(08-10-2015 01:21 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 08:31 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 06:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There are only 2 schools with stadiums larger than 60,000 in the B12, Texas and Oklahoma.

BYU would make a 3rd so a division with BYU, Colorado St, K-State, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech and Baylor could definitely stack up well against the UT & OU division.

Baylor has become a beast and K-State/OSU are on very solid footing. BYU would be solid. It will probably take Colorado St a while to catch up but they are in a better situation than Kansas in the East division.

Boise State yes they won a ton of games playing in the WAC but what is their upside?

Texas Tech and Iowa State are over 60k. Tech has been there a few years and ISU just expanded to it.

So are Oklahoma St. and West Virginia. WVU has been over 60k for a long time.

I said over 60,000 not at 60k.

OSU is 60,219
WVU is 60,000
Texas Tech is 60,862
Iowa State is 54,800 (planned 61,000)

BYU is 63,470 and would be the 3rd largest stadium in the B12.

Overall I feel like a B12 West division with BYU, Col St, K-State, OSU, Tech and Baylor would stack up just fine competitively against a division with UT, OU, TCU, Kansas, Iowa St and WVU.

Then you probably should have said over "61,000"
Or "62,000" since three of them are "over" 60,000, and the fourth is "at" 60,000, and regularly exceeds that total.

(08-10-2015 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Actually the first 3 years KSU, Nebraska and CU were all good and the South was viewed as weak. There was a lot of, "Why did we bother saving these guys from the SWC?." After that all 3 went down and the North was viewed as weak.

I think people forget how good Colorado was. Them going from the best (or second best depending on the year) team in the conference to pretty much the worst really changed how the north was viewed, and the dynamics of the north/south division.

(08-10-2015 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing I would say is if they pass deregulation of the CCG, but still require 12, that could help the Big 12 out. Would help the sticky up to 12 but where do you place everyone question.

No one is doing the big 12 a favor while they have them against the ropes. It's all just a public drama unfolding. Everyone whom is believing the talk coming form the big 12 that they can get the votes, they will all be let down when it doesn't come to fruition. That is exactly what is wanted.

(08-10-2015 06:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing I would say is if they pass deregulation of the CCG, but still require 12, that could help the Big 12 out. Would help the sticky up to 12 but where do you place everyone question.

No one is doing the big 12 a favor while they have them against the ropes. It's all just a public drama unfolding. Everyone whom is believing the talk coming form the big 12 that they can get the votes, they will all be let down when it doesn't come to fruition. That is exactly what is wanted.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that if they pass the deregulation part of determining who the title game opponents are- but still keep it at 12 minimum- that's a win for the Big 12. No longer would they have to worry about splitting into divisions, which is an extremely sticky issue for them....

(08-10-2015 06:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Actually the first 3 years KSU, Nebraska and CU were all good and the South was viewed as weak. There was a lot of, "Why did we bother saving these guys from the SWC?." After that all 3 went down and the North was viewed as weak.

I think people forget how good Colorado was. Them going from the best (or second best depending on the year) team in the conference to pretty much the worst really changed how the north was viewed, and the dynamics of the north/south division.

Right statement, wrong team. I think you could say that moreso about Nebraska. When Nebraska started to slip, that's when the north became viewed so poorly.

(08-10-2015 07:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 06:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing I would say is if they pass deregulation of the CCG, but still require 12, that could help the Big 12 out. Would help the sticky up to 12 but where do you place everyone question.

No one is doing the big 12 a favor while they have them against the ropes. It's all just a public drama unfolding. Everyone whom is believing the talk coming form the big 12 that they can get the votes, they will all be let down when it doesn't come to fruition. That is exactly what is wanted.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that if they pass the deregulation part of determining who the title game opponents are- but still keep it at 12 minimum- that's a win for the Big 12. No longer would they have to worry about splitting into divisions, which is an extremely sticky issue for them....

Right. It allows for a few rivals and rotation. Everyone gets the most mutually important games and the benefits of a less cannibalistic scheduling model.

(08-10-2015 07:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 06:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing I would say is if they pass deregulation of the CCG, but still require 12, that could help the Big 12 out. Would help the sticky up to 12 but where do you place everyone question.

No one is doing the big 12 a favor while they have them against the ropes. It's all just a public drama unfolding. Everyone whom is believing the talk coming form the big 12 that they can get the votes, they will all be let down when it doesn't come to fruition. That is exactly what is wanted.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that if they pass the deregulation part of determining who the title game opponents are- but still keep it at 12 minimum- that's a win for the Big 12. No longer would they have to worry about splitting into divisions, which is an extremely sticky issue for them....

Ahh, fair point. I still don't think they will get any rules passed that aid them but now I do understand what you were getting at and that does make sense. They would still have to expand with two lesser brands but they would survive and could remain part of the P5.

(08-07-2015 09:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 06:38 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 06:14 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 01:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  If you bring both BYU and Boise St., there is little reason to do it for football only. BYU and Boise become a travel pair.

If anyone would be football only it would be UCF. They don't bring a whole lot in Olympic sports (as far as I can tell) and they would be 900 miles from the nearest member with no travel partner.

If you bring BYU without Boise, then football only might make some sense.

But the Olympic sports travel is overstated. BYU and USD are travel partners in the WCC -711 miles between them. Gonzaga to USD is over 1,300 miles - and they play home-home every year. The Big Sky has North Dakota and Sacramento State (1,700 miles) and N. Arizona and Portland St. (1,300 miles). The WAC has Chicago St. and Seattle (2,000 miles!) and CSU-Bakersfield and UMKC (1,600 miles). Wyoming and San Diego St. (1,111 miles) and Fresno St. and Air Force (1,136 miles) play each other in the MWC.

If the WCC, MWC, WAC, and Big Sky can make it work in their Olympic sports, the Big 12 can make both BYU and UCF work.

Boise doesn't bring much besides football. UCF at least has a good baseball program.

So you haven't been following Boise Basketball lately, it's better than UCF Basketball.....much better.

NCAA tourney records:

UCF 0-4
Boise 0-7

As far as basketball programs are concerned, I don't see much of a difference.

Boise State deserves all the football praise, but let's not pretend that they are anything special in basketball...

Boise has made the tourney in 2 of the last 3 years. Boise isn't special in basketball, but they are pretty decent right now. Definitely way ahead of UCF basketball, that's for sure.

We were a bubble team two years before the sanctions hit. This was the first year without restrictions

(08-10-2015 02:39 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 06:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I said over 60,000 not at 60k.

OSU is 60,219
WVU is 60,000
Texas Tech is 60,862
Iowa State is 54,800 (planned 61,000)

BYU is 63,470 and would be the 3rd largest stadium in the B12.

Overall I feel like a B12 West division with BYU, Col St, K-State, OSU, Tech and Baylor would stack up just fine competitively against a division with UT, OU, TCU, Kansas, Iowa St and WVU.

Any divisions in the Big 12 will have OK and UT in separate divisions. Just like Florida State and Miami are in separate divisions. You want to sell the consist game every year (which would be a permanent crossover game), then have the chance for them to meet up again in the conference championship game. Any division split with Texas and Oklahoma in the same division is a simple non-starter.

However, I certainly agree with your point on attendance. BYU has been averaging over 60K for ~35 years, even through three straight losing seasons. Many other teams that have been in major conferences, BCS conferences and now P5 conferences haven't sustained that level of interest. It is easy to say that UCF/USF have "potential," but can they similarly deliver when teams that have had the benefit of membership have not?

We have done more in our 20 years of fbs than most programs. Btw we have built and grown our attendance from d3. Our core fanbase is around 32k. That's more than Boise puts in the stands despite being in the Mac cusa and now the AAC. Do some research

(08-10-2015 10:25 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 02:39 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 06:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I said over 60,000 not at 60k.

OSU is 60,219
WVU is 60,000
Texas Tech is 60,862
Iowa State is 54,800 (planned 61,000)

BYU is 63,470 and would be the 3rd largest stadium in the B12.

Overall I feel like a B12 West division with BYU, Col St, K-State, OSU, Tech and Baylor would stack up just fine competitively against a division with UT, OU, TCU, Kansas, Iowa St and WVU.

Any divisions in the Big 12 will have OK and UT in separate divisions. Just like Florida State and Miami are in separate divisions. You want to sell the consist game every year (which would be a permanent crossover game), then have the chance for them to meet up again in the conference championship game. Any division split with Texas and Oklahoma in the same division is a simple non-starter.

However, I certainly agree with your point on attendance. BYU has been averaging over 60K for ~35 years, even through three straight losing seasons. Many other teams that have been in major conferences, BCS conferences and now P5 conferences haven't sustained that level of interest. It is easy to say that UCF/USF have "potential," but can they similarly deliver when teams that have had the benefit of membership have not?

We have done more in our 20 years of fbs than most programs. Btw we have built and grown our attendance from d3. Our core fanbase is around 32k. That's more than Boise puts in the stands despite being in the Mac cusa and now the AAC. Do some research

Boise State is getting around 33,000 to 34,000 fans. More than UCF right now. Boise is expanding their stadium to 53,000 by 2017.

For football, there's no question the best two mid-majors are BYU & Boise. Overall, BYU is the best for overall TV viewing (which, as opposed to yesteryear is a bigger deal than attendance)... and Boise is a big football Power trapped in a G5 conference. If it was football-only, that'd be the clear choice. UCF, Cinci, ECU, Houston, Memphis, and NIU would be behind for football and each has their different pros & cons for joining in for football.

But, you have multiple-sports. BYU's good for that, while Boise can hold their own, and knowing their college they can expand rather rapidly, they'll have no problem there. Cinci is a good basketball + football... Memphis just for basketball, although they have an opportunity to break it open for football, but that's kind of unproven/untested (too early there). Houston has a great Texas area fan base (but is B12 trying to be a mainly Texas conf? not good if wanting to make a B12 network), while UCF & ECU help to expand the geography (for a b12 network), while NIU with great Chicago market tapped is a good in-between of WV & the plain states (but Strongly lacking in basketball; big weakness).

IMO, BYU/Boise would be the safest choice. Cinci & UCF wouldn't be bad additional addons to go to 14 teams if making a B12 network, and if not, maybe replacing UCF with Houston. If going to 14 were to be done stripping the AAC, the AAC would reach out to grab Marshall & NIU to join their conference.

(08-11-2015 03:13 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  For football, there's no question the best two mid-majors are BYU & Boise. Overall, BYU is the best for overall TV viewing (which, as opposed to yesteryear is a bigger deal than attendance)... and Boise is a big football Power trapped in a G5 conference. If it was football-only, that'd be the clear choice. UCF, Cinci, ECU, Houston, Memphis, and NIU would be behind for football and each has their different pros & cons for joining in for football.

But, you have multiple-sports. BYU's good for that, while Boise can hold their own, and knowing their college they can expand rather rapidly, they'll have no problem there. Cinci is a good basketball + football... Memphis just for basketball, although they have an opportunity to break it open for football, but that's kind of unproven/untested (too early there). Houston has a great Texas area fan base (but is B12 trying to be a mainly Texas conf? not good if wanting to make a B12 network), while UCF & ECU help to expand the geography (for a b12 network), while NIU with great Chicago market tapped is a good in-between of WV & the plain states (but Strongly lacking in basketball; big weakness).

IMO, BYU/Boise would be the safest choice. Cinci & UCF wouldn't be bad additional addons to go to 14 teams if making a B12 network, and if not, maybe replacing UCF with Houston. If going to 14 were to be done stripping the AAC, the AAC would reach out to grab Marshall & NIU to join their conference.

For a Big 12 Network? They might need BYU and Boise State.

UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati and East Carolina to make it 16.

If 3 more Big 12 schools leave?

Old Dominion, Northern Illinois, Colorado State and North Dakota State could add more big tv markets.

If there is a network I would be shocked if Boise was added. I can see BYU due to brand value but a network makes UConn a LOT more valuable if they can even deliver a small part of NYC dma.

(08-11-2015 08:35 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  If there is a network I would be shocked if Boise was added. I can see BYU due to brand value but a network makes UConn a LOT more valuable if they can even deliver a small part of NYC dma.

If it is about a Network than ECU is your brand because no North Carolina school is yet represented in a conference that has it's own TV Network.

(08-10-2015 09:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 07:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 06:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing I would say is if they pass deregulation of the CCG, but still require 12, that could help the Big 12 out. Would help the sticky up to 12 but where do you place everyone question.

No one is doing the big 12 a favor while they have them against the ropes. It's all just a public drama unfolding. Everyone whom is believing the talk coming form the big 12 that they can get the votes, they will all be let down when it doesn't come to fruition. That is exactly what is wanted.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that if they pass the deregulation part of determining who the title game opponents are- but still keep it at 12 minimum- that's a win for the Big 12. No longer would they have to worry about splitting into divisions, which is an extremely sticky issue for them....

Ahh, fair point. I still don't think they will get any rules passed that aid them but now I do understand what you were getting at and that does make sense. They would still have to expand with two lesser brands but they would survive and could remain part of the P5.

I think the deregulation of the title game though helps them regardless. Not having to form divisions would be huge for them- probably helps them and the ACC almost exactly the same.

(08-11-2015 08:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 07:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 06:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing I would say is if they pass deregulation of the CCG, but still require 12, that could help the Big 12 out. Would help the sticky up to 12 but where do you place everyone question.

No one is doing the big 12 a favor while they have them against the ropes. It's all just a public drama unfolding. Everyone whom is believing the talk coming form the big 12 that they can get the votes, they will all be let down when it doesn't come to fruition. That is exactly what is wanted.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that if they pass the deregulation part of determining who the title game opponents are- but still keep it at 12 minimum- that's a win for the Big 12. No longer would they have to worry about splitting into divisions, which is an extremely sticky issue for them....

Ahh, fair point. I still don't think they will get any rules passed that aid them but now I do understand what you were getting at and that does make sense. They would still have to expand with two lesser brands but they would survive and could remain part of the P5.

I think the deregulation of the title game though helps them regardless. Not having to form divisions would be huge for them- probably helps them and the ACC almost exactly the same.

It's not quite the same. Not having to form divisions is perfect for the ACC right now as they are. That does not mean that the ACC wouldn't rather be at 16 with more divisions that are smaller, that just means that right now not having divisions would be easier for them to schedule. The ACC doesn't have to invite someone if the no division rule is passed, the big 12 does.

Any such invitation will weaken the branding image of the big 12 due to what the options are. Thus the situation is not the same at all. The ACC has only pushed for rules allowing no divisions while the big 12 is pushing for the 12 team rule to also be removed.

I think that the decision of who to invite into the big 12 is a bigger and tougher decision to make than you think it is even if we do see the divisional requirement removed from the rules.

I think though with the Big 12, if they had to go to 12, but didn't have to worry about divisions- it eliminates the problem that everyone would want to be in with Texas/Oklahoma. It would make the situation MUCH better. I think in some ways you could make the case that deregulation allowing no divisions would help the Big 12 more than the ACC even, even if the Big 12 doesn't get the 10 team exception.

(08-11-2015 08:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think though with the Big 12, if they had to go to 12, but didn't have to worry about divisions- it eliminates the problem that everyone would want to be in with Texas/Oklahoma. It would make the situation MUCH better. I think in some ways you could make the case that deregulation allowing no divisions would help the Big 12 more than the ACC even, even if the Big 12 doesn't get the 10 team exception.

Yeah, you could make that argument considering the position the big 12 is in right now in comparison to the position the ACC is in.

A major knock on the big 12 though as been some of their weak ooc schedules. There will be a perception that bringing up schools into the P5 to fill out the big 12 will weaken their conference schedule as well.

I am not saying that is reality, I am just saying that would be the perception of some and I do think much of the media would push that talking point considering how heavily the big 12 is under attack now.

(08-11-2015 09:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 08:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think though with the Big 12, if they had to go to 12, but didn't have to worry about divisions- it eliminates the problem that everyone would want to be in with Texas/Oklahoma. It would make the situation MUCH better. I think in some ways you could make the case that deregulation allowing no divisions would help the Big 12 more than the ACC even, even if the Big 12 doesn't get the 10 team exception.

Yeah, you could make that argument considering the position the big 12 is in right now in comparison to the position the ACC is in.

A major knock on the big 12 though as been some of their weak ooc schedules. There will be a perception that bringing up schools into the P5 to fill out the big 12 will weaken their conference schedule as well.

I am not saying that is reality, I am just saying that would be the perception of some and I do think much of the media would push that talking point considering how heavily the big 12 is under attack now.

I think it would depend on how the school that enters does.
If they're like TCU- it's a big plus (23-15 since entering the Big 12) 16-9 last 2 years
If they're like WVU- it's not so much(18-20 since entering the Big 12) 11-14 last 2 years.

(08-11-2015 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 09:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 08:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think though with the Big 12, if they had to go to 12, but didn't have to worry about divisions- it eliminates the problem that everyone would want to be in with Texas/Oklahoma. It would make the situation MUCH better. I think in some ways you could make the case that deregulation allowing no divisions would help the Big 12 more than the ACC even, even if the Big 12 doesn't get the 10 team exception.

Yeah, you could make that argument considering the position the big 12 is in right now in comparison to the position the ACC is in.

A major knock on the big 12 though as been some of their weak ooc schedules. There will be a perception that bringing up schools into the P5 to fill out the big 12 will weaken their conference schedule as well.

I am not saying that is reality, I am just saying that would be the perception of some and I do think much of the media would push that talking point considering how heavily the big 12 is under attack now.

I think it would depend on how the school that enters does.
If they're like TCU- it's a big plus (23-15 since entering the Big 12) 16-9 last 2 years
If they're like WVU- it's not so much(18-20 since entering the Big 12) 11-14 last 2 years.

Yes but do you think the likes of Texas and Oklahoma are happy about TCU's success?

Folks like to poo poo the additions of Rutgers and Maryland to The Big Ten but those additions added major markets without adding a lot of threat to the top programs at the time.

TCU on the other hand has supplanted everyone at the top of the big 12. Unlike Baylor, they actually play defense too. Unlike Baylor, they exist in a great media market as well as the number one recruiting market in the country.

TCU may be great for the big 12 but not so great for the traditional powers of the big 12.

A major problem for the big 12 is that there are plenty of programs at that next level down that could be a threat in the conference, such as the UCF's and the ECU's but they don't really give strong access into their respective States in the same way that a flagship University does. There is a serious perception problem with them that is accompanied by the threat of them actually doing good in the big 12.