(07-16-2018 10:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 08:19 AM)westwolf Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 06:33 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  And yes I will use “ A5 “

P5 is correct.

More "correct" is the Autonomous 5. They are officially the autonomous conferences. P5 is the popular and sportswriters' term.

If one insists on calling them something other than P5, what they're most commonly known as, (1) people won't know what one is talking about, and (2) it indicates one has some issue with calling them "power" conferences. Why not call them what they are? They have the power, whether one likes them or hates them because they want their school to be in them.

There was a time when there were Arkansas to the Big 12 rumors. Jerry Jones was pushing for Arkansas and Notre Dame to replace Nebraska and Colorado in 2010. My memory tells me LSU was involved then as well, but I'm not finding anything to back up my memory on that in a quick google search.

Prior to that there was talk of Big 12 expanding to Big 14 and I'm fairly certain they had even copyrighted the name. If there was ever a time Arkansas would have joined the Big 12 I think it would have been before any of the defections. Jerry Jones wanted it very much but I don't think there was ever any sort of agreement on who could be 14 with Arky. I remember some speculation with LSU as there was some possible bitterness regarding them having Florida as their yearly rival, however adding them would have meant Arky would have to join the North, which doesn't make any sense for them to join.

If you could somehow get the original Big 12 South division minus Baylor, but adding LSU and Arkansas as the foundation for a new conference I'd be all aboard that. Could see the Mississippi, Kansas, and Missouri schools all getting looks to round out the conference, along with a possible 4th Texas school. I just don't see that ever happening though. Perhaps if the Oklahoma schools join the SEC and we eventually have a split between East/West divisions into two conferences.

About the B1G going after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Do we really need a conference with a strong presence in the Midwest, Northeast, AND Southwest. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

(07-16-2018 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 11:51 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Texas saw value and wanted to go where value was, this is true, but now IMO Texas sees value staying in the b12 and trying to lure two A5 schools
I started this topic as a result of a recent fishing trip” in a boat” in port A tx with a couple of UT boys that ,hmmm seem to know about such things...so take it with a grain of salt at this point anyway

That may be the case. But as alluded to above, just within the B12 Nebraska, A&M, and Missouri all bolted because of the UT Pighorn issue.

Prior to that Arkansas bolted the SWC because of the UT Pighorn issue. (hmmm... I think a Razorback would be able to 'root' out another porcine cousin... )

And in between, when the SWC did the el-foldo, both people I know in administrations that went with them *and* from those that got jilted and couldnt join a good 'frat house/conference' pretty much describe 95 per cent of the issue to the greed of A&M and UT. And between those two about 75-25 to the Pighorns.

Considering even the Aggies left due to Pighorn greed later, and they were the biggest two at the trough to dissolve the SWC, UT has a literal sty-load of history to erase in that regard.

They may well have learned the error of pushing the biggest snout in the trough, but there is a ton of fatback that will carry on that perception even *if* they have changed their ways.

Arkansas wanted Texas to come with them. They saw that the SWC was falling behind. They weren't trying to get away from Texas.

Colorado wanted to be near their rich California alumni. They had been trying to get Texas to go with them since they started regretting saying no to the Pac in 1994.

Missouri didn't want to be stuck with the Big East if the Big 12 fell apart as they almost did in 2010. They left when OU started flirting with the Pac a second time.

Nebraska's president explained why they left in an Omaha article a year later. It was money, academic prestige and most of all security.

A&M left because they are Aggies. Texas and Texas A&M actually both agreed to leave in 1989 with Texas to the Pac and A&M to the SEC. But when Stanford vetoed UT to the Pac, both agreed to stay in the SWC. The schools actually worked together pretty well prior to Loftin becoming president of A&M. He was later chancellor at Missouri during Missouri's disaster with its handling of Black Lives Matters and was forced to resign.

That timeline reminds me of what we say about my 5-time divorced friend.

None of them were *his* fault, all his wives just happened to find much better people on a systemic level.

Its those other schools who are the divorcees. Texas has only left the SWC.

(07-16-2018 05:38 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  There was a time when there were Arkansas to the Big 12 rumors. Jerry Jones was pushing for Arkansas and Notre Dame to replace Nebraska and Colorado in 2010. My memory tells me LSU was involved then as well, but I'm not finding anything to back up my memory on that in a quick google search.

Prior to that there was talk of Big 12 expanding to Big 14 and I'm fairly certain they had even copyrighted the name. If there was ever a time Arkansas would have joined the Big 12 I think it would have been before any of the defections. Jerry Jones wanted it very much but I don't think there was ever any sort of agreement on who could be 14 with Arky. I remember some speculation with LSU as there was some possible bitterness regarding them having Florida as their yearly rival, however adding them would have meant Arky would have to join the North, which doesn't make any sense for them to join.

If you could somehow get the original Big 12 South division minus Baylor, but adding LSU and Arkansas as the foundation for a new conference I'd be all aboard that. Could see the Mississippi, Kansas, and Missouri schools all getting looks to round out the conference, along with a possible 4th Texas school. I just don't see that ever happening though. Perhaps if the Oklahoma schools join the SEC and we eventually have a split between East/West divisions into two conferences.

Rumor was Jones and Jim Lindsay (another BIG donor, also a former player, big time real estate developer) were pushing Arkansas to go Big XII.

They obviously did not go so either:
1. Two big donor/alum/lettermen supporting it wasn't enough to get the Hogs to move.
2. The rumors were just rumor.

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  Colorado wanted to be near their rich California alumni. They had been trying to get Texas to go with them since they started regretting saying no to the Pac in 1994.

CU should have joined the first time. 10 percent of their students are from California. Jokes like the ones seen in these pictures have been around forever.

(07-16-2018 01:24 PM)All Rams All The Time Wrote:  *What is the fascination with CSU? They have no athletic history, no fan base outside of alums and students. CU rulesthe Centennial State.*

I'm a homer and alumnus. CSU f'ball has been 'quiet' for most of its history (only undefeated team one year in the 20s -- natty?), tho Coach Lubick sure had a hell of a run on a shoestring budget in the 90s and early 00s. CSU was Utah or Boise State or TCU or Louisville before those schools surged. The initial Thursday night football was a major front porch for CSU.

CSU is recognized as a very high research university (VHRU). The most recent measures of research $ from a couple of years ago puts us 2nd in the BigXII, behind only Bevo... lower 1/3 of PAC-12... lower 1/4 of B1G, tho the decades of CIC justifiably have a lot to do with B1G research funding. 2nd best veterinary school in the nation (behind Cornell).

Around a billion dollars has been fundrasied and invested in the university's infrastructure over the past decade. Academics highly rated among university presidents nationwide.

Largest enrollment in the Centennial State. Massive land grant school. Integral to all economic activity in the state. Most alumni in Denver (capital city) -- more than Univ of Colorado.

Athletics overall are doing better-than-well. When you state that CSU has no athletic history, I'm guessing you're talking about football and mens basketball. Aside from Sonny Lubick I mentioned above, Larry Eustachy (remember him?) had a good run here until he stopped caring about the job and was released earlier this year. Mike Bobo is building a solid & sustainable football program now. Womens sports and minor sports are highly competitive, winning conference championships regularly and competing well nationally.

CSU is one of ~15 FBS schools nationwide to have never incurred NCAA sanctions for cheating. Think about that....

From what I've read, Big8/-XII fanbases loved traveling to Boulder for events, and many Big8/-XII alumni live in/near Denver, as do alumni from PAC & B1G. Colorado media cover CU sports more thoroughly than CSU sports. I attribute that to the shrinking media budgets (employing fewer reporters, limited travel); historic coverage of pretty-good-tho-sometimes-cheating CU football teams thru the early 90s; and CU's participation in the PAC

I concede the academic stuff and the Sonny Lubick era. Couple corrections: Eustachy wasn’t fired for not caring, he was fired for abusing his players as was his top assistant. Also, when was CU cheating? It certainly was not in the McCartney era, the greatest era of college football in the state. I remember something with strippers,etc when Barnett was coaching, but I think that was it. When I lived in Colorado on W slope, no one except a few CSU alums cared about them at all. They were all in for CU.

I live in Logan, Ut. now and USU is going to blister CSU at CSU this year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-16-2018 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 11:51 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Texas saw value and wanted to go where value was, this is true, but now IMO Texas sees value staying in the b12 and trying to lure two A5 schools
I started this topic as a result of a recent fishing trip” in a boat” in port A tx with a couple of UT boys that ,hmmm seem to know about such things...so take it with a grain of salt at this point anyway

That may be the case. But as alluded to above, just within the B12 Nebraska, A&M, and Missouri all bolted because of the UT Pighorn issue.

Prior to that Arkansas bolted the SWC because of the UT Pighorn issue. (hmmm... I think a Razorback would be able to 'root' out another porcine cousin... )

And in between, when the SWC did the el-foldo, both people I know in administrations that went with them *and* from those that got jilted and couldnt join a good 'frat house/conference' pretty much describe 95 per cent of the issue to the greed of A&M and UT. And between those two about 75-25 to the Pighorns.

Considering even the Aggies left due to Pighorn greed later, and they were the biggest two at the trough to dissolve the SWC, UT has a literal sty-load of history to erase in that regard.

They may well have learned the error of pushing the biggest snout in the trough, but there is a ton of fatback that will carry on that perception even *if* they have changed their ways.

Arkansas wanted Texas to come with them. They saw that the SWC was falling behind. They weren't trying to get away from Texas.

Colorado wanted to be near their rich California alumni. They had been trying to get Texas to go with them since they started regretting saying no to the Pac in 1994.

Missouri didn't want to be stuck with the Big East if the Big 12 fell apart as they almost did in 2010. They left when OU started flirting with the Pac a second time.

Nebraska's president explained why they left in an Omaha article a year later. It was money, academic prestige and most of all security.

A&M left because they are Aggies. Texas and Texas A&M actually both agreed to leave in 1989 with Texas to the Pac and A&M to the SEC. But when Stanford vetoed UT to the Pac, both agreed to stay in the SWC. The schools actually worked together pretty well prior to Loftin becoming president of A&M. He was later chancellor at Missouri during Missouri's disaster with its handling of Black Lives Matters and was forced to resign.

That timeline reminds me of what we say about my 5-time divorced friend.

None of them were *his* fault, all his wives just happened to find much better people on a systemic level.

Its those other schools who are the divorcees. Texas has only left the SWC.

Thats what we keep saying about my pig-headed friend as well. Funny that.

If the Big XII are only going to add 2 teams, but they are going to be from power conferences, the obvious pair to take is Alabama and Ohio State. Voila, your worries are over!

(07-17-2018 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big XII are only going to add 2 teams, but they are going to be from power conferences, the obvious pair to take is Alabama and Ohio State. Voila, your worries are over!

fake news... as usual

(07-17-2018 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big XII are only going to add 2 teams, but they are going to be from power conferences, the obvious pair to take is Alabama and Ohio State. Voila, your worries are over!

I think the B12 could be happy and stable with something like

North:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa State, Illinois, Mizzou, Vandy

South:

Texas,TCU, TT, LSU, Kansas, Arkansas


This will never happen of course, but you need enough marquee value that prevents you from being totally held hostage by Texas and OU. They only one in the area that can do that is LSU. Illinois, Nebraska, and Arkansas might be able to revive their football programs outside the SEC and B10. You also add enough academic relevancy with Vanderbilt and Illinois to get over that perceived hump.


Instead of the Big 12 you could all it the Gulf 12.


Again, none of this will happen.

(07-18-2018 04:42 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big XII are only going to add 2 teams, but they are going to be from power conferences, the obvious pair to take is Alabama and Ohio State. Voila, your worries are over!

I think the B12 could be happy and stable with something like

North:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa State, Illinois, Mizzou, Vandy

South:

Texas,TCU, TT, LSU, Kansas, Arkansas


This will never happen of course, but you need enough marquee value that prevents you from being totally held hostage by Texas and OU. They only one in the area that can do that is LSU. Illinois, Nebraska, and Arkansas might be able to revive their football programs outside the SEC and B10. You also add enough academic relevancy with Vanderbilt and Illinois to get over that perceived hump.


Instead of the Big 12 you could all it the Gulf 12.


Again, none of this will happen.

Well why even talk about that which will not happen? And I'm not referring to your post but rather to the thread in general. Arizona and Arizona State are too Southern California dependent to ever move. Utah isn't going anywhere either. And Colorado wouldn't likely be a candidate although if the Big 10 called with significantly more revenue they are the only one of the present PAC schools really close enough to even consider another offer.

Nobody is leaving the SEC or Big 10, and there really isn't enough disgruntlement among any of those 28 schools to really justify a discussion about it. Sure there are a few nostalgic fans who might, but the administrations of these schools are happy campers. They like their revenue and the equality that either of those conferences offers.

The Big 12 may have finally found some stability, but they have no prospects. Their prospect of B.Y.U. engenders about as much warmth as Connecticut does among the ACC folk.

And that is why I call this a non issue. There's no desire among the schools of the PAC, B1G, or SEC to move. And the only long shot out there (Colorado) shows no inclination either.

The bottom line is that the Big 12 lost 4, added 2, and are out of profitable options.

Agreed with all your points
1) Nebraska will be cashing in a full share of money this year in big10, so after reading some Nebraska stuff there it looks like they want to stay and collect for awhile
And regarding Nebraska recruiting dropping off after leaving the b12, well it really hasn’t at least not Texas players, they recruit Texas same as always
2) Arkansas, this is a little different, I found that there are more than a handful of fans and influential people that would like to see Arkansas in the b12 but this group is the minority for sure, Arkansas ain’t moving either
As the OP I still think that Texas and Oklahoma are just as likely to stay in the b12 and TRY to lure two A5 schools
End of line...

(07-16-2018 03:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 02:24 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  The Big-12 will not lure programs away from other major conferences, even if they form a B12 network.

What they need to do is strike back at those who invaded their territory by bringing in programs in these regions that can offer immediate competition or enormous potential for growth.

They lost Colorado and Nebraska. Look at BYU, Boise and Colorado State.

They lost Missouri, Arkansas and TAMU. Look at Memphis, Arkansas State, Houston and Louisiana.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

When was Arkansas in the Big12?

Never. They were in SWC which merged with Big 8 to form Big 12. Not an equal merge. All Big 8 members move to Big 12. But some SWC members got kicked out.

(07-16-2018 06:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  About the B1G going after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Do we really need a conference with a strong presence in the Midwest, Northeast, AND Southwest. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

B1G should also add Southern Cal and Standford as well as Texas and Oklahoma. (Sorry, Kansas is not qualified for B1G.) Then that is a mega conference.

(07-18-2018 07:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 06:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  About the B1G going after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Do we really need a conference with a strong presence in the Midwest, Northeast, AND Southwest. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

B1G should also add Southern Cal and Standford as well as Texas and Oklahoma. (Sorry, Kansas is not qualified for B1G.) Then that is a mega conference.

How does a school "qualify" for the Big Ten?

(07-18-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 07:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 06:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  About the B1G going after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Do we really need a conference with a strong presence in the Midwest, Northeast, AND Southwest. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

B1G should also add Southern Cal and Standford as well as Texas and Oklahoma. (Sorry, Kansas is not qualified for B1G.) Then that is a mega conference.

How does a school "qualify" for the Big Ten?

The following criteria:

1) Be a flagship school for your State (California alone has two in UCLA and Cal)
- 1b) Or the equivalent by extremely high academic standards (e.g., Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, Michigan State)
- 1c) Or be the equivalent for private schools (e.g., Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy, USC, maybe a few others)
* must be willing to join the CIC and collaborate with the program (UMd officials say they estimate it costs them ~$2m a year)
2) Have a major athletics program, or the commitment to be at the power level (why Rutgers is running a big deficit)
3) Bring value beyond yourself that makes the B1G more valuable to it's members (can be geographic)
- Note: this is different than the B12 adding WV or the ACC L'ville in what can be described as quick fixes or 5 year plan
4) Your leadership get along with B1G leaders
5) Make sense both ways a permanent member for the next 100 years.
- things like not being an outlier, or not a great culture fit (meaning you need to be like at least a few other current schools)
the California schools would be outliers, so you can ignore that concept
- as a rule the school school not be at or near the bottom academically, although it's a sliding scale with athletics weight
so FSU or VT could get on the list (not Oklahoma State, Clemson, Texas Tech, K State, West Virginia)
6) No choice that would trigger and SEC vs B1G war (so Missouri is never joining the B1G, Maryland is never joining the SEC)

Frankly it's the exact same criteria for the P12 and SEC. Maybe not as rigid on the academics, but really it's not much different nor that much lower standard. The P12 is controlled by 5 extremely selective schools who block most "fan choices" out of hand. The SEC is working hard to change it's image to be more on par with the B1G, P12 and certainly the ACC as an academic conference. It has two very selective schools, Florida and Vanderbilt who act as gate keepers for who gets in. And that is no surprise given they have 10 flagships, plus Vandy and A&M among their 14 schools. Several schools are becoming much more selective in admission, with rising requirements and rising graduation rates, as well as growing levels of research performed. This is the benefit of being in a growing region with more young people and being almost all flagship schools that are generally lavished with more money and resources. Besides Florida State and Miami, I really don't see a non-flagship that could come on the SEC expansion radar.

(07-19-2018 02:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The following criteria:

1) Be a flagship school for your State (California alone has two in UCLA and Cal)
- 1b) Or the equivalent by extremely high academic standards (e.g., Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, Michigan State)
- 1c) Or be the equivalent for private schools (e.g., Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy, USC, maybe a few others)
* must be willing to join the CIC and collaborate with the program (UMd officials say they estimate it costs them ~$2m a year)
2) Have a major athletics program, or the commitment to be at the power level (why Rutgers is running a big deficit)
3) Bring value beyond yourself that makes the B1G more valuable to it's members (can be geographic)
- Note: this is different than the B12 adding WV or the ACC L'ville in what can be described as quick fixes or 5 year plan
4) Your leadership get along with B1G leaders
5) Make sense both ways a permanent member for the next 100 years.
- things like not being an outlier, or not a great culture fit (meaning you need to be like at least a few other current schools)
the California schools would be outliers, so you can ignore that concept
- as a rule the school school not be at or near the bottom academically, although it's a sliding scale with athletics weight
so FSU or VT could get on the list (not Oklahoma State, Clemson, Texas Tech, K State, West Virginia)
6) No choice that would trigger and SEC vs B1G war (so Missouri is never joining the B1G, Maryland is never joining the SEC)

Frankly it's the exact same criteria for the P12 and SEC. Maybe not as rigid on the academics, but really it's not much different nor that much lower standard. The P12 is controlled by 5 extremely selective schools who block most "fan choices" out of hand. The SEC is working hard to change it's image to be more on par with the B1G, P12 and certainly the ACC as an academic conference. It has two very selective schools, Florida and Vanderbilt who act as gate keepers for who gets in. And that is no surprise given they have 10 flagships, plus Vandy and A&M among their 14 schools. Several schools are becoming much more selective in admission, with rising requirements and rising graduation rates, as well as growing levels of research performed. This is the benefit of being in a growing region with more young people and being almost all flagship schools that are generally lavished with more money and resources. Besides Florida State and Miami, I really don't see a non-flagship that could come on the SEC expansion radar.

AAU institutions (non-SEC) in proximity to the B1G footprint: Colorado, Duke, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Kansas, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Texas and Virginia.

Non-AAU, but high academic institutions that would be under consideration for membership: Florida State, Notre Dame and Oklahoma.

West Coast members that would be under consideration, if the B1G pursued Western block: Arizona, California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Washington.

no way B-10 west schools vote for more schools & get cut-off from UM.OSU,PSU,MSU

(07-13-2018 11:30 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  Tulane self-identified as a G5 school when they built a new on-campus stadium with a capacity of 22,000 seats.

FIFY

And, as the Big 12 found out when it dug deep, Nippert only seats 34K (even after the $87M renovation) despite Cincy's claims of 40K.

This again? You already got laughed off the AAC board for this claim.

Pretty amazing they’ve managed to get over 40k people in a 34k seat stadium that somehow shrank in size after an addition of a whole set of seats.