ADVERTISEMENT

Expansion

There are some things to like about UH, but they aren't in considerations because they are in a tv market the BIG 12 already has a major presence in Houston. A network and a better tv contract means new markets. They aren't going to go above 12 due to financial considerations.

But what if they did? Could we live with it? I realize it is unlikely, but we can't sneak into those damn meetings. It's always possible that they come out of those meetings this week and in May, make an announcement that makes us say, "They did what?!" You know, sometimes weird things happen when folks do not listen to our reason! LOL Expect the unexpected, my friends. You will never be surprised.
 
Last edited:
But what if they did? Could we live with it? I realize it is unlikely, but we can't sneak into those damn meetings. It's always possible that they come out of those meetings this week and in May, make an announcement that makes us say, "They did what?!" You know, sometimes weird things happen when folks do not listen to our reason! LOL

Sporting News stated that the candidates are down to UC, UConn, UCF or USF based on sources in the league. No reason to doubt that.
A conference network is part of the comprehensive plan and will make alot of money for everyone.
In order to have that and make expansion make sense, new territories are a must and Houston isn't new territory for the BIG 12.
 
I agree, it would take a special set of circumstances to go above 12. I have posted my ideas on this in other post, but that is not the only scenario that could take place. Twelve is the number unless the ACC falls apart.

The ACC isn't going to fall apart anytime soon if they ever did. No P5 league is.

In 2025, when its time to renegotiate contracts who knows, with a newly rejuvenated BIG 12 they could make arrangements to add new teams in 2027 somehow, but that's so far off it doesn't really address the needs of today.

I understand some are focused only on the ACC, but the ACC has nothing to do with the needs of the BIG12 and those schools aren't on the docket at this point in time.
 
The ACC isn't going to fall apart anytime soon if they ever did. No P5 league is.

In 2025, when its time to renegotiate contracts who knows, with a newly rejuvenated BIG 12 they could make arrangements to add new teams in 2027 somehow, but that's so far off it doesn't really address the needs of today.

I understand some are focused only on the ACC, but the ACC has nothing to do with the needs of the BIG12 and those schools aren't on the docket at this point in time.

I agree, but you are falling into that trap of 'absolutes'. You are very likely correct, but I stand on my last post. We do not get a vote and what the presidents, ADs, etc. do does not require our approval. Sporting News is not always right. Probably close, but they can't be there either. Deals are made. Personally, I expect Cincy and USF, but that is just my educated guess, nothing more. If they suddenly add BYU, all I can say is, "Damn, I didn't see that coming!"
 
I agree, but you are falling into that trap of 'absolutes'. You are very likely correct, but I stand on my last post. We do not get a vote and what the presidents, ADs, etc. do does not require our approval. Sporting News is not always right. Probably close, but they can't be there either. Deals are made. Personally, I expect Cincy and USF, but that is just my educated guess, nothing more. If they suddenly add BYU, all I can say is, "Damn, I didn't see that coming!"

Cincinnati, USF, UConn and UCF in that order all rank higher than multiple BIG 12 schools in academic rankings in the Center for World University Rankings. All have very high research standing as well. For success athletically though, UConn stands out for multiple national championships in two sports, Cincinnati has multiple conference championships in football and has multiple 9 win seasons or better under several different coaches. Both UC and UConn stand out for basketball success--playing in the NCAA tournament and delivering millions to their conferences over the years. Recruiting Cincinnati and the Florida schools would have to have the upper hand, but no one has put more people into the NFL than UConn over the last several years out of that group, so they must be doing some things right on the football field. They all add 1 million or more new tv and cable households. UConn is the only state flagship left and the only school that has current networks in place similar to other BIG 12 schools. Geographically Cincinnati fits best.

Its going to be interesting to see what they decide to do with these schools. Really don't expect surprises though, everyone knows the candidates. A surprise would be if they added all four, which they probably should go ahead and do. The ACC is not getting ready to collapse and the first conference to finish its grants of rights will be the Pac 12 around 2024. That's just too far off to deal with now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelwalkerbr
Update from the Sporting News--candidates down to four:

BYU might stand as the most attractive potential partner because of its large following, excellent facilities and considerable wealth, but the challenges of adding a partner that declines to participate in Sunday competition is among the obstacles that appear to be too considerable.


That leaves three possible scenarios for the expansion issue.


1) The Big 12 could choose to move East to add Cincinnati and Connecticut. Cincinnati has developed the most consistent football program of potential expansion candidates and is located in a major media market. UConn is four-time NCAA champion in men’s basketball and also adds the cachet of the dynastic women’s basketball program.


2) For football recruiting purposes and long-term potential, the Big 12 could advance into Florida by adding Central Florida and South Florida.


3) The Big 12 could decide not to expand at all.
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...big-12-conference-expansion-meetings-schedule

Just my opinion, but I expansion without a team from Fla is stupid. Adding Fla not only provides access to 1 of the top recruiting states, but access to one of the largest TV markets, both of which the BIG12 needs if expansion is to pay off in the long run.
 
Just my opinion, but I expansion without a team from Fla is stupid. Adding Fla not only provides access to 1 of the top recruiting states, but access to one of the largest TV markets, both of which the BIG12 needs if expansion is to pay off in the long run.

The problem for BIG 12 expansion is that you have several viable schools, but the names of the schools causes members (and fans) to look at the schools with emotion rather than scientifically evaluating their qualities.

The Florida schools available to the BIG 12 are South Florida and Central Florida. Some believe that puts a stigma on the BIG 12 if they are added. But what it really does is nearly double the cable tv households available to the BIG 12, add millions of people to the conference footprint, add good growing academic institutions with huge alumni bases, major tv markets and most importantly expands the recruiting base into the state of Florida which along with Ohio is about as good as it gets.

Hopefully the conference leaders will look at the root of the problems for the conference. Its not really money, its on field football success against everybody else (primarily the SEC, there are few matchups with anyone in the Big Ten except Ohio State which is mining recruits).

How do you get better results against everybody else?--better recruiting.

Without better recruiting things in that dept. aren't likely to change.

How do you get better recruiting? Follow the Big Ten/SEC example and expand into territories that have great recruiting and create a 24-7 network hyping your league and specifically its schools to recruits non stop everyday.

It would make sense to add Florida schools for these purposes but of course geographic problems make it so that adding two of them makes the most sense. That would exclude the best choice Cincinnati which has the best combination of everything-academics, athletic success, media market and recruiting, along with geography, and also eliminate the only state flagship in UConn which also is located next to the top media market available and has a good presence there. If I were running the show I would add all four--possibly even six schools including Houston and Memphis to that mix--but there's only so much revenue to go around and no one is going to take a hit for expansion.
 
The problem for BIG 12 expansion is that you have several viable schools, but the names of the schools causes members (and fans) to look at the schools with emotion rather than scientifically evaluating their qualities.

The Florida schools available to the BIG 12 are South Florida and Central Florida. Some believe that puts a stigma on the BIG 12 if they are added. But what it really does is nearly double the cable tv households available to the BIG 12, add millions of people to the conference footprint, add good growing academic institutions with huge alumni bases, major tv markets and most importantly expands the recruiting base into the state of Florida which along with Ohio is about as good as it gets.

Hopefully the conference leaders will look at the root of the problems for the conference. Its not really money, its on field football success against everybody else (primarily the SEC, there are few matchups with anyone in the Big Ten except Ohio State which is mining recruits).

How do you get better results against everybody else?--better recruiting.

Without better recruiting things in that dept. aren't likely to change.

How do you get better recruiting? Follow the Big Ten/SEC example and expand into territories that have great recruiting and create a 24-7 network hyping your league and specifically its schools to recruits non stop everyday.

It would make sense to add Florida schools for these purposes but of course geographic problems make it so that adding two of them makes the most sense. That would exclude the best choice Cincinnati which has the best combination of everything-academics, athletic success, media market and recruiting, along with geography, and also eliminate the only state flagship in UConn which also is located next to the top media market available and has a good presence there. If I were running the show I would add all four--possibly even six schools including Houston and Memphis to that mix--but there's only so much revenue to go around and no one is going to take a hit for expansion.

Aree with everything you said.

Most fans are idiots. They never look at the big picture and want to go with the most sexy pick of the moment. A little over a year ago UCF was playing great football and was a lock for BIG12 expansion (if it happened). One really bad year later and they fall off the radar, to some extent.

Adding a Fl team will help BIG12 recruiting into that state, just like adding A&M has improved SEC recruiting into TX.

Adding UCF (The largest college in the U.S.) and the state of Fl would be huge boost for any future BIG12, network.

As an added bonus, it can help bring other Fla programs down a notch, (although they have done that on their own) by reducing the number of instate kids going to those programs
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelwalkerbr
The ACC isn't going to fall apart anytime soon if they ever did. No P5 league is.

In 2025, when its time to renegotiate contracts who knows, with a newly rejuvenated BIG 12 they could make arrangements to add new teams in 2027 somehow, but that's so far off it doesn't really address the needs of today.

I understand some are focused only on the ACC, but the ACC has nothing to do with the needs of the BIG12 and those schools aren't on the docket at this point in time.

History does not support your absolute stance here. Everything that was wrong with the Big East has been inherited by the ACC from their basketball over football mentality to poor attendance at football games to the bastardly half marriage with Notre Dame. You have schools in the ACC willing to jump ship if the right phone rang. Pitt would leave for the Big Ten in a heart beat because they have a PSU obsession. VT would say Virginia Who? if the SEC called. Those are the two least loyal members of the ACC but none of the outside of Duke and Wake Forest are 100% loyal.

Is a certainty that the ACC will collapse? Nope. Is a certainty that it wont? Nope. The past say it is a weakly assembled conference and everyone knows that the Big Ten and the SEC are short two schools each. Where are they going to come from? They have both had their hands in the Big 12 and took what they wanted. If they wanted any other Big 12 schools they would have already taken them. Oklahoma could have gone to the SEC but they would not leave behind OSU and the SEC, replied, "no, thanks." The only place the Big Ten and SEC are going to get #15 and #16 is from the ACC. Do either have to expand? Nope, will they? Probably. When they do, the ACC will dies as it now and become the new AAC/CUSA.

You disagree, I know. But all you say is that it wont happen. You ignore historical trend and probable future events by the Big Ten and SEC. You need something to back your view.
 
History does not support your absolute stance here. Everything that was wrong with the Big East has been inherited by the ACC from their basketball over football mentality to poor attendance at football games to the bastardly half marriage with Notre Dame. You have schools in the ACC willing to jump ship if the right phone rang. Pitt would leave for the Big Ten in a heart beat because they have a PSU obsession. VT would say Virginia Who? if the SEC called. Those are the two least loyal members of the ACC but none of the outside of Duke and Wake Forest are 100% loyal.

Is a certainty that the ACC will collapse? Nope. Is a certainty that it wont? Nope. The past say it is a weakly assembled conference and everyone knows that the Big Ten and the SEC are short two schools each. Where are they going to come from? They have both had their hands in the Big 12 and took what they wanted. If they wanted any other Big 12 schools they would have already taken them. Oklahoma could have gone to the SEC but they would not leave behind OSU and the SEC, replied, "no, thanks." The only place the Big Ten and SEC are going to get #15 and #16 is from the ACC. Do either have to expand? Nope, will they? Probably. When they do, the ACC will dies as it now and become the new AAC/CUSA.

You disagree, I know. But all you say is that it wont happen. You ignore historical trend and probable future events by the Big Ten and SEC. You need something to back your view.

In 2027 who knows. In 2016? Not anywhere close to happening. Sometimes you have to look at the facts. They've had decent tv ratings the last few years. ESPN promotes the h out of them. They get plenty of prime time slots. The top schools have been recruiting well. Their money has always been behind, it isn't that far behind yet.
They won an mnc in football and basketball in the past three seasons and played for it all2 of the last three, actually all three if you consider the playoff bid for FSU last year.

They have a huge buyout and a grant of rights through 2027. Only Maryland jumped when there was an opportunity to leave for the Big Ten or SEC and nothing has changed. Neither of those conferences has any financial ability to extricate any P5 program out of their existing conferences.

There isn't a basis for your beliefs.
 
As the Big 12 hopefully moves forward there is a lesson to be learned from the ACC regarding a conference network. You cannot tie the conference network into the GOR (the ACC didn't) without risking a breach of the GOR agreement. The ACC would have breached it all to hell, allowing any school a legitimate legal challenge. Fortunately for the ACC, the conference network idea came after the GOR. If the Big 12 Network ever becomes a reality during the current or future negotiations I hope they keep it separate and apart from the Tier 1 and 2 GOR agreement.
 
I believe the Big Ten has a grant of rights tied in with their BTN--bet the Pac and SEC do too with their networks. the network partners and or conferences made huge investments in these conference networks and there'd have to be assurances made of membership.

The BIG 12 will want assurances also.

Of course the conference has to decide to expand first and that hasn't happened yet.
 
I believe the Big Ten has a grant of rights tied in with their BTN--bet the Pac and SEC do too with their networks. the network partners and or conferences made huge investments in these conference networks and there'd have to be assurances made of membership.

The BIG 12 will want assurances also.

Of course the conference has to decide to expand first and that hasn't happened yet.

Everybody has a Grant of Rights, except the SEC. They are the only ones that don't have one.

The other point is, a GOR is not tied to specific rights, a conference network, or anything like that. A GOR is strictly an agreement between the members of a conference. It's not part of a contract with any of the networks. In other words, there isn't "Tier 3 only" GOR, or a "BTN only" GOR.
 
Everybody has a Grant of Rights, except the SEC. They are the only ones that don't have one.

The other point is, a GOR is not tied to specific rights, a conference network, or anything like that. A GOR is strictly an agreement between the members of a conference. It's not part of a contract with any of the networks. In other words, there isn't "Tier 3 only" GOR, or a "BTN only" GOR.

Its doubtful the SEC has no GOR--no one asked if they signed one on their new tv deals and network especially.

The Sugar Bowl has a grant of rights--Bowlsby referred to that back when it was signed.
excerpt:
in the end we will have a 13-year grant of rights on television and we will have a 13-year grant of rights that will cover the 12 years of our vision with the Champions Bowl.

http://www.connect-bridgeport.com/connect.cfm?func=view&section=Sports&story=21504&remote&printView

Also, the Big Ten signed a grant of rights in correlation with the start of the BTN.

The grant of rights is embedded with the tv contracts because the paying entity pays the conference the money involved in the grant of rights. Here's a quote from an article on the Ed Obannon trial that indicates grants of rights are indeed part of the tv contracts:
excerpt:
Yes, TV money is ultimately what the Ed O'Bannon trial is about these days. But that's not why the TV contract was on the screen.

What it was about -- and presumably it's in part why the Big 12 unsuccessfully attempted to seal the contract -- dealt with a "Grants of Rights" provision. Under the clearance section, the following statement was shown from the Big 12 and Fox contract signed in 2011


or this from ESPN's Brett McMurphy back when the deal was signed....
excerpt:

The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox......The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

 
Its doubtful the SEC has no GOR--no one asked if they signed one on their new tv deals and network especially.

The Sugar Bowl has a grant of rights--Bowlsby referred to that back when it was signed.
excerpt:
in the end we will have a 13-year grant of rights on television and we will have a 13-year grant of rights that will cover the 12 years of our vision with the Champions Bowl.

http://www.connect-bridgeport.com/connect.cfm?func=view&section=Sports&story=21504&remote&printView

Also, the Big Ten signed a grant of rights in correlation with the start of the BTN.

The grant of rights is embedded with the tv contracts because the paying entity pays the conference the money involved in the grant of rights. Here's a quote from an article on the Ed Obannon trial that indicates grants of rights are indeed part of the tv contracts:
excerpt:
Yes, TV money is ultimately what the Ed O'Bannon trial is about these days. But that's not why the TV contract was on the screen.

What it was about -- and presumably it's in part why the Big 12 unsuccessfully attempted to seal the contract -- dealt with a "Grants of Rights" provision. Under the clearance section, the following statement was shown from the Big 12 and Fox contract signed in 2011


or this from ESPN's Brett McMurphy back when the deal was signed....
excerpt:

The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox......The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

The SEC has no GOR.
 
Its doubtful the SEC has no GOR--no one asked if they signed one on their new tv deals and network especially.

The Sugar Bowl has a grant of rights--Bowlsby referred to that back when it was signed.
excerpt:
in the end we will have a 13-year grant of rights on television and we will have a 13-year grant of rights that will cover the 12 years of our vision with the Champions Bowl.

http://www.connect-bridgeport.com/connect.cfm?func=view&section=Sports&story=21504&remote&printView

Also, the Big Ten signed a grant of rights in correlation with the start of the BTN.

The grant of rights is embedded with the tv contracts because the paying entity pays the conference the money involved in the grant of rights. Here's a quote from an article on the Ed Obannon trial that indicates grants of rights are indeed part of the tv contracts:
excerpt:
Yes, TV money is ultimately what the Ed O'Bannon trial is about these days. But that's not why the TV contract was on the screen.

What it was about -- and presumably it's in part why the Big 12 unsuccessfully attempted to seal the contract -- dealt with a "Grants of Rights" provision. Under the clearance section, the following statement was shown from the Big 12 and Fox contract signed in 2011


or this from ESPN's Brett McMurphy back when the deal was signed....
excerpt:

The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox......The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

No, it's not doubtful. It's 100% fact.

The ACC becomes the fourth league with a grant of rights, along with the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12. The SEC is the only conference among the "power five" leagues that does not have a grant of rights.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents
 
Ha!!!! you nerds, are a bunch of freaking goobers. We were in the middle and just completed a huge win, on the road against, a top 15 team, without arguably the key player on the team, you were still talking expansion. Just saying. [roll]
 
If the Champions/Sugar Bowl required a grant of rights, as Bowlsby stated, there are two parties involved. The BIG 12, and the SEC.

It used to be reported matter of factly that the BIG 12 couldn't get more money for expansion as well--until Bowlsby and Boren let that cat out of the bag.
 
Interesting article--UC won't give up public records on meetings with the BIG 12:

excerpt:
What is UC hiding about Big 12 Conference?
The University of Cincinnati is refusing to release emails, travel records and other public documents regarding the possibility of it gaining membership in the Big 12 Conference, which may consider expansion later this week.

The Enquirer asked for the documents, including UC President Santa Ono's travel records, in a Nov. 17 public records request. Two UC attorneys recently completed their review of the documents, usually a final step before public records are released.

But in an unusual move, UC's general counsel instead gave the documents to the Board of Trustees last week, said Kenya Faulkner, the university's top attorney.

"They asked to see them, and I had to turn them over," said Faulkner, vice president for legal affairs and general counsel. "They've never asked me to do that before."

It's possible UC officials are trying to be careful not to risk messing up a potential opportunity to move into a major conference, which could generate millions of dollars for the university, raise UC's national profile and move it to the right side of a growing divide between the haves and have-nots in college sports.


http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/2016/02/03/what-uc-hiding-big-12-conference/79713442/
 
If the Champions/Sugar Bowl required a grant of rights, as Bowlsby stated, there are two parties involved. The BIG 12, and the SEC.

It used to be reported matter of factly that the BIG 12 couldn't get more money for expansion as well--until Bowlsby and Boren let that cat out of the bag.

You were wrong. Just accept it.
 
UCF writers are making their case---
excerpt:
This isn’t meant as a knock on anybody in particular, but the general tone I’ve seen and heard among some national writers and broadcasters is that UCF isn’t worthy of being in a Power Five league like the Big 12. You would expect such ignorance from some yahoo college football fan in Starkville, but the national media should be much more informed and astute.


They should know that expansion has little to do with the quality of your football program right at this minute and so much more to do with the number of cable TV sets you can deliver down the road.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...sion-oklahoma-boren-media-20160201-story.html
 
USF writers are also chiming in---

Mostly drowned out by the national signing day cacophony is the fact the Big 12 meetings are being staged this week in Dallas. Athletic directors from the 10 member schools convene Thursday, followed by the university presidents Friday.


Naturally, league expansion is almost certain to be discussed, and a Sporting News report — citing an anonymous source "close to the situation" — indicates the addition of UCF and USF as the conference's 11th and 12th schools is a possible scenario.


http://web.tampabay.com/sports/college/usf-still-a-buzz-word-in-big-12-expansion-plans/2263741
 
And the posturing starts, fed by the schools' administrators statements. Reminds me of a time when a couple of other schools hoped to get in!
 
And the posturing starts, fed by the schools' administrators statements. Reminds me of a time when a couple of other schools hoped to get in!

Looking around the "twitterverse" over the past year or so there have obviously been lots of meetings going on. Presidents from schools like UConn, Houston, Cincinnati and others have been tweeting photos with BIG 12 leaders or making comments about visits and talking up their schools.

It's coming down to the wire now. You have to wonder if these public information releases can move up the timeline--if the conference has plans they can't allow them to be thwarted by such things.
 
In 2027 who knows. In 2016? Not anywhere close to happening. Sometimes you have to look at the facts. They've had decent tv ratings the last few years. ESPN promotes the h out of them. They get plenty of prime time slots. The top schools have been recruiting well. Their money has always been behind, it isn't that far behind yet.
They won an mnc in football and basketball in the past three seasons and played for it all2 of the last three, actually all three if you consider the playoff bid for FSU last year.

They have a huge buyout and a grant of rights through 2027. Only Maryland jumped when there was an opportunity to leave for the Big Ten or SEC and nothing has changed. Neither of those conferences has any financial ability to extricate any P5 program out of their existing conferences.

There isn't a basis for your beliefs.

While you may be rather well-read on the subject at hand you seem woefully lacking trend analysis as it is there that I base my view. You are ignoring past actions and probable future events based on conventional wisdom and discussion trends. That is why we disagree. You want to narrow the spectrum of factors so that they support your view and exclude all others, especially if the counter your stance. A good prognosticator goes where the data points him rather than mining data to build his premise.
 
While you may be rather well-read on the subject at hand you seem woefully lacking trend analysis as it is there that I base my view. You are ignoring past actions and probable future events based on conventional wisdom and discussion trends. That is why we disagree. You want to narrow the spectrum of factors so that they support your view and exclude all others, especially if the counter your stance. A good prognosticator goes where the data points him rather than mining data to build his premise.

The BIG 12 conference and major sports media is telling everyone all that is necessary to know. Everything else is being dreamed up by posters on message boards. Unfortunately some are gullible enough to have bought in.

The situation at hand is what it is. There's nothing else to it.

The BIG 12 is faced with decisions on its future. It must make improvements, or, in 2025 it will find itself most likely in a precarious situation and with schools once again departing. Financially it will fall behind others . Competitively the league schools may suffer, as funds for facilities and coaches are harder to come by, and "psychologically" as negative press increases and recruits choose other areas with more positives in the above.

Some of the fixes involve adding a couple of new schools to the mix, none of which are part of the P5 currently.

Not sure why some can't understand or accept these things. There are no other choices.

Stay the same, continue disadvantages with severe negative impact down the road. Remain at 10 with a CCG-making some money off the CCG but risking more failure in playoffs while ending future revenue increases and increasing likelihood of later departures. Expand with available schools, stabilize the membership,create a conference wide network, improve finances to levels of every other conference long term, and improve chances for future revenues while putting schools even with other leagues competitively.

These are the choices, like them or not.
 
Texas... ...until someone convinces me they (and for what logical reason) are down with expansion it just isn't going to happen. That school can EASILY control the votes of one or two others...which basically gives them the final approval.
 
While you may be rather well-read on the subject at hand you seem woefully lacking trend analysis as it is there that I base my view. You are ignoring past actions and probable future events based on conventional wisdom and discussion trends. That is why we disagree. You want to narrow the spectrum of factors so that they support your view and exclude all others, especially if the counter your stance. A good prognosticator goes where the data points him rather than mining data to build his premise.

You're doing the same thing. You just decide what you want to see happen, and you work backwards to set up a scenario to get the outcome you desire. You also ignore information that contradicts your belief. Pot calling the kettle black here.
 
You're doing the same thing. You just decide what you want to see happen, and you work backwards to set up a scenario to get the outcome you desire. You also ignore information that contradicts your belief. Pot calling the kettle black here.

Perhaps you would be so kind to list the data point(s) I am excluding.
 
Even on National Signing Day when we can celebrate the commitment of Ferns this thread somehow found its way to the top of the board
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you would be so kind to list the data point(s) I am excluding.

Several. In an earlier post, you stated that conferences had an "escalator clause" in their contracts, which pays out more money when teams are added. Not true. When new teams are added, the contracts are reopened, and the network and conference renegotiate new terms. They may pay more, they may pay less, but there is no automatic increase.

You said that the SEC and Big Ten want to get to 16. There has never been any imperative for conferences to get to 16. It's not a magic number. Fans just say that because 16 looks neat on paper. There isn't any special benefit to 16 that you don't get at 14 or 18. You also leave out the Pac 12 in your scenario. You are emphatic that the SEC and Big Ten will expand, but ignore the Pac 12. That's important, because the only viable candidates for the Pac 12 are Big 12 teams. We know conclusively that the last time the Pac 12 considered expanding, they looked at Big 12 schools.

In an earlier post, you said that Clemson and Florida St would want to leave the ACC because they don't get enough money. Not true. The payouts form the ACC are similar to the Pac 12 and Big 12. Last year, Clemson got $25 million in payouts from the ACC, and Georgia Tech got $27 million. That's on part with what the Big 12 paid out last year. You also listed West Virginia's total as ~31 million. West Virginia actually got $23 million for the Big 12. The rest of the money came from West Virginia's Tier 3 contract. The problem is, you don't count the Tier 3 contracts for the other schools. Clemson, Florida St, and everyone else have Tier 3 contracts as well. You purposely don't count those for other schools, but do count them for Big 12 schools, so that the Big 12's figure looks bigger. If you want to get a truly accurate comparison, you either have to count only the conference payouts for everybody, or count the Tier 3 payouts for everybody. Otherwise you are just inflating the numbers.

In another post, you said that Clemson and Florida ST only stayed in the ACC because Swofford told them the ACC would get a network. What you ignore is that they had no incentive to go to the Big 12, because there wasn't any more money. Florida St's president issued a letter to the staff and alumni donors, spelling out the financial hindrances to joining the Big 12. Specifically, he noted that Florida St's travel expenses would increase by $2 million a year. The problem is, the Big 12 couldn't offer more money to make up for that, due to the TV contract issues. The reason they didn't join the Big 12 is that the financial incentive wasn't there.
 
Texas... ...until someone convinces me they (and for what logical reason) are down with expansion it just isn't going to happen. That school can EASILY control the votes of one or two others...which basically gives them the final approval.

We will find out soon-in the next few months.

It takes 8 votes to expand, so if TCU or Texas Tech want it then there are probably enough votes to do it.
In their upcoming discussions the case for and against will be made-as well as what choosing no may mean down the road.
 
We are about to find out what the posturing, secret meetings and spending hundreds of millions on facilities is about. There was a little smoke, I'm beginning to see fire in Cincy and Florida. I could be totally wrong that the Big 12 will choose at least two schools for expansion sometime this year, but I'm not. The damn Cincinnati Inquirer is going to blow this secret wide open. Then things will have to happen quickly....or be shut down.
 
We are about to find out what the posturing, secret meetings and spending hundreds of millions on facilities is about. There was a little smoke, I'm beginning to see fire in Cincy and Florida. I could be totally wrong that the Big 12 will choose at least two schools for expansion sometime this year, but I'm not. The damn Cincinnati Inquirer is going to blow this secret wide open. Then things will have to happen quickly....or be shut down.

This is reminiscent of when Maryland moved from the ACC into the Big Ten. Things started breaking and then were pushed forward a bit quicker than they originally wanted.

Here, we don't know for certain what the conference wants though so its going to be very interesting how this transpires. It won't be long and UC will have to release information publicly.
 
We will find out soon-in the next few months.

It takes 8 votes to expand, so if TCU or Texas Tech want it then there are probably enough votes to do it.
In their upcoming discussions the case for and against will be made-as well as what choosing no may mean down the road.

You also have to figure out whether or not Texas will give up the LHN. That's a big key in all of this. Just because Boren has a plan doesn't mean Texas will accept it. Of course Boren thinks the plan is great. It's to his advantage. The key is whether Texas thinks it's good for them. Remains to be seen if it actually is.
 
You also have to figure out whether or not Texas will give up the LHN. That's a big key in all of this. Just because Boren has a plan doesn't mean Texas will accept it. Of course Boren thinks the plan is great. It's to his advantage. The key is whether Texas thinks it's good for them. Remains to be seen if it actually is.

Yes, but the three actions that Boren is so high on are not absolutely connected. The membership can easily say, "OK, let's do this and this, and really look into this." We shall soon see!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT