(06-24-2015 05:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You can probably cross Houston off that list too.

Simply no way the 4 Texas schools vote yes for them.

If the Big 12 raids the American and does NOT take Houston, we will raise holy hell in the Texas legislature.

First, we were left for dead in 1994. Then they weaken our new conference in 2015? Talk about predatory behavior.

The governor is on our side in this issue. He wants Houston in the Big 12.

Houston is not getting in the Big 12. The Big 12 is comprised of other schools that aren't located in Texas and don't give a rats ass what the Texas governor thinks.

(06-24-2015 04:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You can probably cross Houston off that list too.

Simply no way the 4 Texas schools vote yes for them.

Wrong. Only guaranteed "no" vote is Baylor. The other three are in play. SEC incursion into Texas has definitely helped UH cause.

(06-24-2015 05:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-expansion


From the link:

Quote:“Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don’t bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten,” Bowlsby said. “The philosophy clearly is: ‘As members of the Big Ten we can grow them?’”

If the end goal is the Big 12 contract renewal in 10 years, then the Big 12 should give the expansion teams every possible chance to succeed. Time is of the essence.

I don't agree with the BYU "within the next three years" timeframe. To give the expansion teams every opportunity to deliver, it almost has to be next year.

I don't know what Bowlsby wants for the Big 12, but in that quote he is wrong about the Big Ten, and that comment has no relevance for the Big 12. If Bowlsby is suggesting that the only benefit the Big Ten gets from Maryland and Rutgers is the possibility to "grow them", that's silly. Maryland has never had Ohio State-level football and maybe never will, but that's also true of most of the Big Ten, and Maryland's athletic department otherwise fields solid programs though they were financially a basket case. They're preseason top-10 in men's hoops for next season. Also, Maryland (state population 6 million, only FBS school in state) and Rutgers (state population 9 million, only FBS school in state) bring more TV households to BTN (and thus much more money) than any possible candidates could bring to the Big 12.

(06-24-2015 05:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-expansion


From the link:

Quote:“Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don’t bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten,” Bowlsby said. “The philosophy clearly is: ‘As members of the Big Ten we can grow them?’”

If the end goal is the Big 12 contract renewal in 10 years, then the Big 12 should give the expansion teams every possible chance to succeed. Time is of the essence.

I don't agree with the BYU "within the next three years" timeframe. To give the expansion teams every opportunity to deliver, it almost has to be next year.

Why are we citing 2013 articles?

(06-24-2015 05:06 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 03:38 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  BYU - Definitely *if* it weren't for their Mormon rules getting in the way for many sports. I think BYU is in position to compromise. Joseph Smith wants to see BYU-B12 football. Says so on the golden plates.

CINCI - Talk of the town. Going out East in the realm of WV. Not a bad basketball program either.

MEMPHIS - Grown up some in football, although too early to tell. But joining the B12 would keep that train going. A GREAT Basketball addition.

EAST CAROLINA - That's near WV, too. G5 power that's defined itself as a good one. Has that directional Twang as NIU does, but they've made enough of a name for themselves to be taken seriously. Great attendance. They're known.

NIU - A known G5 power but low attendance/following within DeKalb. However, they're expanding their stadium and putting umph behind everything PLUS it's in the east direction with a Chicago-land TV audience that'll eat up advertising if B12 gets a channel or at least a "sub channel" via ESPN or FOX going.

Let me make this easy for you, F L O R I D A, it rolls right off the lips, say it with me FLORIDA. See wasn't that easy?

fifm ( fixed it for myself) lol

(06-24-2015 05:07 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:39 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:31 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Temple?! Are you high?!

Not my idea - it was in the contract (well, at least the offer from NBC)

Well I doubt Temple gets the nod over... well pretty much anyone listed here earlier. Hell Marshall has a better chance and i never see them mentioned anywhere

That was a timing thing. Those teams do NOT get more money, broadcasts, pub, preferential treatment... from the media partners. There are NOT deemed more valuable by media partners as some have tried to claim. There's a good article that explains that clause which is pretty typical in contracts from what I'm told. I'll try to find it. The atypical part here is that specific teams were named in the membership change clause. It was a result of the instability of the time as teams were not so silently looking for/contemplating opportunities with other conferences. NBC tried to CYA with mixes and matches of the most likely defections. Not trying to disparage those particular schools as they are great and might just be the next in line...just clarifying that those teams do not get extra perks from ESPN the way a Boise does.

What are you talking about? It states what it means right in the link provided. The schools listed as A, are more valuable when it comes to the contract, if 2 of them leave the contract can be terminated, or if 1 leaves and 1 from group B leaves, but will be renegotiated if 2 from group B leave.

(06-24-2015 05:38 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:07 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:39 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:31 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Temple?! Are you high?!

Not my idea - it was in the contract (well, at least the offer from NBC)

Well I doubt Temple gets the nod over... well pretty much anyone listed here earlier. Hell Marshall has a better chance and i never see them mentioned anywhere

That was a timing thing. Those teams do NOT get more money, broadcasts, pub, preferential treatment... from the media partners. There are NOT deemed more valuable by media partners as some have tried to claim. There's a good article that explains that clause which is pretty typical in contracts from what I'm told. I'll try to find it. The atypical part here is that specific teams were named in the membership change clause. It was a result of the instability of the time as teams were not so silently looking for/contemplating opportunities with other conferences. NBC tried to CYA with mixes and matches of the most likely defections. Not trying to disparage those particular schools as they are great and might just be the next in line...just clarifying that those teams do not get extra perks from ESPN the way a Boise does.

What are you talking about? It states what it means right in the link provided. The schools listed as A, are more valuable when it comes to the contract, if 2 of them leave the contract can be terminated, or if 1 leaves and 1 from group B leaves, but will be renegotiated if 2 from group B leave.

Dude, I think gulfcoastgal might be right. The link provided says I am a professional this was done under controlled circumstances (paraphrased). It might be time to replace the batteries in your sarcasm meter if you're taking that link as the gospel. I'll wait for GCG to find and post the article she referenced (I've heard about it but haven't seen it).

Yes, and there was an article written about that clause (not blog) that explained with quotes from the Commish that A and B were not distinctions of "value", but reflections of the instability of the time. It stated that ALL contracts have membership change clauses, but the AAC's was unique in basically trying to hedge defection bets. It also specifically mentioned no guaranteed windows, extra cash...preferential treatment things you'd expect to see if one group is valued over others...like Boise. I'll find it and post so you can draw your own conclusions.

(06-24-2015 05:20 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You can probably cross Houston off that list too.

Simply no way the 4 Texas schools vote yes for them.

Wrong. Only guaranteed "no" vote is Baylor. The other three are in play. SEC incursion into Texas has definitely helped UH cause.

I know you Cougs desperately want to believe that but the truth is the other 3 have just as much to lose.

As long as UT is in the Big 12, they will get paid for the Houston market no matter how many conferences are also in it.

But adding UH will hurt all their recruiting.

Tech just saw their DFW recruiting decimated by adding TCU. Do you think the others are willing to play that game with their Houston area recruits?

Like it or not, none of them will vote yes for more competition

On the plus side, I still think you have a shot at the PAC one day though

(06-24-2015 04:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:54 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-st...le/5429694

NORMAN—University of Oklahoma President David Boren on Wednesday reiterated his stance that the Big 12 should expand to 12 teams.

“I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy,” Boren said. “(We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.”

Boren said he worried about not only the perception of the league as other major conferences have expanded but there long-term health of such a setup.

“How many years can this go on?” Boren said. “Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short term.”

Boren spoke after the school’s board of regents approved $105 million in funding for the renovation of the south end zone of Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Boren also said without explicitly naming it that the Longhorn Network—which keeps the Big 12 from having a conference network like the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12—is a big problem for the conference.

“The elephant in the room remains the network south of us that has struggled and has in a way as long as it’s there,” Boren said. “And we have done quite well with our network and if anything ever changed, it has value to it which we see. But someday, maybe we’ll get past that other problem as well. It’s a problem.”

Boren said the problem of reduced revenue per school with expansion wasn’t as big of a hurdle as it had been made out to be.

[i]“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars.

“Our main media contract says it’s not the same pie now cut 12 ways instead of 10.”

Boren did say that that only includes the primary television contract, not other revenue that is split between the schools.

“It’s not total because there’s some smaller—much smaller—amounts of money around the edges but if you can find the right people, it should be additive even though it’s split 12 ways instead of 10.”[/i]

Wow. That's something that's long been rumored on the internet, but I doubted it was true. It changes the complexion of expansion for the Big 12.

Common sense says that can't be everything it's hyped to be. There's no way in hell that ESPN and Fox would fork over an extra $40 million/year for any two schools from the G5. At a minimum, it would be limited to a short list of schools approved as "best available" by the TV guys (and wouldn't we all like to see the email chain that discusses that list), which might include schools that are no longer available, like Louisville, and/or schools that the Big 12 might not want for other reasons, like BYU or Boise State.

Common sense also says that if the existing Big 12 schools could each make a ton of money by adding two more schools, then either it would have happened already or there's an extremely good reason why it hasn't happened already.

I have said the same so many times. People want to believe what they want to believe despite the fact that if it was so cut and dry, the big 12 would already be at 12 and they would have had a championship game this past season.

This ^^^^^^^^^^ bravo. Every candidate wants to believe it's them, and fans get upset when some other fan doesn't see the logic of their school as "the" logical choice.

Big 12 e,pansion candidates rankings

1. BYU
2. Cincy
3. UCF
4. USF
5. col st
6. Memphis
7. New Mexico
8. Tulane
9. Uconn
10. Boise
11. SDSU
12. Hawaii
13. Houston
14. SMU
15. ECU
16. NIU
17. Air Force
18. Navy

(06-24-2015 05:07 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:39 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:31 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ^^^ THIS ^^^

I do think Cincinnati would pass the test. So would Houston. Temple and UConn would also be acceptable, IMO (though they may be TOO far East).

Why do I think that? Because the ESPN contract basically says so!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...teams.html

Temple?! Are you high?!

Not my idea - it was in the contract (well, at least the offer from NBC)

Well I doubt Temple gets the nod over... well pretty much anyone listed here earlier. Hell Marshall has a better chance and i never see them mentioned anywhere

That was a timing thing. Those teams do NOT get more money, broadcasts, pub, preferential treatment... from the media partners. There are NOT deemed more valuable by media partners as some have tried to claim. There's a good article that explains that clause which is pretty typical in contracts from what I'm told. I'll try to find it. The atypical part here is that specific teams were named in the membership change clause. It was a result of the instability of the time as teams were not so silently looking for/contemplating opportunities with other conferences. NBC tried to CYA with mixes and matches of the most likely defections. Not trying to disparage those particular schools as they are great and might just be the next in line...just clarifying that those teams do not get extra perks from ESPN the way a Boise does.

Delusional.

They are clearly viewed as more valuable. That's the point of the clause. That doesn't mean they get more money, just that they are critical to the value of the conference. Next you will try to tell me that Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Tennessee and Auburn aren't more valuable than Vanderbilt and Mississippi St. to the SEC.

(06-24-2015 05:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But adding UH will hurt all their recruiting.

Tech just saw their DFW recruiting decimated by adding TCU. Do you think the others are willing to play that game with their Houston area recruits?

Have you been following recruiting this year? Tech is already losing a lot of recruits to UH in the Houston area. And we beat UT for three commitments.

In other words, your doomsday scenario is already happening. So what's to lose?

(06-24-2015 06:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But adding UH will hurt all their recruiting.

Tech just saw their DFW recruiting decimated by adding TCU. Do you think the others are willing to play that game with their Houston area recruits?

Have you been following recruiting this year? Tech is already losing a lot of recruits to UH in the Houston area. And we beat UT for three commitments.

In other words, your doomsday scenario is already happening. So what's to lose?

Simple,

It goes from one fluke year (hey, they happen, see A&M's basketball recruiting class for this year. Never gonna happen ever again but we happened to have the right relationships to land a bunch of talented guys who wanted to play together) to annual occurrence.

(06-24-2015 05:18 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 04:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You can probably cross Houston off that list too.

Simply no way the 4 Texas schools vote yes for them.

If the Big 12 raids the American and does NOT take Houston, we will raise holy hell in the Texas legislature.

First, we were left for dead in 1994. Then they weaken our new conference in 2015? Talk about predatory behavior.

The governor is on our side in this issue. He wants Houston in the Big 12.

Houston is not getting in the Big 12. The Big 12 is comprised of other schools that aren't located in Texas and don't give a rats ass what the Texas governor thinks.

I think UH has a shot at the PAC but the Big 12 is not going to happen. UH and their fans can raise all the hell they want but the 4 Texas schools will not extend UH an invite.

Coog, with all due respect, you guys need power political alumni in office or these threats fall on deaf ears. I would further add the fan support issues that have plagued UH for 30+ years is another reason why Texas legislators will not stick their nose out and support UH.

The same reasons A&M will do anything in their power to keep UT and Texas Tech out of the SEC are the same reasons why UT and Tech will not be in favor of adding another Texas school.

(06-24-2015 05:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Tech just saw their DFW recruiting decimated by adding TCU. Do you think the others are willing to play that game with their Houston area recruits?

Not true.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...16/all/all

6 of our 19 recruits are from the DFW area
TCU has 2 out of their 14 recruits from the DFW area.

(06-24-2015 03:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If that was the case, then it would have already happened. It's a nice talking point but, the reality of what they have actually done and NOT done says otherwise in regard to it being an open and shut case.

Bored said it also something (expansion) he worries about long-term rather than short-term so I tend to agree with you.

(06-24-2015 06:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But adding UH will hurt all their recruiting.

Tech just saw their DFW recruiting decimated by adding TCU. Do you think the others are willing to play that game with their Houston area recruits?

Have you been following recruiting this year? Tech is already losing a lot of recruits to UH in the Houston area. And we beat UT for three commitments.

In other words, your doomsday scenario is already happening. So what's to lose?

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...16/all/all

#15 compared to #42. I could care less where we get recruits as long as we win.

(06-24-2015 06:26 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Tech just saw their DFW recruiting decimated by adding TCU. Do you think the others are willing to play that game with their Houston area recruits?

Not true.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...16/all/all

6 of our 19 recruits are from the DFW area
TCU has 2 out of their 14 recruits from the DFW area.

He was just assuming, he knew it wasn't a fact. You know what they say about "assuming".

(06-24-2015 05:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-expansion


From the link:

Quote:“Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don’t bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten,” Bowlsby said. “The philosophy clearly is: ‘As members of the Big Ten we can grow them?’”

If the end goal is the Big 12 contract renewal in 10 years, then the Big 12 should give the expansion teams every possible chance to succeed. Time is of the essence.

I don't agree with the BYU "within the next three years" timeframe. To give the expansion teams every opportunity to deliver, it almost has to be next year.

Why are we citing 2013 articles?

Because they are relevant. Oklahoma wants the Big 12 to be proactive today as much as they did back in 2012-2013. That's why they didn't move to the PAC.