a countdown of thirteen years and not automatically reupped to thirteen annually.... So I guess in three years everyone will want to sign a three year extension....????.... To keep everyone over ten...
it maybe a question for TuxedoYoda or Dudeofwv..... They are the experts.....
edit
it maybe a question for TuxedoYoda or Dudeofwv..... They are the experts.....
edit
Neither KU or ISU, or even Texas could afford to go to the Big 10 right now due to the amount of money they would lose.
The Big 10 is also not going to poach from a league with a grant of rights, because, wait for it, they have one too.
The Big 10 is also not going to poach from a league with a grant of rights, because, wait for it, they have one too.
IMO Oklahoma and Texas are pretty well satisfied with the Big 12. Texas has their own TV network. And the two schools are in a position to win the conference and compete for the national title every year. Travel within the conference is reasonable for all sports. And there is no doubt that they are the premier schools in the conference. If they go to another conference then there is the inevitable power struggle over WHICH schools will wield the power within that conference. Go to the SEC and they can do battle with Alabama, LSU and quite possibly not be the premier power player in that conference. Go to the Big 10 and they give up their 3rd tier rights and the ownership of their own network. Pac 12 would be more of the same, plus a loss of prestige.
The Big 12 is actually in a decent position. The Elites need the mediocre teams as well. And the money is very good. I see the Big 12 in a position that they would be able to pick off about any of the ACC teams they want if and when they choose to expand. Better off to collect the money and not split it. The Big East will soon not get an AQ bid to the BCS bowls. They are pretty much toast. And other than the expanding footprint to the East Coast I really do not see where the Big Ten added much in Rutgers and Maryland. Overall they overstated the perceived value of those 2 programs. There could have been much better options. The Big Ten has committed themselves to complete football mediocrity and has conceded that the SEC and Big 12 will be the elite football conferences. The alliance of the Big 12 and SEC for their Bowl game is evidence of that.
The Big 12 is actually in a decent position. The Elites need the mediocre teams as well. And the money is very good. I see the Big 12 in a position that they would be able to pick off about any of the ACC teams they want if and when they choose to expand. Better off to collect the money and not split it. The Big East will soon not get an AQ bid to the BCS bowls. They are pretty much toast. And other than the expanding footprint to the East Coast I really do not see where the Big Ten added much in Rutgers and Maryland. Overall they overstated the perceived value of those 2 programs. There could have been much better options. The Big Ten has committed themselves to complete football mediocrity and has conceded that the SEC and Big 12 will be the elite football conferences. The alliance of the Big 12 and SEC for their Bowl game is evidence of that.
Threads like this prove why Mizzou went to the SEC while their President and AD were opposed.
Reactionary, obssessed, defeatist fans.
Reactionary, obssessed, defeatist fans.
- Status