Expansion

[Buckaineer]

From Barry
http://newsok.com/article/5472760


From Barry Tramel, who is a lot closer to the situation than you or me

"
WOULD OU BE INTERESTED IN THE BIG TEN AND VICE VERSA?

The Big Ten would love to add OU. But there’s a huge catch. The Big Ten only admits schools who are in the Association of American Universities. The AAU is a prestigious group of schools that was founded by 14 universities and now numbers 60. The organization’s goal is to develop institutional and national policies that promote strong academic research and scholarship. In other words, it’s a Superiority Complex Club. But it’s incredibly prestigious, and Boren has worked for years, long before conference realignment was a gleam in anyone’s eye, to get OU admitted to the AAU.

It’s difficult to see OU invited to the Big Ten without AAU membership. Nebraska was an AAU member when invited to the Big Ten but was recently voted out of the AAU because of some research issue I didn’t really understand.

If OU ever was invited to the Big Ten, the answer would almost surely be yes, even if the Big 12 was shining like the sun. Big Ten admission if an academic boon to any university, athletics completely aside.

http://newsok.com/article/5472760

Tramel's OPINION might matter if JIM DELANEY-commissioner of the Big Ten hadn't said this:

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany downplayed that Tuesday by saying: "I don't know about rankings in a magazine. I think AAU membership is an important part of who we are, an important aspect of what makes an institution a research institution that serves the public."

But Delany stopped short of saying it would be a requirement for entry — "I don't know what's mandatory because we are not there yet"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ten-expansion-commissioner-jim-delany-rutgers

That and the fact that the Big Ten investigated adding OU previously which would not, could not be if AAU status were the only consideration.

Nebraska's president after being kicked out of the AAU had this to say about Big Ten requirements:

"It's whether you fit the profile of the (AAU) ranking system," he said, "not whether you're a quality institution."

 

[Buckaineer]

If you want opinion's-here's one from a Rutgers (Big Ten member) paper:

Back in April, the Omaha World-Herald reported through its sources that the Big Ten Conference had done background homework on Oklahoma — in addition to Kansas and Vanderbilt. Oklahoma, while not a member of the AAU or a land-grant school, is a massive football brand and would instantly shore up the Big Ten's western reach, which grew with the Sooners' former Big 12 rival, Nebraska.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i..._expanding_report_hints_it_may_be_coming.html

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

If Oklahoma goes to the Big 10 at the end of the GOR, well good for them. The same sentiment goes to Notre Dame and any other school interested in a move.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

If you want opinion's-here's one from a Rutgers (Big Ten member) paper:

Back in April, the Omaha World-Herald reported through its sources that the Big Ten Conference had done background homework on Oklahoma — in addition to Kansas and Vanderbilt. Oklahoma, while not a member of the AAU or a land-grant school, is a massive football brand and would instantly shore up the Big Ten's western reach, which grew with the Sooners' former Big 12 rival, Nebraska.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i..._expanding_report_hints_it_may_be_coming.html

Yeah, but read the last two paragraphs. Oklahoma is not going anywhere until the GOR expires. BTW, SEC schools can leave anytime they choose. They have no GOR.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

But why in the world would an SEC team leave to go anywhere? Unless it was the prestigious Big 10!

 

[Buckaineer]

The important issue facing the BIG 12 isn't where OU might go--a power as they are has all the options out there. The issue is will the conference do what it takes to strengthen the conference so that OU has no desires to move elsewhere. Whether they would challenge the GOR is up for debate and Boren said as much.

No one wants them to have any interest in going elsewhere so again, hopefully things will be worked out long before 2025 and a comprehensive plan will be implemented.

If OU leaves WVU better be doing all it can to improve in every area because mass exodus is just around the corner.

Since OUs preference is to remain a member along with the other schools, they are highly likely going to complete a comprehensive improvement plan starting this February.

 

[Buckaineer]

But why in the world would an SEC team leave to go anywhere? Unless it was the prestigious Big 10!

SEC schools aren't leaving that conference.

The BIG 12s expansion options are all non P5 schools not under grants of rights agreements.

 

[WVUALLEN]

I have a question for the WVU fans on here. Would you like or dislike the two options above. Memphis and Cinci? I don't mind if the big 12 decides to go that rout. But I still don't mind it now either.

I would rather have Cincinnati and UCONN. Cincy would be a natural rival for WVU in the Big 12 and UCONN could bring more TV sets and possible Big 12 TV Channel. Remember UCONN is family to ESPN.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

SEC schools aren't leaving that conference.

The BIG 12s expansion options are all non P5 schools not under grants of rights agreements.

I agree, for the most part. But if Missouri were to receive an invitation to the Big 10, I believe the SEC would simply say, "Nice having you, good luck to you." There are less than 1 million cable subscribers in Missouri and they do not enhance the athletic side. It would be much like the Big 12 losing Iowa State or the ACC losing Wake Forest.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Academics does matter in conference realignment

'“OU is unlikely to become an AAU member, as it would have to at least double its current annual research expenditures from nationally competitive grants and currently has no National Academy of Sciences members (most AAU members have at least 10 NAS members and many have significantly more — none has fewer than five NAS members). '

'OU’s Big Ten hopes aren’t strong. I don’t see the Big Ten inviting a school that is not an AAU member. If it happens, great. And if the Big Ten were to relax its requirements, it would seem to do so only for Notre Dame.'

http://newsok.com/academics-matters...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I would rather have Cincinnati and UCONN. Cincy would be a natural rival for WVU in the Big 12 and UCONN could bring more TV sets and possible Big 12 TV Channel. Remember UCONN is family to ESPN.

Cincinnati has been frantically preparing to move somewhere. The greater Cincinnati area brings more cable subscribers than Ohio State. That's why it's the Cincinnati Reds and Bengals. But there is one more I haven't found that must be frantically preparing to upgrade their conference membership. Could you help me research this? Memphis, Houston, USF? Someone else that could be considered a proverbial 'sleeping giant'?

 

[Buckaineer]

I agree, for the most part. But if Missouri were to receive an invitation to the Big 10, I believe the SEC would simply say, "Nice having you, good luck to you." There are less than 1 million cable subscribers in Missouri and they do not enhance the athletic side. It would be much like the Big 12 losing Iowa State or the ACC losing Wake Forest.

Missouri has 2,251,740 TV households and 990,180 cable households.

Academics does matter in conference realignment

'“OU is unlikely to become an AAU member, as it would have to at least double its current annual research expenditures from nationally competitive grants and currently has no National Academy of Sciences members (most AAU members have at least 10 NAS members and many have significantly more — none has fewer than five NAS members). '

'OU’s Big Ten hopes aren’t strong. I don’t see the Big Ten inviting a school that is not an AAU member. If it happens, great. And if the Big Ten were to relax its requirements, it would seem to do so only for Notre Dame.'

http://newsok.com/academics-matters...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

While you focus on the Big Ten--and they would surely take OU if they could, there are also the Pac 12 and SEC conferences to contend with. OU has options. It is of utmost importance to work to make everyone happy so no one wants to depart. The BIG 12 can't rest on its laurels--now is the time to prepare for the future.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Missouri has 2,251,740 TV households and 990,180 cable households.


While you focus on the Big Ten--and they would surely take OU if they could, there are also the Pac 12 and SEC conferences to contend with. OU has options. It is of utmost importance to work to make everyone happy so no one wants to depart. The BIG 12 can't rest on its laurels--now is the time to prepare for the future.

I agree with you, Buck. But the PAC 12 would be a step down to me, no better than a lateral move. Oklahoma would rule it.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

SEC schools aren't leaving that conference.

The BIG 12s expansion options are all non P5 schools not under grants of rights agreements.

I don't know, Mizzu always wanted in the BIG invite, and are really a better fit geographically.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Missouri has 2,251,740 TV households and 990,180 cable households.


While you focus on the Big Ten--and they would surely take OU if they could, there are also the Pac 12 and SEC conferences to contend with. OU has options. It is of utmost importance to work to make everyone happy so no one wants to depart. The BIG 12 can't rest on its laurels--now is the time to prepare for the future.

The PAC is almost as much of a mess as the BIG12. Nobody sees their games except for people on the west coast, and the PAC Network is a disaster.

Again you are wrong about the BIG and OU, not going to happen. The only, only, only non AAU program the BIG would take is ND. Besides, you keep forgetting the obvious. The BIG does not care about powerhouses, they care about states with large populations, (see RU and Maryland).

Now the SEC is another story. OU brings another great football program, and a solid BB programs (something the SEC needs real bad). I think OU would jump in a second.

 

[Papillion]

And yet another point you and I agree on. There seems to be a few posters that exert a great deal of effort trying to close down these discussions. I have ask why they care so much. Nobody forces them to read the posts so why do they think they are being harmed?

Who is trying to close these discussions down? Name one person who actually asked everyone to stop discussing this? What I and the other guy are questioning is why Buck has been so intent on arguing this situation ad nausea to the point where he answers every single post, especially the ones who disagree with him.
A person who has spent this much time doing that is not just a passing fan. He is working for someone who's agenda is to move expansion to fruition.
I never said I was against expansion, at least I don't think I did. With the right teams then do it. But don't do it just to do it and definitely don't do it just because a bunch of outsiders said so.
I just don't like someone like Buck who comes here saying he's a WVU fan, and maybe he is but he talks of WVU like they're a metaphor, like in the third person or something. And this is the only subject I see him talking about. And he has a convenient way of reversing things on someone that "you" accuse him of.
Read Sky's post then read Bucks again and tell me where Sky asked him not to discuss this subject. Do you understand what Sky is saying? Look how Buck answered him by accusing him of having an agenda. If anyone has an agenda it's Buck. My point is just come out and say who you're actually fighting for and be done with it. Regardless what anyone sees, he argues like he has some vested interest in this without admitting it and that's the point.

 

[Orlaco]

For the record... ...I too have a vested interest in this topic.

 

[topdecktiger]

The Big Ten is a leader. They won't let others beat them to 16 . They don't just react as the BIG 12 does, they will be as proactive as they can be. If OU and Texas aren't available they won't sit around until 2027 waiting for ACC teams if a national power like Kansas basketball is available.

There isn't anything significant about being "first to 16." The other conferences aren't going to expand just to expand either. The SEC isn't going to go 16 unless they are getting more money. The Pac 12 isn't going to 16 unless they get more money. Therefore, the Big Ten doesn't have to be concerned with getting to 16 unless they get the teams they want either.

Basketball doesn't matter. That's one big flaw in your analysis of all this. Football makes exponentially more money that basketball. It doesn't matter how good Kansas's basketball program is. Basketball doesn't bring in anywhere close to the money football does, so basketball doesn't offer incentive when expanding a conference. Rutgers football brings in way more money for the Big Ten than Kansas basketball would. That's because the ratings for football dwarf those for basketball, and thus the networks pay way more for football than basketball. Plus, the most money a team can bring in from the NCAA Tournament in any given year is $1.25 million dollars. Hell, a mid-level bowl game can bring in more than that.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Missouri has 2,251,740 TV households and 990,180 cable households.


While you focus on the Big Ten--and they would surely take OU if they could, there are also the Pac 12 and SEC conferences to contend with. OU has options. It is of utmost importance to work to make everyone happy so no one wants to depart. The BIG 12 can't rest on its laurels--now is the time to prepare for the future.

While there are several aspects of the topic that we agree upon, Oklahoma leaving is where are diametric. You point out all of the conferences Oklahoma might have a certain level of appeal, but you do not go further.

Does Oklahoma want to be the West Virginia of the Pac-12; a conference that is no better off than is the Big-12 except for the stability brought to it by having 12 members vice 10. Does Oklahoma want to be somewhere around the 5th or 6th recognized school in a conference compared to be 1 or 2 in the Big-12? Does Oklahoma want to go to the Big Ten and be an also ran up there for the next 25 years? Remember, Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1993 and after the first two superb years using her non-Big Ten recruits, she has not been heard from except in the courtroom drama. Penn State was a giant before it joined the Big Ten, now it is a school few attach any glory that are under 35.

Oklahoma does not need to jump conferences for money. A the few million dollars more is a matter of how thick the icing is on the cake and nothing more.

Oklahoma does not need to jump for recruiting, obviously.

Oklahoma does not need to jump for academics as those will not change for a very long time - read that as 30 years or more when everyone involved is either retired or dead.

Oklahoma does not need as a matter of pride.

Oklahoma has one issue, Texas.

Oklahoma has to ask itself if it is worth cutting their nose off to spite their face by moving to get away from Texas as other's have done. Is Nebraska happy in the Big Ten? Colorado in the Pac-12? Missouri can't be happy anywhere, so they do not count. Is aTm happy in the SEC. Of all of them only aTm can be classified as happy, but those people are weird.

I neither think Oklahoma can move or wants too. What they want to do is drive expansion and force the issue and they are pounding the table and bluffing that they will leave. They do not have an exit plan or an opening to move into. The GOR locks them down for the next ten years. It is pointless to raise the impending doom of an Oklahoma exit because all it is, is fear mongering and without a single point of merit.

 

[TexasforevEER]

If somebody is trying to shut this discussion down...............they have failed miserably. This topic has almost 500 long winded posts to date. It appears to ole Warez to be about talked out. I almost read one of the posts but couldn't get past the first line or two. Boredom overcame me.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

While there are several aspects of the topic that we agree upon, Oklahoma leaving is where are diametric. You point out all of the conferences Oklahoma might have a certain level of appeal, but you do not go further.

Does Oklahoma want to be the West Virginia of the Pac-12; a conference that is no better off than is the Big-12 except for the stability brought to it by having 12 members vice 10. Does Oklahoma want to be somewhere around the 5th or 6th recognized school in a conference compared to be 1 or 2 in the Big-12? Does Oklahoma want to go to the Big Ten and be an also ran up there for the next 25 years? Remember, Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1993 and after the first two superb years using her non-Big Ten recruits, she has not been heard from except in the courtroom drama. Penn State was a giant before it joined the Big Ten, now it is a school few attach any glory that are under 35.

Oklahoma does not need to jump conferences for money. A the few million dollars more is a matter of how thick the icing is on the cake and nothing more.

Oklahoma does not need to jump for recruiting, obviously.

Oklahoma does not need to jump for academics as those will not change for a very long time - read that as 30 years or more when everyone involved is either retired or dead.

Oklahoma does not need as a matter of pride.

Oklahoma has one issue, Texas.

Oklahoma has to ask itself if it is worth cutting their nose off to spite their face by moving to get away from Texas as other's have done. Is Nebraska happy in the Big Ten? Colorado in the Pac-12? Missouri can't be happy anywhere, so they do not count. Is aTm happy in the SEC. Of all of them only aTm can be classified as happy, but those people are weird.

I neither think Oklahoma can move or wants too. What they want to do is drive expansion and force the issue and they are pounding the table and bluffing that they will leave. They do not have an exit plan or an opening to move into. The GOR locks them down for the next ten years. It is pointless to raise the impending doom of an Oklahoma exit because all it is, is fear mongering and without a single point of merit.

I wish I had said that. The Big 12 is doing fine and Oklahoma can kiss my a$$. Do what you gotta do Sooners, but you're better off where you are.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

But why in the world would an SEC team leave to go anywhere? Unless it was the prestigious Big 10!

Spot on, no SEC team out side of Missouri is going anywhere, and Mizzu would only possibly leave for a BIG10 offer.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

If Oklahoma goes to the Big 10 at the end of the GOR, well good for them. The same sentiment goes to Notre Dame and any other school interested in a move.

Again, OU may want to go to the BIG, but they won't get an invite for reason I have explained before.

1. AAU status
2. Population base

Because of issues the PAC is having I can't see them bolting from that conference.
However, the SEC would love to get OU BB And FB program and they would be a good fit for that conference.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I agree with you, Buck. But the PAC 12 would be a step down to me, no better than a lateral move. Oklahoma would rule it.

The PAC is a mess. Their games start late, and nobody outside of the west coast watches it.

Despite all the original hype of PAC money, it doesn't even sniff the BIG, and SEC $$ per team payout. The payout of the BIG12 is larger even without tier 3 money, which adds another 7 mill to OU bottom line. Heck even the pathetic ACC per team payout is on par with PAC12 money.

The PAC12 network is a joke. They can't even get all cable operators on the west coast to carry the network let alone anybody beyond Colorado.

 

[Buckaineer]

I wish I had said that. The Big 12 is doing fine and Oklahoma can kiss my a$$. Do what you gotta do Sooners, but you're better off where you are.

Oklahoma's departure would devastate the BIG 12. The conference would not survive such a departure and you can bet that right after they left, Texas wouldn't be far behind. Also, these schools have some political connection to other schools in their states, so deals probably need to include other programs.

None of that needs to be an issue for Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU or WVU however. The conference can adopt a comprehensive plan to improve and no one is going anywhere. Texas has made comments now stating support of the BIG 12 and OU has made it clear the BIG 12 is where they want to be. The problem isn't so much with Texas or OU though it is with outside forces that, unlike some of the voices inside the conference, are coveting BIG 12 programs day and night and aren't afraid of change to benefit themselves and their conferences. The other conferences are pro active for themselves and therefor are working behind the scenes to eliminate the competition. Whether via message boards or blogs feeding up the chain, or actions such as last minute amendments to NCAA legislation, or behind the scenes discussions with schools about changing conferences, things are in the works and the BIG 12 schools that will be destroyed by this can't sleep on that action by other conferences.

If you are a fan of WVU, you should think about what this means. What if Oklahoma does leave the BIG 12?
IF they do then OSU probably goes with them, and Texas is going to depart and probably take at least Texas Tech with them. So now the conference is down to 6 schools none of which are traditional powers. Kansas has a power basketball team and they are an AAU school--they can probably get themselves into another conference in the P5. So now you have a collection of WVU, Baylor, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State.

WVU is far from those other schools. Baylor and TCU are in Texas (population and recruiting =MONEY). They have top ten level programs in football. They may have great options. Iowa State is an AAU school and has the backing of Iowa politicians to help their cause via the university of Iowa.

Now some think that the ACC at that point brings in WVU--but as some say, its about money and that isn't the only thing--its also about academic standing. Its also about what schools in a conference think of you and want to be associated with. The ACC has partial member Notre Dame which is virtually guaranteed to join the ACC should further growth in the Big Ten and SEC happen. That leaves ONE slot available in the ACC. But there are other schools vying for that slot. UConn has more people in their state, is adjacent to NYC. Has great basketball programs and very high academic and research standing. Other schools like Cincinnati also can tout decent academics and very high research, football recruiting hotbed, major population center, etc. WVU is not going to be the slam dunk some want to believe (and largely why as Athletic Directors have explained WVU fit best in the BIG 12 and that was the option if the Mountaineers were to be in the P5).

These issues are critical to the future of WVU athletics.

 

[Buckaineer]

The PAC is a mess. Their games start late, and nobody outside of the west coast watches it.

Despite all the original hype of PAC money, it doesn't even sniff the BIG, and SEC $$ per team payout. The payout of the BIG12 is larger even without tier 3 money, which adds another 7 mill to OU bottom line. Heck even the pathetic ACC per team payout is on par with PAC12 money.

The PAC12 network is a joke. They can't even get all cable operators on the west coast to carry the network let alone anybody beyond Colorado.

Pac revenues are actually very good. Their problem is that their expenses are very high so that they are only distributing 60-70 percent of revenues to their schools. This means they get paid less than BIG 12 schools do.

With their far western base of schools though its doubtful they are prone to poaching and they certainly haven't had the negative press the BIG 12 has had to endure. The conference has a strong academic and athletic base to work with.

They knew before what they needed to get their networks going--BIG 12 schools. Now that they are struggling even more, their efforts in that regard will increase as their tv contract renewal gets closer. They've shown a willingness to be proactive unlike the BIG 12.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Does the vote have to be unanimous or is there some percentage for a vote to expand? Too bad Memphis lost their coach. Them and Cincinnati would be good geographic bridges, good basketball. Memphis would probably struggle for a long while in football. Does Southern Mississippi bring any kind of TV area? Lots of eyeballs and recruits in Florida. Might as well throw East Carolina into the mix too and get a team in the heart of ACC country.

Sky,I was going back through this thread and found a question you had in way back at the end of December. In case it has not been correctly answered for you

The conference needs a super majority In order to expand. The BIG12 by laws state that a super majority consist of 75% or more. With the current configuration, the BIG12 needs 8 votes to approve expansion, or no 3 votes to kill it.

This is what I am not sure of:

If and when expansion is approved, does the BIG12 require a super majority for any given invite like the SEC, ACC and BIG10. From what I hear, the BIG12 doesn't have a Super Majority to expand, and they are further away from agreeing which programs to invite.

 

[Buckaineer]

Again, OU may want to go to the BIG, but they won't get an invite for reason I have explained before.

1. AAU status
2. Population base

Because of issues the PAC is having I can't see them bolting from that conference.
However, the SEC would love to get OU BB And FB program and they would be a good fit for that conference.

Your reasoning is not a fact. Its already been shown that AAU status is not mandatory to be a Big Ten member-all of which you've dismissed, but the commissioner of that conference doesn't dismiss that fact. You've ignored the major brand factor and Oklahoma's fanbase is very large.

OU has all the options in the world if they want to do something about those options and that isn't good if you are WVU or several other schools.

The best situation for everyone, including OU which wants to be part of the BIG 12, is to make necessary changes that will strengthen everyone and guarantee success beyond the current contracts.

 

[Buckaineer]

The bottom line of this debate is what are some trying to accomplish here?

If the BIG 12 accomplishes Boren's comprehensive plan--

The conference adds a championship game that pits two of the top teams against one another, it doesn't guarantee a rematch. The conference will take away its current disadvantage to the other P5s and be in the same place starting and ending a season as everyone else. Rather than having to wait to see if someone else loses, BIG 12 schools will determine if they make it by winning. No one else will get a boost in the committee's voitng that the BIG 12 doesn't also get.

The schools of the BIG 12 have the same chance as the other conferences to have more highly ranked teams at seasons end because they won't all have knocked one another off during the season.

The conference creates a network--probably including some future distribution technologies -so that as the cable model changes, the network will shift to a new model as well. A network will provide more revenues for more members and also provide 24-7 promotion of each university itself across a much wider distribution than available now individually.

More recruits will be exposed to the BIG 12 with added recruiting areas.

More fans will be added to the conference as will more viewers of BIG 12 content.

All BIG 12 schools will earn more money.

In the next round of tv contract negotiations the conference will be in good position to improve its contract so that on a per school basis BIG 12 schools don't lose financial standing to anyone (being behind others destabilizes the conference)

The league's membership will be stabilized long term.

As other leagues contracts run out a couple of years after the BIG 12 is renewed, attracting other new members becomes possible if the BIG 12 membership wants to grow further.


If the BIG 12 fails to adopt Boren's plan--

The conference may or may not enact a "dangerous" CCG with 10 teams that guarantees a rematch. That guaranteed rematch guarantees a loss to one of the top two teams and could knock the BIG 12 out of the playoffs on a higher percentage than not having a 13th "data point". It may also knock out an extra NY6 bowl appearance. Each playoff miss is worth $6 million. Each NY6 miss is worth $4 million.

The "psychological disadvantage" will continue with negative press, the "smaller is weaker" mantra continuing in the press and blogs--all of which leads to nothing good for the BIG 12.

TV ratings will not be improved.

The conference will continue to have a tiny footprint compared to other conferences.

BIG 12 schools will fall behind the SEC and Big Ten schools in per school payouts for media rights--and after 2025 this may include Texas and Oklahoma. This is because right now things are structured to ensure the top paid schools are ok up to 2025. After that the Big Ten's new contract will continue to gradually escalate payouts through its new term and the SEC already has their rights locked up and growing through 2036.

The BIG 12 will have to try to renegotiate tv contracts in 2024--but may find that very difficult because if no changes are made, there isn't anything new to sell tv networks on giving increases (which may be difficult at that time anyway due to the changes with the cable model). Lack of athletic success against other conferences, probably many years out of playoffs, drop off in recruiting and fans, stagnant or declining tv viewers does not = more money in the next contract.

Oklahoma will be looking around as soon as they know positive changes won't be made. Safe bet they will depart as soon as its financially viable to do so. Their departure will mean other departures and will devastate the conference.

This is why its necessary for the leaders of the 10 schools to sit down and scientifically evaluate expansion, a conference network and comprehensive improvement rather than listening to the destructive emotional voices (frankly some of which are probably paid shills for another conference or with an anti BIG 12 agenda). There are pros and cons of course to everything. Which pros and cons are better for everyone is the question they need to answer.

 

[skygusty]

Sky,I was going back through this thread and found a question you had in way back at the end of December. In case it has not been correctly answered for you

The conference needs a super majority In order to expand. The BIG12 by laws state that a super majority consist of 75% or more. With the current configuration, the BIG12 needs 8 votes to approve expansion, or no 3 votes to kill it.

This is what I am not sure of:

If and when expansion is approved, does the BIG12 require a super majority for any given invite like the SEC, ACC and BIG10. From what I hear, the BIG12 doesn't have a Super Majority to expand, and they are further away from agreeing which programs to invite.

Thanks. I have assumed all along that the people actually voting on this in the BIG12 in February are not only more informed than I am, but also that each voting member knows where his or her school stands not only on the subject of expansion, potential revenue and potential problems but which candidates are desirable for their school and which are non-starters. For instance, Gee may indeed be interested in expansion but not if the two schools are BYU and either Tulane or Colorado State. Other presidents may also have problems if the candidates are UCONN and Cinncy or Memphis. Some schools appear to have problems with adding anybody. I have no idea what each individual school thinks about expansion or each of the 6 or so schools that are possible. I have said that I am not personally excited by the idea of expansion with the candidates out there but that I will also be able to live with whatever decision they make. I will remain a WVU fan but like the guy from TCU said, I think 10 is a beautiful number and a profitable number. My preference would be that Texas and Oklahoma make some compromises that they can both live with because they are the core of the conference. If either one is too greedy to compromise and make the BIG12 work then I hope the door hits them in the ass on the way out. It seems that Boren is the biggest agitator and Buck is his biggest supporter. You guys have fun with this but I don't think you are moving the needle with the guys who will be doing the voting. I'll just wait until Big12 actually makes an announcement. Until then, just in case Buck is getting money for eyeballs on this thread, I'll sit it out from here on.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Buck

While on the premises a guaranteed rematch is a bit silly, but so a hypothesis that the BIG12 is at a disadvantage buy staging this. The PAC12 has a 75% chance of a rematch and nobody is saying they are at a disadvantage when that happens.

The good news is dereg has been passed and by 2017 the BIG12 can add the 13th data-point without being forced to expand and taking away the main disadvantage we they currently have.

Maybe the BIG12 would have been better off had deregulation failed then expansion would have been forced, and all of this would be moot.

 

[Buckaineer]

Buck

While on the premises a guaranteed rematch is a bit silly, but so a hypothesis that the BIG12 is at a disadvantage buy staging this. The PAC12 has a 75% chance of a rematch and nobody is saying they are at a disadvantage when that happens.

The good news is dereg has been passed and by 2017 the BIG12 can add the 13th data-point without being forced to expand and taking away the main disadvantage we they currently have.

Maybe the BIG12 would have been better off had deregulation failed then expansion would have been forced, and all of this would be moot.

A 12 team conference doesn't have a 75% chance of a rematch.

When the BIG 12 had 12 teams-they played 15 CCGs.

Here's how the rematches broke down:

1996 NO
1997 NO
1998 NO
1999 YES
2000 YES
2001 YES
2002 YES
2003 NO
2004 NO
2005 YES
2006 NO
2007 YES
2008 NO
2009 NO
2010 NO

9 of 15 were not rematches so that means only 40% of the time did the BIG 12 have rematches. But if they have a guaranted rematch every year-that is 100% of the time-one team will win-one will lose. It guarantees every year that one of the top two teams in the BIG 12 will lose an extra game. Its a 50% chance that will be the higher ranked.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

A 12 team conference doesn't have a 75% chance of a rematch.

When the BIG 12 had 12 teams-they played 15 CCGs.

Here's how the rematches broke down:

1996 NO
1997 NO
1998 NO
1999 YES
2000 YES
2001 YES
2002 YES
2003 NO
2004 NO
2005 YES
2006 NO
2007 YES
2008 NO
2009 NO
2010 NO

9 of 15 were not rematches so that means only 40% of the time did the BIG 12 have rematches. But if they have a guaranteed rematch every year-that is 100% of the time-one team will win-one will lose. It guarantees every year that one of the top two teams in the BIG 12 will lose an extra game. Its a 50% chance that will be the higher ranked.

Buck, what the heck are you talking about? I said nothing about the BIG12 having a 75% chance of a rematch I was talking about the PAC12. Last year the PAC12 and I think the BIG, made a change that forces a 9 game in conference schedule By math that means with 12 teams and a 9 in conference games there is a 75% chance of a rematch and yet I did not hear anyone screaming OMG rematch, rematch

This proved to be the case In just the 1st year of implementation as the PAC CCG featured a rematch of Stanford and USC. As I indicated while not a guarantee of a rematch it certainly is a high percentage, and you don't see anyone claiming the sky is falling and they are at a disadvantage. And please don't say, well the PAC did not get in so it was a disadvantage. No the PAC did not get in because their best team Stanford had 2 losses. Had UNC beaten Clemson, a two lose Stanford team would have gotten in over a 1 loss UNC team.

 

[Buckaineer]

Buck, what the heck are you talking about? I said nothing about the BIG12 having a 75% chance of a rematch I was talking about the PAC12. Last year the PAC12 and I think the BIG, made a change that forces a 9 game in conference schedule By math that means with 12 teams and a 9 in conference games there is a 75% chance of a rematch.

This proved to be the case In just the 1st year of implementation as the PAC CCG featured a rematch of Stanford and USC. As I indicated while not a guarantee of a rematch it certainly is a high percentage, and you don't see anyone claiming the sky is falling and they are at a disadvantage. And please don't say, well the PAC did not get in so it was a disadvantage. No the PAC did not get in because their best team Stanford had 2 losses. Had UNC beaten Clemson, a two lose Stanford team would have gotten in over a 1 loss UNC team.

You do realize that Gordon Gee-president of WVU, Bob Bowlsby, commissioner of the BIG 12 and other BIG 12 leaders have spoken out publicly about the disadvantage of having a guaranteed rematch right? It's one of the reasons Bowlsby has stated they'll have to consider the game and if it would make sense to do it or if the status quo makes more sense.

Who are you trying to convince it doesn't matter? Yourself? 100% is higher that 75% or 40% or whatever % you look at. No one else has that and its a disadvantage for the BIG 12. They know it--you might as well admit it.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

You do realize that Gordon Gee-president of WVU, Bob Bowlsby, commissioner of the BIG 12 and other BIG 12 leaders have spoken out publicly about the disadvantage of having a guaranteed rematch right? It's one of the reasons Bowlsby has stated they'll have to consider the game and if it would make sense to do it or if the status quo makes more sense.

Who are you trying to convince it doesn't matter? Yourself? 100% is higher that 75% or 40% or whatever % you look at. No one else has that and its a disadvantage for the BIG 12. They know it--you might as well admit it.

Way to put words into my mouth. Check the original post, I clearly stated that the PAC did NOT have a guaranteed rematch, but it is still going to happen more often then not. You denying it because it does not fit your warpath speech, does not make it any less true.

Also you seem to forget, I am not anti expansion. WVU will benefit greatly with the right geographical partners. I am just telling why expansion is NOT going to happen, and that won't change no matter your spin on things.

 

[Buckaineer]

Way to put words into my mouth. Check the original post, I clearly stated that the PAC did NOT have a guaranteed rematch, but it is still going to happen more often then not. You denying it because it does not fit your warpath speech, does not make it any less true.

Also you seem to forget, I am not anti expansion. WVU will benefit greatly with the right geographical partners. I am just telling why expansion is NOT going to happen, and that won't change no matter your spin on things.

No one put words in your mouth. You are insinuating that the Pac--or anyone else for that matter having some possible rematches is comparable to the BIG 12 having 100% rematches all of the time. I simply point out it is not the same thing.

I demonstrated that the then 12 team BIG 12 actually had only 40% rematches . The 10 team BIG 12 will have a rematch guaranteed every year unless they expand and that will guarantee one of the top teams has an extra loss. That is a 50% chance the league will knock themselves out of the playoffs and even the BIG 12 recognizes this as a disadvantage.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

No one put words in your mouth. You are insinuating that the Pac--or anyone else for that matter having some possible rematches is comparable to the BIG 12 having 100% rematches all of the time. I simply point out it is not the same thing.

I demonstrated that the then 12 team BIG 12 actually had only 40% rematches . The 10 team BIG 12 will have a rematch guaranteed every year unless they expand and that will guarantee one of the top teams has an extra loss. That is a 50% chance the league will knock themselves out of the playoffs and even the BIG 12 recognizes this as a disadvantage.

Depends on the year, Maybe like last year if we had the 13th data point, the winner of the CCG will advance the championship. Outside of the obvious rematch, my biggest problem is it illuminates the B12 from putting 2 teams in playoff.

 

[steeleer]

After reading 1 page of this mess...

 

[Buckaineer]

Depends on the year, Maybe like last year if we had the 13th data point, the winner of the CCG will advance the championship. Outside of the obvious rematch, my biggest problem is it illuminates the B12 from putting 2 teams in playoff.

It's always a risk no one else is guaranteed to have- hence disadvantage.

 

[Buckaineer]

ESPN:
Would Arizona, Arizona State consider the Big 12?

excerpt:
The Big 12's presidents have plenty to discuss when they meet next week in Dallas, and David Boren and E. Gordon Gee have made it clear they want to talk about expansion. No matter how unrealistic Arizona and/or Arizona State might seem today, you do have to wonder if there are other fish in the Power 5 sea feeling wary or unsatisfied about the future and willing to listen to the Big 12.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/109247/would-arizona-arizona-state-consider-the-big-12