Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

Status
Not open for further replies.
cyatheart said:
I think the Missouri quote was interesting and no one is talking about it because idiots like Boomer sit at home in their parents basement masturbating and tweeting all day. Mizzou chancellor mentioned there may be some legal issue that keeps the conference together and that even w/out OU there might be a big 12. I think that is new, and hints that in some way there will be a big 12.
Click to expand...

+1...I posted the link at like 7:30 this morning, it's been by far the biggest news of the day, and nobody talked about it on here all day except for like one person who reposted the link this afternoon.

Here is Mizzou's chancellor who is (was) on the Big 12 expansion committee and he sounds relatively optimistic about the Big 12 living on...even if we were down to 7 schools.

This guy knows a bunch of stuff that we don't know. He's really the only one that has talked in the last couple days to confirm anything other than the Andy Katz story yesterday. Either he's lying through his teeth too, or the Big 12 has a reasonable chance of survival.

Even the Mizzou reporter guy wrote this at the prospect of a 7 team Big 12 continuing on through expansion...

If you're a fan of the University of Missouri, you're hoping like hell today that Mizzou chancellor Brady Deaton is a liar. Or at least a man unwilling to publicly divulge the truth at a very delicate time.
Click to expand...

PowerMizzou.com - Powered Up: Honesty not the best policy

Here's my take on where we stand: I think that OU had a change of heart by some people in very late August. They said, let's try to force Texas' hand to the PAC16. If they don't come, then fine, we'll go back to the Big 12. But we like the PAC 16 option with Texas better than any Big 12 option if A&M or Notre Dame are not a part of it. I think that's why they hijacked the Big 12 expansion plans before asking all the other schools. I just don't see OU and Okla St to the PAC if all the other teams from the Big 12 plan on heading east or staying in the Big 12. I think if that's what happens they come back to the bargaining table and try to milk the Big 12 for all the money and concessions they can get.
 
oldwiseman said:
I think everyone needs to step back from the ledge. Take a deep breath and think rationally for just a little bit.

There haven't been any conference moves that didn't make sense up to this point. OU/OSU to the Pac 12 would be the first totally illogical move.

Colorado is a better fit in the Pac 12 than the Big 12. They were the only team outside of our timezone and they have more of a Pac 12 feel to them. Utah is a good fit as well. OU and OSU are not good fits geographically, academically, or culturally. I say that does not happen, no way. The Pac 12 teams have said they don't want OU/OSU. The commish who I admit, can't be trusted, says he doesn't want more expansion. I guarantee UofA and ASU don't want to play OU/OSU every season and I would bet no one wants to have to go through OU to make it to a national championship game. That move makes no sense for anyone. Forget TV revenue. That is overblown. Every single school, especially OU/OSU will incur increased travel costs and wear and tear on their student athletes. This effects a lot more than football and I know everyone is focusing on that, but it is NOT the only factor.

The Big XII has a built in AQ, built in TV contracts, and allows it's members to have their own network. There is no sweeter place to be for a school with a national following such as BYU, Notre Dame, OU, UT, etc. We have a TON to offer other schools that no other conference does.

Let's look at geography. Outside of TCU going to the Big East (which in my opinion was done only to add validity to the Big East as a football conference and from TCU's perspective, they would have preferred the Big 12 but just wanted an AQ conf.) there haven't been any conference moves that don't make geographical sense. I don't think these schools are so stupid that geography isn't a major factor. What did the B1G say? We won't expand to a state that isn't attached to an existing B1G state. There is a reason for this and it's the same reason that will keep FSU from joining the Big 12 or UT from joining the ACC. It just doesn't make any sense.

If we drop all of the emotion and look at what has happened, it really isn't much. CU and Utah to the Pac 12 which makes a lot of sense. NU to the B1G, also makes sense as does aTm to the SEC.

If OU and/or OSU go to the Pac 12 or UT goes to the ACC and some of the forgotten 5 join the Big East then people are truly nuts. No one wins in that scenario from any perspective. Student athletes lose, fans that want to see away games, university travel budgets increase, existing rivalries die, etc.

Once again, in my opinion, this is nothing more than media hype. The Big XII has too much to offer to die. MU coming out and saying there is a legal basis for the league to continue gives a stronger argument that it will not die. UT has said they want it to remain. T Boone saying it's not dead. ISU, KU, KSU, Baylor, MU all wanting it to exist.

The Big XII will be fine.
Click to expand...

Logical analysis, but when competitive egos get involved, I'm not convinced that logic prevails.

T Boone has also said that he thinks that OU and OSU will join the PAC and that the Big XII will be gone within five years.
 
mt85 said:
As fluid as this situation is, how can anyone assume that anything is likely?
Click to expand...
Where is the fluidity? Just a **** ton of rumors. I think everyone needs to read this article.

Need college football changed forever? Call your dentist - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com

On that last point, Congress might save us:
Congressional committee hearing chairman: So tell me Mr. Delany, how does Ohio State athletics achieve nonprofit status with revenues of more than $120 million, a 105,000-seat stadium and paying a former coach $2.5 million a year?
Delany: Well, sir, a large portion of that money goes to charity.
Chairman: Charity? What charity?
Delany: Well, er, uh, ahem, the Big Ten Network ... Foundation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't really get the whole B1G wouldn't add ISU because they already have Iowa. Maybe you guys are different, but they don't have all of Iowa. I sure as hell don't watch all the Iowa games.
 
RustShack said:
I don't really get the whole B1G wouldn't add ISU because they already have Iowa. Maybe you guys are different, but they don't have all of Iowa. I sure as hell don't watch all the Iowa games.
Click to expand...

But you are still paying for them to be on TV, even though you might not watch them. Because all of the cable providers(that I know of at least) carry the BTN. As far as TV money goes they have it locked up, although actual TV viewership may be different. As far as Big10 is concerned, they have Iowa locked up, because all of Iowa is in the television footprint already, even if they don't have the entire population of Iowa locked up.
 
F5cy said:
I know this thread is mostly FB related but all the realignment stuff is making me sad that the Big 12 tourney in KC may come to a permanent end.
Click to expand...
You are sad? We are all sad. We all will have been screwed by money football.
 
What I find funny is that OU thinks that they control whether the Big 12 will continue or not. They only have one vote to dissolve the conference. And if they go to the Pac xx, then Fox is not going to be able to just void the contract because the other schools could sue for conflict of interest. I think the other 7 will stick around and the Big 12 will add some additional schools. If UT decides to go, then we just get bigger exit fees. It takes SIX schools to dissolve the conference. Why would MU, KU, KSU, ISU and Baylor leave if they are the only ones left and could get $20M a piece especially if there best option is the Big East?
 
digZ said:
But you are still paying for them to be on TV, even though you might not watch them. Because all of the cable providers(that I know of at least) carry the BTN. As far as TV money goes they have it locked up, although actual TV viewership may be different. As far as Big10 is concerned, they have Iowa locked up, because all of Iowa is in the television footprint already, even if they don't have the entire population of Iowa locked up.
Click to expand...

Alright I gotcha. I just thought they had to have the views also.
 
cyman05 said:
+1...I posted the link at like 7:30 this morning, it's been by far the biggest news of the day, and nobody talked about it on here all day except for like one person who reposted the link this afternoon.

Here is Mizzou's chancellor who is (was) on the Big 12 expansion committee and he sounds relatively optimistic about the Big 12 living on...even if we were down to 7 schools.

This guy knows a bunch of stuff that we don't know. He's really the only one that has talked in the last couple days to confirm anything other than the Andy Katz story yesterday. Either he's lying through his teeth too, or the Big 12 has a reasonable chance of survival.

Even the Mizzou reporter guy wrote this at the prospect of a 7 team Big 12 continuing on through expansion...



PowerMizzou.com - Powered Up: Honesty not the best policy

Here's my take on where we stand: I think that OU had a change of heart by some people in very late August. They said, let's try to force Texas' hand to the PAC16. If they don't come, then fine, we'll go back to the Big 12. But we like the PAC 16 option with Texas better than any Big 12 option if A&M or Notre Dame are not a part of it. I think that's why they hijacked the Big 12 expansion plans before asking all the other schools. I just don't see OU and Okla St to the PAC if all the other teams from the Big 12 plan on heading east or staying in the Big 12. I think if that's what happens they come back to the bargaining table and try to milk the Big 12 for all the money and concessions they can get.
Click to expand...

That may have been their motive.

I really question whether the PAC would take OU/OSU without getting Texas as part of the deal. The population of the state of Oklahoma is not much bigger then Iowa and you are talking about two teams from that small footprint. The big prize is Texas from a market share perspective. Without Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if you would actually decrease the revenue per PAC member by adding both OU and OSU.
 
digZ said:
But you are still paying for them to be on TV, even though you might not watch them. Because all of the cable providers(that I know of at least) carry the BTN. As far as TV money goes they have it locked up, although actual TV viewership may be different. As far as Big10 is concerned, they have Iowa locked up, because all of Iowa is in the television footprint already, even if they don't have the entire population of Iowa locked up.
Click to expand...

Notre Dame will probably be on some Tier I games, so they actually would increase viewership even though they wouldn't increase TVs. But they would not expect ISU to have Tier I games.
 
colbycheese said:
I don't really think FSU is planning anything drastic. The word here in ACC country is that they formed a conference reallignment committee simply to make plans for several scenarios, should things "hit the fan".

Personally I think they're more likely to jump to the SEC than Virginia Tech, but my uneducated guess is that they don't jump ship. If you're goal is a national championship, why leave the ACC which is a sound conference with much fewer trap games on the way to the championship.[/QUOTE]
What are they? Men or mice? To be the best, you much beat the best.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wesley said:
You are sad? We are all sad. We all will have been screwed by money football.
Click to expand...


128673341995002235.jpg
 
RustShack said:
I don't really get the whole B1G wouldn't add ISU because they already have Iowa. Maybe you guys are different, but they don't have all of Iowa. I sure as hell don't watch all the Iowa games.
Click to expand...
If you have the BTN on your channel guide, they have you. Doesn't matter if you watch it or not, you are already paying for it.
 
rholtgraves said:
Why? They probably want Missouri and Kansas the most out of those three and Kansas would probably lobby to take K State. Adding both Kstate and Iowa state doesn't do much for them in terms of $ and that is what this is about. Kansas at least might pull in some of the KC market.
Click to expand...
They obviously have underestimated the executive skills of The Hoiberg and the catchy enthusiasm of CPR. I think our sports are for now on the rise.
 
UNIGuy4Cy said:
Where is the fluidity? Just a **** ton of rumors. I think everyone needs to read this article.

Need college football changed forever? Call your dentist - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com
Click to expand...


Good post...liked this link in the article

A&M, UT regents less-educated compared to boards of other large state university systems | The American Independent

Also liked this part......


The current upheaval is in the hands of those dentists and eye doctors and -- oh, here's a good one -- a Broadway and London theater producer.

Just a guess, but I'm betting Oklahoma's A. Max Weitzenhoffer cares a lot more about the West End than the end the Big 12.


It would be shocking if the first communication between Oklahoma and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott was a call from one of these state appointees.


"Kind of alarming when you think about it," said a Big 12 source close to the situation. "The future of college athletics is going to be altered by these volunteer board members who are dentists, convenience store operators and the like. That's amazing."

It's no longer about geographic or (puh-leaze) academic fits. You're either a market or a brand. Nebraska is a brand. Georgia Tech, rumored to be a hot property, brings along the Atlanta market to some enterprising raider.


Southern California, Texas and Michigan are both. Woe to Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State, which are neither. Good to know some university's future is being decided by a media consultant analyzing its Q rating.



The biggest frustration here is that no one seems to want to actually go through with it. Regents take note: Bevo isn't the only creature being led around by a ring in its nose. I talked to a Pac-12 source this week who told me there are at least eight conference presidents who are against expansion. The SEC presidents would have preferred to stand pat, but when Angelina Jolie, er, A&M knocks on your door you don't turn her/it away.

By 2012, the state of Texas could be home to schools in the Pac-12, SEC, Big East and Conference USA. That's not a football culture, that's an appetizer plate. Friday Night Lights being replaced by Saturday Afternoon Cable Listings.



There would be no center, anywhere. Silicon Valley would be as close to big-time football as Death Valley. The SEC's footprint would stomp the yard. The Pac-12 could be in ... Kansas. Nothing says Tobacco Road like Texas vs. Wake Forest.

This is what the dentist and eye doc are about to give us. Wonder if they know, or care.
 
LandThieves LandThieves



How the hell is Texas Athletics 225 million dollars in debt? Is Deloss Dodds wiping his *** with gold toliet paper? Thats embarassing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back