(10-10-2013 07:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

In case you were unaware, the source for that rumor is MHver and The Dude, and we all know their track record...

(10-10-2013 09:33 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Its possible the big 12 could cease to being around but it would take the pac 12 jumping to 18 or 20 with 6-8 big 12 school's.

So what happens if 6-8 teams leave the Big 12? They are then in a position to sell the home TV rights for the former members, right?

What happens if all the "premier" matchups of the former members are schedule "away"? Certainly the value of the original TV contract plummets. What would the network as a GoR participant do? Or would intentionally playing with the schedule like that violate the agreement.

I'm just wondering how sustainable life would be even with the almighty GoR seemingly being a cash cow for the remaining teams.

(10-09-2013 04:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 01:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  With the Big 12 having so many problems over the past few years. Losing 4 flagship programs in the heart of their footprint, the Longhorn Network, adding West Virginia who's on an island, and passing on Louisville who could have helped with the West Virginia "Island" situation, I see major turmoil in the Big 12. Not to mention the awful year the league is having right now....I see the Big 12 blowing up in the near future and a new league developing with some of the Big 12 schools forming up with some of the better MWC and AAC schools. I can see the Texas and Oklahoma schools leaving and joining up with a few western schools from the MWC, or I can see them joining up with a few eastern schools from the AAC. What say you guys? .

This doesn't make a lick of sense. If they wanted to do that, why not just add those teams now? Truth be told, if you put all 10 Big 12 teams out on the open market, and they and every G5 team were up for grabs for the other conferences to have, all ten Big 12 teams would be among the first 11 picks.

Truth be told: The PAC 12 didn't want OU, OSU, and TT without TX. The PAC 12 would take Rice (AAU Member) before inviting Baylor, TCU, and TT without TX included in the deal. The SEC also passed on OU with OSU and took Misso over WV. The ACC took Pitt and Cuse over WV (although ESPiN told it to). The B10 wouldn't take any of the non-AAU schools in the B12. The B10 would take UMASS or Buffalo before taking the other aforementioned schools because of their AAU status in my opinion....


Btw... The B12 will never die because other G5 schools would join what's left to become the new G6.....

(10-10-2013 10:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Truth be told: The PAC 12 didn't want OU, OSU, and TT without TX. The PAC 12 would take Rice (AAU Member) before inviting Baylor, TCU, and TT without TX included in the deal. The SEC also passed on OU with OSU and took Misso over WV. The ACC took Pitt and Cuse over WV (although ESPiN told it to). The B10 wouldn't take any of the non-AAU schools in the B12. The B10 would take UMASS or Buffalo before taking the other aforementioned schools because of their AAU status in my opinion....

Most of these you listed, are other teams in P5 conferences, so it does not contradict what I said. As for the rest, Rice, would not be taken over Baylor under any circumstance by the PAC 12. AAU status is a criteria said to be used by the Big Ten (even though they not only knew Nebraska was going to be kicked out, half of their membership spearheaded it) that they don't really use. Of course the PAC 12 would prefer AAU status, but Utah was not AAU, and I didn't see them instead take Kansas, for example, or Iowa St or San Diego. Note that while the PAC 12 places a premium on academics, only half of the non-California schools are AAU. Also Umass is not an AAU school: you must be thinking of Massachusetts... Institute of Technology. Not sure where you are going with that. And while AAU is a great asset, under no circumstances is it the first criteria for any school. Case in point: everyone wants Notre Dame, a non-AAU school.

In a pure draft, where the Big Ten may have acquired another Texas school or two already, it is possible Buffalo may be picked over some of the last couple of schools or even Iowa State. But that is purely because of who is already in their membership. If you were discussing any other conference, then no, none of those schools would be picked before any of the remaining Big 12 schools. And there is little debate about this.

If the other conferences were doing an auction draft, the only schools that would be considered before the last Big 12 school was taken would be BYU and Cincinnati, with USF, UCF, and UConn having an outside shot depending on which conference it was over Baylor and maybe even TCU. That's it. nothing against any of those schools, but the longtime association of being in a power conference just puts them on a different level. Even the worst ones.

(10-10-2013 11:11 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Truth be told: The PAC 12 didn't want OU, OSU, and TT without TX. The PAC 12 would take Rice (AAU Member) before inviting Baylor, TCU, and TT without TX included in the deal. The SEC also passed on OU with OSU and took Misso over WV. The ACC took Pitt and Cuse over WV (although ESPiN told it to). The B10 wouldn't take any of the non-AAU schools in the B12. The B10 would take UMASS or Buffalo before taking the other aforementioned schools because of their AAU status in my opinion....

Most of these you listed, are other teams in P5 conferences, so it does not contradict what I said. As for the rest, Rice, would not be taken over Baylor under any circumstance by the PAC 12. Umass is not an AAU school, so not sure where you are going with that. In a pure snake draft, where the Big Ten may have acquired another Texas school or two already, it is possible Buffalo may be picked over some of the last couple of schools or even Iowa State. But that is purely because of who is already in their membership. If you were discussing any other conference, then no, none of those schools would be picked before any of the remaining Big 12 schools. And there is little debate about this.

If the other conferences were doing an auction draft, the only schools that would be considered before the last Big 12 school was taken would be BYU and Cincinnati, with USF, UCF, and UConn having an outside shot depending on which conference it was over Baylor and maybe even TCU. That's it. nothing against any of those schools, but the longtime association of being in a power conference just puts them on a different level. Even the worst ones.

...My bad about UMASS, and thanks for pointing it out.... I think the PAC 12 has made it very clear on what it thinks of Baylor, OU, OSU, and TT. I only see the SEC taking OU and maybe WV. The B10 would consider KU. TX can go to any conference it wants. Dodds even amitted in a subsequent interview that the B12 would have died if the PAC 12 had taken OU. Consequently, he confirmed that the rest of the conference was not worth saving with OU gone…..

Btw.... Good points in your post.....

If the mass exodus happened to the pac 12 of big 12 school's the big 12 would just dissolve. I don't see texas and OU joining the sec for spots 15 and 16, that makes life too hard. I think leagues and school's realize you need a balanced ecosystem which doesn't occur if you put only power school's into leagues. I could see the sec jump to 18 with OU, Ok state, Texas and texas tech than break off into 3 pods of 6.

A: Uk, Ut, vandy, S.car, UGA, UF

B: Ala, aub, Ole Miss, miss state, LSU, Tex A&M

C: Tex, TTech, OU, Ok state, Ark, Mo

play a 5-2-2 format. The same concept works for the pac 12 adding Texas, T tech, OU, Ok state, KU, and KSU. Yet, jumping to 20 might work better for the pac 12. Of course, you need a rule change with a 2 game conference playoff if you have 3 pods of 6. If everybody worked together, you could go with 4 leagues of 18, each having 3 pods of 6 and a 2 game playoff. Than the 72 teams break off. Under that format ND could join a league if they only played the 5 divisional school's, maybe cut navy in to play nd 4 rotated games to balance the schedule. Yet, its wild west and the leagues don't want to work together rather just be greedy + the networks like the divisions since they don't have to pay one entity.

(10-10-2013 08:26 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sounds great to outsiders but I don't see the SEC West teams voting to turn the division into that unwinnable meat grinder.

UT and OU won't be in the SEC.

I have to agree with this. If you're just a fan of the conference, adding OU and UT sounds great. But ultimately a conference is made up of individual members, and they have to keep their interests in mind.

The addition of aTm to get the SEC into Texas was a no-brainer, even if it meant that there was a potential sleeping giant joining that could regularly challenge the upper-mid-tier of the league as well as the top. There was simply too much to gain with that addition to pass it up. Adding Missouri was also a good move, because they're a very good school, they bring new contiguous markets, and they have historically good-but-not-great programs. They particularly had the chance to enhance the SEC's basketball brand.

If you accept the premise that the SEC can only enhance a school's brand, adding UT and OU means adding two historic powerhouses, with re-energized recruiting, fanbases, etc to the conference. I think you could perhaps get away with adding one, but likely not both of them. For any established conference, finding new schools that complement each other, and add to the league without causing too much brand erosion to the schools that are there is a challenge.

I think that's one reason why the speculation of OU and KU to the B1G has some traction, at least among message board types. OU would add to the league in football, but also adding KU means that most of the existing teams would expect to have a W on their schedule in the fall. The reverse would be true in basketball, although OU basketball has traditionally been stronger than KU football.

1. It takes at least 64 schools to make this silliness work.
2. The only two programs currently in the Big 12 than anyone else wants are Texas and Oklahoma.
3. You can't get to 64 schools without somehow including the Big 12's other eight schools.
4. SO, the Big 12 may be a zombie conference, but a thousand bullets to the head still won't put it down.

As long as Texas wants the B12 to exist, it will exist. As soon as Texas walks out, the B12, OU follows and, with no flagship, whatever is left of the the B12 becomes something above the G5, but clearly below the P5.

(10-10-2013 02:47 PM)orangefan Wrote:  As long as Texas wants the B12 to exist, it will exist. As soon as Texas walks out, the B12, OU follows and, with no flagship, whatever is left of the the B12 becomes something above the G5, but clearly below the P5.

It merges with the MWC or the AAC.

(10-10-2013 02:53 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 02:47 PM)orangefan Wrote:  As long as Texas wants the B12 to exist, it will exist. As soon as Texas walks out, the B12, OU follows and, with no flagship, whatever is left of the the B12 becomes something above the G5, but clearly below the P5.

It merges with the MWC or the AAC.

No, they would do the same thing to the AAC that the AAC did to CUSA. The AAC gave certain CUSA schools the opportunity to "ditch" the rest of their conference mates -- they wouldn't have had that opportunity if UConn, Cincinnati, and USF had just joined CUSA. The Big 12 in that scenario would do the same thing: Offer a handful of AAC schools the chance to say, "Sayonara, suckers!" to the rest of their league. They'd jump at the chance.

I'm still at a loss as to why folks think that the ONLY conference that could expand to kill the BigXII would be the PAC. Obviously the PAC would be a player in it's demise, but it wouldn't have to jump to 20 to get there....2 to the B1G, 2 to the SEC, 4 to the PAC and boom that's 8 schools gone right there and all the key players but the ACC would be at 16, which could pick up a couple of schools somewhere still. UConn, Cincinnati, and likely Baylor or TCU could all be on the table for them to expand to get to 16 as well.

(10-10-2013 02:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 02:53 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 02:47 PM)orangefan Wrote:  As long as Texas wants the B12 to exist, it will exist. As soon as Texas walks out, the B12, OU follows and, with no flagship, whatever is left of the the B12 becomes something above the G5, but clearly below the P5.

It merges with the MWC or the AAC.

No, they would do the same thing to the AAC that the AAC did to CUSA. The AAC gave certain CUSA schools the opportunity to "ditch" the rest of their conference mates -- they wouldn't have had that opportunity if UConn, Cincinnati, and USF had just joined CUSA. The Big 12 in that scenario would do the same thing: Offer a handful of AAC schools the chance to say, "Sayonara, suckers!" to the rest of their league. They'd jump at the chance.

...then the AAC would restore their ranks to 10-12 members by hurrying the Navy and Army additions by any means possible.

Who the Big XII would add - and who the AAC would add - would greatly depend on who the legacy Big XII members are.

With that said, I think the GoR will do a good job of preventing any further defections from the league.

This thread is hilarious. It's now 8 pages based on a rumor from MHver and The Dude - THE source for all these rumors.,,

It's like the FSU and Clemson to the B12 rumor, with Texas, Oklahoma, and Oliver Luck instead of FSU and Clemson...

The Big XII isn't going anywhere...much like the ACC Stuff before the ACC GoR was signed...as long as IMO Texas is happy and I don't see why they would not be then it will survive and thrive...

(10-10-2013 04:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This thread is hilarious. It's now 8 pages based on a rumor from MHver and The Dude - THE source for all these rumors.,,

It's like the FSU and Clemson to the B12 rumor, with Texas, Oklahoma, and Oliver Luck instead of FSU and Clemson...

Nobody cares what MHVer and the Dude had to say Bit. They just needed a catalyst that said "okay this is a great time to share your pent up ideas". That's why the thread is fun.

(10-09-2013 09:28 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:38 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:36 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:12 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Are you sure Texas can go independent? I'm not. The Texas legislature have to realize this is the first step in Texas cutting the other schools out of the picture...

Texas simply does not care about the other schools.....

Man, you know nothing about Texas politics. If you think those other Texas schools don't have the stroke to make UT's life hell, you're very much mistaken.

I'm wondering if UT has a hand shake deal with A&M since Texas didn't raise a fuss when they left. UT knew they would be left holding the bag.

UT AND Baylor threw a hissy fit when aggy left. The only school that didn't say a word was Texas Tech. As for as Texas politics go, why in the world would the Texas Leg care about private schools in Waco and Ft. Worth. Bob Bullock isn't getting out of his grave to save Baylor and Ken Starr can only spew his "Baylor being left out hurts the Texas economy" crud for so long. Universities in Dallas and Houston will rightfully laugh at that considering the hand they have been dealt the last 19 years.

For better or worse, UT and Texas Tech are tied to each other. UT and a couple of PAC schools are helping Tech prepare for AAU inclusion in the future. As long as 8 members of the Big 12 find a home, the Big 12 is dead and I hope it happens sooner than later.

The Universities in Dallas and Houston might laugh at Baylor but they won't be left behind. Baylor Alums own one of, if not THE most powerful political firms in Texas, HillCo Partners. They are heavily connected with both political parties in Texas. The two founders were listed individually in 2011 by Texas Monthly as two of the 25 most powerful people in Texas Politics. Their largest contributor and one of the largest donors in Texas politics, Bob Perry, was also a Baylor alum. Sadly he passed away in April. His influence still carries a lot of weight in Texas. If you consider the political ties and Baylor's athletic success currently, they will be in a power conference.

This coordinated BigXII dissolution idea just needs to die. No conference is going to take on the less desirable properties for the sole purpose of facilitating another conference's acquisition of the target schools. Even if one assumes forced expansion to 16 (which is required for this notion to be even slightly plausible), a conference like the PAC, if unable to bring in UT, would take Hawaii and New Mexico over ISU and Kansas State even if for no reason other than to stick the others with the legal mess and financial fallout of the dissolution.

(10-10-2013 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This thread is hilarious. It's now 8 pages based on a rumor from MHver and The Dude - THE source for all these rumors.,,

It's like the FSU and Clemson to the B12 rumor, with Texas, Oklahoma, and Oliver Luck instead of FSU and Clemson...

Nobody cares what MHVer and the Dude had to say Bit. They just needed a catalyst that said "okay this is a great time to share your pent up ideas". That's why the thread is fun.

That's also why this thread is so funny...

(10-10-2013 11:44 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 08:26 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sounds great to outsiders but I don't see the SEC West teams voting to turn the division into that unwinnable meat grinder.

UT and OU won't be in the SEC.

I have to agree with this. If you're just a fan of the conference, adding OU and UT sounds great. But ultimately a conference is made up of individual members, and they have to keep their interests in mind.

The addition of aTm to get the SEC into Texas was a no-brainer, even if it meant that there was a potential sleeping giant joining that could regularly challenge the upper-mid-tier of the league as well as the top. There was simply too much to gain with that addition to pass it up. Adding Missouri was also a good move, because they're a very good school, they bring new contiguous markets, and they have historically good-but-not-great programs. They particularly had the chance to enhance the SEC's basketball brand.

If you accept the premise that the SEC can only enhance a school's brand, adding UT and OU means adding two historic powerhouses, with re-energized recruiting, fanbases, etc to the conference. I think you could perhaps get away with adding one, but likely not both of them. For any established conference, finding new schools that complement each other, and add to the league without causing too much brand erosion to the schools that are there is a challenge.

I think that's one reason why the speculation of OU and KU to the B1G has some traction, at least among message board types. OU would add to the league in football, but also adding KU means that most of the existing teams would expect to have a W on their schedule in the fall. The reverse would be true in basketball, although OU basketball has traditionally been stronger than KU football.

Phog I'm not saying that you or 10th are wrong here, but allow me to play devils advocate for a moment. Travel is going to matter even more in the future than it does now. Expenses are only going to go up. Texas and Oklahoma want more marquee games on the schedule. They both want to be able to play rivals of a local flavor. You do realize that the Western division of the SEC would consist of the following with Oklahoma and Texas on board: Arkansas (old SWC rival), L.S.U. (a natural rival for both) Ole Miss (a reasonably close school and one that isn't dynamite), Miss State (see Ole Miss), Missouri (recent conference mate and usually middle of the pack), Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M (rival).

What I'm illustrating here is that Texas and Oklahoma would be playing in a division with Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and L.S.U.. That's plenty of good names to put fannies in the seats in Austin and Norman. It's also exactly the kinds of teams they want to play for local flavor and interest.
If the SEC found a way to make a spot for Okie State it would be very close to being the best of the old SWC/Big 12 all in one 8 team division.
Texas and Oklahoma would not be playing anymore of a difficult schedule to win the division than they played in the old Big 12. And, the games would be confined to an area more compact than the old Big 12.

That's as good as it gets for them at this stage in the realignment game. Add to that the content value that would float all boats, their's included, and whether you are a proponent of the PAC or Big 10 you have to admit that the scenario presented would have to be appealing even for Texas.

Sure the SEC is not as appealing academically as the PAC or Big 10, but then the present Big 12 is worse than the SEC academically speaking. It wouldn't be much of an upgrade to go to the SEC but at least it would be an upgrade. There is nowhere else they can go that can guarantee as many local games for their division as the SEC.

So all of this speculation that says the PAC, and the Big 10, needs to address the travel and the old relationships that would be important to OU and UT. The ACC is still very much in the picture given the right set of circumstances. Especially since ESPN is not going to want to lose Texas and the corporate mouse can benefit by placing them in either the SEC or ACC.

Like I said, I'm not saying Texas wouldn't or couldn't go to the PAC or Big 10, I'm just pointing out that there is no conference that is out of the hunt on this one and some that have some natural advantages, and some with business advantages.

Personally I don't care to see Texas in the SEC, but if they were added the business end of it would make a great deal of sense.