Let's look at this realistically, if that's allowed on this board.
Neither Cincy nor Memphis, even with FedEx promises, would enhance the Big 12 image or, more importantly, the per-school takehome annual pay. Isn't that what all the conference realignments has been about?
Geography is ignored. Number in the conference name is ignore. Money is the end all and be all.
So, on that scale, Cincy, Memphis, UConn and Houston all fail. BYU, maybe, but the Mormons create other problems.
And Texas can't take its $15 million a year Longhorn Network deal to another conference, so it is stuck in the Big 12. If Oklahoma stays, too, then the two-headed monster of Texas and Oklahoma will continue to keep the Big 12 in the Power Conferences.
That is good for WVU.
Now, if Dana can only figure out a way to do better than barely get above .500 in the Big 12.
I suppose this is again a matter of what terms we are defining and how we define those terms.
The Big-12 image is where I am focused and the assumption that all conference realignments have been about annual take home pay is flawed.
UMD wanted in the Big Ten because its books were red and the Turtles realized what a shoestring operation the ACC is now and is going to be in the future.
Rutgers wanted in the party and out of the G5 purgatory. Granted their books have been red even longer and the Big Ten invitation is like the Powerball to them.
But the reason the Big Ten took them was not merely "all" about take home pay. Many factors came into the decision process and only one part of it was impact on conference revenues. It is plain to see now that the Big Ten commands what it wants regardless of the inventory it recently added or may add for the long prophesized #15 and #16. They could take two sisters of the poor and still get more money, so that makes the case that an invitation is not "all" about take home pay.
The Big Ten took Rutgers and UMD because they met all of the criteria the Big Ten deemed critical. Win/loss records were not part of it as some believe. Either school being worth the current average of the Big Ten member pay out was not apart of it. Rutgers market value was equal to their share in the AAC and UMDs share was <20 million which was the ACC payout when this all started. So that also makes the case it was not "all" about take home pay.
All of that aside, the Big-12 is dealing with circumstances that only somewhat have anything to do with money at all. The Big-12 started their process to make sure the conference had the best chance to land at least one team in the NCP. That was it, nothing else. Later, other factors were brought into the discussion because the devil is always in the details and money is going to be in there somewhere, but it was not why the Big-12 started down this path.
The report back indicated that the best way to secure the objective was to expand by a minimum of 2 teams, split into 2 divisions and host a CCG. Concurrently the Big-12 received an ok to host a CCG without expanding, but that would only raise the Big-12 chances of landing a team in the NCP part of the way.
At that point the candidate list becomes a beauty contest by the ill informed suggesting all sorts of criteria when most of them come across as educated idiots on the subject.
It would seem obvious that the reason the conference wants it best chance to get on an even footing with sending a representative to the NCP would be money, but if go you back and read why the process was set up, it was about conference stability and not more money.
Boren early on stated this until it became his mantra. The conference was unstable and the only way to remedy this was to get a 13th data point by re-enacting the CCG and the then restrictions said you had to have 12 teams to host a CCG. The Big-12 could invite anyone - it literally did not matter who were #11 and #12 so long as their entry allowed the CCG.
Smart people consider all angles and use many details to make the best choices and when they do that, money is always part of the process. Eventually that leads to a beauty contest. All the next two teams need to be is better than Kansas and Iowa State in football in the principle areas of TV-market, athletic budgets, facilities and recruiting base.
Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, Colorado State and UConn are all better that those two existing members in this regard. It is not about any of them bringing in one more dollar on their own. Their admission will engage the pro-rata and by their inclusion we will host a CCG that will bring in more money. As the voting balance of power changes, the hold Texas+TT+TCU has will be rendered a minority and the conference will be better off. This is why Texas opposes all efforts that lead to this conclusion.
No new candidate has to be worth 25 million to the Big-12 on its own any more than Rutgers and UMD and were worth the ~45 now in the Big Ten pipeline. Such standards simply label those that hold them as stupid.
