I think this is also a smart ploy by the Big 10. They smell the blood in the water with the Big 12 right now. They know OU is unhappy with Texas right now. How can you destroy another power conference? Make sure that conference become even more unstable by making a compromise to Texas. Texas wants to keep their Longhorns Network, but does not want to share that with the rest of the Big 12. Boren wants a Big 12 Network, and wants the Longhorns Network turned into the Big 12 Network. Who is gonna blink first? OU or Texas? I have a feeling if Texas does not budge? I could see OU and Kansas leave, and that either or both Big 10 and SEC could afford to help pay OU and Kansas to break the GoRs.

I think the Big 12 mostly Texas, fell into the scheming trap of Dalany.

(01-13-2016 01:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is also a smart ploy by the Big 10. They smell the blood in the water with the Big 12 right now. They know OU is unhappy with Texas right now. How can you destroy another power conference? Make sure that conference become even more unstable by making a compromise to Texas. Texas wants to keep their Longhorns Network, but does not want to share that with the rest of the Big 12. Boren wants a Big 12 Network, and wants the Longhorns Network turned into the Big 12 Network. Who is gonna blink first? OU or Texas? I have a feeling if Texas does not budge? I could see OU and Kansas leave, and that either or both Big 10 and SEC could afford to help pay OU and Kansas to break the GoRs.

I think the Big 12 mostly Texas, fell into the scheming trap of Dalany.

Urm, if 7 of the 10 current members of the Big 12 find homes, they can vote to disband the conference. Once that happens, the GOR is null and void. See Exit Clause 22.

(01-13-2016 01:34 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is also a smart ploy by the Big 10. They smell the blood in the water with the Big 12 right now. They know OU is unhappy with Texas right now. How can you destroy another power conference? Make sure that conference become even more unstable by making a compromise to Texas. Texas wants to keep their Longhorns Network, but does not want to share that with the rest of the Big 12. Boren wants a Big 12 Network, and wants the Longhorns Network turned into the Big 12 Network. Who is gonna blink first? OU or Texas? I have a feeling if Texas does not budge? I could see OU and Kansas leave, and that either or both Big 10 and SEC could afford to help pay OU and Kansas to break the GoRs.

I think the Big 12 mostly Texas, fell into the scheming trap of Dalany.

Urm, if 7 of the 10 current members of the Big 12 find homes, they can vote to disband the conference. Once that happens, the GOR is null and void. See Exit Clause 22.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State and West Virginia do not have another home to go to. If I were those schools? I would grow a pair and hound and pound Texas to turned the Longhorns Network into the Big 12 Network and expand to make the conference expand.

(01-13-2016 01:39 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:34 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is also a smart ploy by the Big 10. They smell the blood in the water with the Big 12 right now. They know OU is unhappy with Texas right now. How can you destroy another power conference? Make sure that conference become even more unstable by making a compromise to Texas. Texas wants to keep their Longhorns Network, but does not want to share that with the rest of the Big 12. Boren wants a Big 12 Network, and wants the Longhorns Network turned into the Big 12 Network. Who is gonna blink first? OU or Texas? I have a feeling if Texas does not budge? I could see OU and Kansas leave, and that either or both Big 10 and SEC could afford to help pay OU and Kansas to break the GoRs.

I think the Big 12 mostly Texas, fell into the scheming trap of Dalany.

Urm, if 7 of the 10 current members of the Big 12 find homes, they can vote to disband the conference. Once that happens, the GOR is null and void. See Exit Clause 22.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State and West Virginia do not have another home to go to. If I were those schools? I would grow a pair and hound and pound Texas to turned the Longhorns Network into the Big 12 Network and expand to make the conference expand.

Grow a pair of what? Antlers? Breasts?

What pops into your imagination David?

(01-13-2016 01:39 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:34 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is also a smart ploy by the Big 10. They smell the blood in the water with the Big 12 right now. They know OU is unhappy with Texas right now. How can you destroy another power conference? Make sure that conference become even more unstable by making a compromise to Texas. Texas wants to keep their Longhorns Network, but does not want to share that with the rest of the Big 12. Boren wants a Big 12 Network, and wants the Longhorns Network turned into the Big 12 Network. Who is gonna blink first? OU or Texas? I have a feeling if Texas does not budge? I could see OU and Kansas leave, and that either or both Big 10 and SEC could afford to help pay OU and Kansas to break the GoRs.

I think the Big 12 mostly Texas, fell into the scheming trap of Dalany.

Urm, if 7 of the 10 current members of the Big 12 find homes, they can vote to disband the conference. Once that happens, the GOR is null and void. See Exit Clause 22.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State and West Virginia do not have another home to go to. If I were those schools? I would grow a pair and hound and pound Texas to turned the Longhorns Network into the Big 12 Network and expand to make the conference expand.

They will if everyone wants the dissolution to happen.

(01-12-2016 07:56 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Doesn't this make the AAC more stable? TV contract #2 might be okay if it does.

I think this is the best news the AAC has had in months.

Not such good news for Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis or UConn (or BYU)...

I don't think Cincinnati will ever be good for the AAC to be honest. The perception/negativity surrounding the conference situation is something that won't be easy to change. Playing smaller time football in this city is not sustainable long term. They're up against the NFL/MLB and 1-2 hours from several big time schools. Not to mention how many people here go to games Friday nights as well. The only cities in a similar situation like Houston have several times our population. When it's rolling right or there is good competition the school itself is big enough to draw. I'm afraid the support will go downhill fast in this setup and we will struggle in the AAC.

Cincy NEEDS to be in a P5 probably more than any other school.

(01-12-2016 10:13 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  It's pretty clear the other leagues actually want the Big 12 to play a CCG. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I've said all along that not playing one is probably a slight net advantage.

To decide whether they want a CCG the B12 is having to choose between maximizing annual revenue VS a slight advantage towards winning a title. That is a tough balancing act and this is one of the few cases you'll ever find where those 2 goals might conflict.

If this passes it will probably stabilize the P5 until the next round of TV negotiations. Then I would look for the Big 10 and Big 12 to try to cherry pick from the ACC. Cincinnati, Houston and the other P5 hopefuls will then looking at ACC invites as their last hope of moving up.

(01-13-2016 08:51 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  If this passes it will probably stabilize the P5 until the next round of TV negotiations. Then I would look for the Big 10 and Big 12 to try to cherry pick from the ACC. Cincinnati, Houston and the other P5 hopefuls will then looking at ACC invites as their last hope of moving up.

P5 stable may be true but the G5 could see more expansion as the TV valuations of its conferences rise and fall.

The practical size limitation of a conference might be 16 if 2 divisions are required. That way each division can play 7 games with 2 crossovers on a 9 game conference schedule. Pushing to 18 or 20 teams restricts crossover play.

BYU and Army I think may find the writing is on the wall as an independent and link up with the rising AAC.

MWC has said they'll do Rice/UTEP to get into Texas. If a BYU/Colorado St combo moves to the AAC, they'll be reduced to 11 and have space for 1 more like UTSA.

If this is true I don't understand it.

Perhaps it's a typo which is suppose to state that if a conference with 10 teams that doesn't play a round robin can have a CCG? That's seem to make the most sense to me.

(01-12-2016 08:39 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:35 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:38 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  SBC?

Has 12, or 14, depending on whether you count Idaho and NMSU.

In football it will be 10. Basketball will be 12 but football revenues aren't shared with UTA or Little Rock.

Yep, unfortunately for Idaho and NMSU this probably puts the nail in the coffin with respect to their continued SBC membership.

At least the Vandals can fall back on playing FCS football in the Big Sky. I don't know what the Aggies will do. Independence would be a tough row to hoe for them.

Actually, it seems like this helps Idaho. 10-team conferences can only hold a CCG if they play a round robin schedule. Sun Belt schools don't seem likely to give up a money game and go to a 9-game conference schedule. So they'd need 12 teams under this rule.

There is no desire by most of the Sunbelt schools to hold a CCG anyway, so Idaho and NMSU are on their way out. The Sunbelt is more likely to go to 9 games to hold a CCG than stay at 12.

(01-13-2016 09:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If this is true I don't understand it.

Perhaps it's a typo which is suppose to state that if a conference with 10 teams that doesn't play a round robin can have a CCG? That's seem to make the most sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. Its a poison pill. You must play a full round robin. That means you are guaranteed a rematch in a game that makes no sense because #1 already beat #2. That lowers the TV value and increases the possibility (since its hard to beat a good team twice-see Alabama/LSU a few years back and Florida-FSU in the 90s-there is a good chance for an upset) that you get a team knocked out of the playoffs. Much more so than in the 14 team conferences. So the Big 12 playing a ccg in a 10 team conference with a rr puts them at more of a disadvantage than they are at now.

LOL! Everyone still obsessed with tv deals and what conf screws another conf. Who cares. It should be all about the games. I could care less what happens to other AFC north teams besides the Steelers. I wish we could go back to the days when you root for your school and not care if your conf mates are winning. Something is wrong with the sport because of this crap. Add in the joke of the "student athlete", the quasi pro mentality overtaking CFB, etc... it gets boring.

I think this is very good for the Big 12. Breaking into divisions wasn't good for it the first time and it wouldn't be now. You have the potential here though to create something different, but that could work very well (I'd argue better than the other 4). It might not stop the conference from loosing its key members someday, but I think it stands a better chance like this than with 12 or more and misfit divisions where the powerful members don't feel as connected.

(01-13-2016 09:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If this is true I don't understand it.

Perhaps it's a typo which is suppose to state that if a conference with 10 teams that doesn't play a round robin can have a CCG? That's seem to make the most sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. Its a poison pill. You must play a full round robin. That means you are guaranteed a rematch in a game that makes no sense because #1 already beat #2. That lowers the TV value and increases the possibility (since its hard to beat a good team twice-see Alabama/LSU a few years back and Florida-FSU in the 90s-there is a good chance for an upset) that you get a team knocked out of the playoffs. Much more so than in the 14 team conferences. So the Big 12 playing a ccg in a 10 team conference with a rr puts them at more of a disadvantage than they are at now.

except in cases where you have co-champions which seems to happen frequently in the Big 12

(01-12-2016 08:10 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Big 12 expansion going down the tubes.

Who cares about them? They're stuck in the bunker small market mentality. The real Golden Apple of Discord will come when the money makers/movers & shakers from the conferences that aren't doing as well as say the B10 or the SEC, say to their respective commissioners "why aren't we making as much?" FSU complaining about UF, GT complaining about UGA, Clemson complaining about South Carolina, UT and OU griping about take your pick; the crap will hit the fan when Delaney announces how much they're making from their network deals.

I agree, but what are they going to do about it? I mean, if you are FSU, and you don't like that UF is making $15m more a year in media money thanks to the SECN, what do you do? The B1G and SEC are the only places making that kind of money and those conferences know who they want to invite. Texas? They can go anywhere they want, any time. FSU or Clemson? Not so much, they can go to the Big 12 but that's the same thing as the ACC so why bother?

(01-12-2016 08:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So if this amendment is passed, the Big 12 is looking at a Conference Championship winner that will have been required to play 11 P5 schools out of 13 games.

I've got no problem with that.

The question is would the P5 vote to make the AAC and the MWC as P5 conferences?

(01-13-2016 12:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And then The ACC and one other come forward saying they wont approve that and once again the door is slammed shut on the big 12.

Actually, I don't think this is a good thing for the Big 12. Yes, they want it, but their long term survival is threatened by their minuscule footprint and lack of a network. They needed expansion, but Texas and company don't want it. This vote actually makes the Big 12 more susceptible to poaching in the future.

The Big 12 is fine as long as Texas and OU are in the conference. Them plus any random 8 other schools is still a Power conference.

(01-13-2016 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think this is very good for the Big 12. Breaking into divisions wasn't good for it the first time and it wouldn't be now. You have the potential here though to create something different, but that could work very well (I'd argue better than the other 4). It might not stop the conference from loosing its key members someday, but I think it stands a better chance like this than with 12 or more and misfit divisions where the powerful members don't feel as connected.

I agree. The writing still may be on the wall when the GOR expire, but you can only put together the best model short term. Contrary to the narrative, the 10 team model is working pretty dang well for the league right now. Revenue is good, rivalries are strong and the on the field/court product is highly competitive. The league is still at risk with apparent further consolidation of the industry on the horizon, but I think that would be the case at 10, 12, 14 or more.

(01-13-2016 09:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If this is true I don't understand it.

Perhaps it's a typo which is suppose to state that if a conference with 10 teams that doesn't play a round robin can have a CCG? That's seem to make the most sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. Its a poison pill. You must play a full round robin. That means you are guaranteed a rematch in a game that makes no sense because #1 already beat #2. That lowers the TV value and increases the possibility (since its hard to beat a good team twice-see Alabama/LSU a few years back and Florida-FSU in the 90s-there is a good chance for an upset) that you get a team knocked out of the playoffs. Much more so than in the 14 team conferences. So the Big 12 playing a ccg in a 10 team conference with a rr puts them at more of a disadvantage than they are at now.

I agree with this. Also, I don't know if anyone else has made this argument earlier, but there has been talk about possibly forgoing a CCG and instead beefing up the OOC by adding a home-and-home against a P5 team.

That is an absolute non-starter. It would mean having only 6 home games in years in which there are only 4 conference home games.

I can't see how or why B12 schools could possibly forgo having less than 7 home games every other year. Seems nutty to me.

The $$ losses from having one less home game dwarf any losses from adding new members or having a championship game--that is, if there are any such losses at all.