The big 12 could have overruled fox and invited lville and cincy to join wvu. My guess is they got greedy with short term thinking $ wise, sure the $ is greater in the short term at 10 but long term the conference would have been better jumping to 12 with lville, cincy + wvu. The other factor is they probably got greedy with who they wanted to target for spot 11- and 12, ND, acc school's etc. A bird in the hand is better than...?

(03-17-2013 08:54 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Tallgrass, we've rehashed this argument over and over. There's no need to keep hammering on it...

The hashing was a WVA versus Louisville argument....all caused by B12's mistake of not realizing both programs are huge positives and both should be in B12. All the attention was focused on these two schools....but the larger issue was lost, B12 needed both WVA and Louisville.

I haven't been bashful on this board....but I can and will compliment others on doing a fine job. That doesn't make me an anti B12 or anti WVA fan.

It's a full time job keeping up with this board, so I really have no idea if the issue has been rehashed, but I do know this. If the Big 12 had gone to 11 with Louisville, then the ACC would not have had an expansion candidate available that would have been acceptable to FSU and Clemson. The ACC could have easily come unglued and thus finished most of this expansion crap.

As it stands now, the Big 12's position is at least as tenuous as the ACC's. Being penny-wise and pound-foolish cost the Big 12 a golden opportunity to take its pick of expansion candidates and get to 16 with a full slate of marquee programs in the eastern time zone. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...

"The big 12 could have overruled fox and invited lville and cincy to join wvu."

Telling the networks to go stick it is a great idea. You add teams and the networks don't give you a cent more so everyone makes less money per team and the whole conference is pissed. Did you get your degree from Texas A&M?

"As it stands now, the Big 12's position is at least as tenuous as the ACC's"

Grant of rights. Sugar Bowl tie-in with the SEC. More $ per team. Texas & OU.

You can't say something completely ridiculous like that and not expect to get called out. The Big 12 is exponentially more secure than the ACC.

(03-17-2013 05:48 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me at all if Fox was now regretting not doing that very thing.

Yeah, you could easily lay this at the feet of Fox. They had a golden opportunity to checkmate ESPN's prime real estate holding (the ACC), but they were too focused on next year's bottom line.

(03-18-2013 09:39 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  "The big 12 could have overruled fox and invited lville and cincy to join wvu."

Telling the networks to go stick it is a great idea. You add teams and the networks don't give you a cent more so everyone makes less money per team and the whole conference is pissed. Did you get your degree from Texas A&M?

"As it stands now, the Big 12's position is at least as tenuous as the ACC's"

Grant of rights. Sugar Bowl tie-in with the SEC. More $ per team. Texas & OU.

You can't say something completely ridiculous like that and not expect to get called out. The Big 12 is exponentially more secure than the ACC.

I'm talking long-term. The GOR has an expiration date, and it's protective value declines annually unless it is extended. But whatever. That isn't the point of the thread. The point is just that the Big 12 missed an opportunity to end this craziness.

WVU + Louisville >>> WVU + TCU

TCU was a really dumb addition in retrospect. Yeah I know they were available and another Texas school blah blah blah but they were also a panic move that will cost the Big 12 dearly in the future. They don't even come anywhere close to replacing Texas A&M, which is supposedly why they were added. They weren't being looked at by any major conference and they're a one trick pony athletic department, and their football team is only as good as their coach. They're a tiny private Christian school with a small fanbase.

Houston would've been a better addition than TCU in the long run.

(03-18-2013 10:04 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  WVU + Louisville >>> WVU + TCU

TCU was a really dumb addition in retrospect. Yeah I know they were available and another Texas school blah blah blah but they were also a panic move that will cost the Big 12 dearly in the future. They don't even come anywhere close to replacing Texas A&M, which is supposedly why they were added. They weren't being looked at by any major conference and they're a one trick pony athletic department, and their football team is only as good as their coach. They're a tiny private Christian school with a small fanbase.

Houston would've been a better addition than TCU in the long run.

I think Louisville + WVU would have been better than TCU long run, but the non-Texas schools wanted better access to Dallas/Ft. Worth and the networks like TCU. In the BCS era they are tied with Auburn at 19th in poll appearances and just ahead of Notre Dame.

(03-18-2013 10:04 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  WVU + Louisville >>> WVU + TCU

TCU was a really dumb addition in retrospect. Yeah I know they were available and another Texas school blah blah blah but they were also a panic move that will cost the Big 12 dearly in the future. They don't even come anywhere close to replacing Texas A&M, which is supposedly why they were added. They weren't being looked at by any major conference and they're a one trick pony athletic department, and their football team is only as good as their coach. They're a tiny private Christian school with a small fanbase.

Houston would've been a better addition than TCU in the long run.

I've thought the same thing. I truly respect what TCU has done, but they are basically another Baylor with more successful football. And a big question mark as to what happens if Patterson leaves. Over the long run, Houston in the Big 12 would outperform TCU not in the Big 12. If Houston were in the Big 12, their TV ratings and attendance would probably double.

They don't even come anywhere close to replacing Texas A&M

?????

Just a few seasons ago, TCU capped off an undefeated season by beating the Big 10 champs in the Rose Bowl & finishing #3. A&M hasn't come close to a season like that since the 1920s.

Look, it is important to remember WHY Bowlsby/Dodds were so intently courting Notre Dame. When Swofford did his rounds to salvage the ACC (remember his unusual meeting with every decision maker at Clemson) he put this deal out to all of unhappy schools: If I can deliver ND as a partial member, will you stay? They said yes....and he delivered. If the Big 12 had landed ND, the mass exodus from the ACC would have already happened.

The Big 12 had a good strategy, it just didn't work out.

Here is the real question.....how long can the Big 12 wait for the B1G to raid the ACC and to leave it vulnerable before you decide you can't wait anymore and you just grab 2 non-ACC teams? Personally, I think the Big 12 can wait much longer. So, we wait.....

(03-18-2013 10:21 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  Here is the real question.....how long can the Big 12 wait for the B1G to raid the ACC and to leave it vulnerable before you decide you can't wait anymore and you just grab 2 non-ACC teams? Personally, I think the Big 12 can wait much longer. So, we wait.....

Totally agree. Cincinnati is not getting an invitation to the Big 12, and neither is UCF or USF. It will be a 10-team holding pattern until something - anything - breaks with regard to the other four conferences.

(03-18-2013 10:21 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  They don't even come anywhere close to replacing Texas A&M

?????

Just a few seasons ago, TCU capped off an undefeated season by beating the Big 10 champs in the Rose Bowl & finishing #3. A&M hasn't come close to a season like that since the 1920s.

Actually TCU finished 2nd in the final AP poll behind Auburn. A&M did have an MNC in 1939. They then preceded to win 3 games against Texas over the next 35 years.

(03-18-2013 07:57 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  We're happy, the Big 12 is happy. Let it go, water under the bridge.

We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

(03-17-2013 09:17 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If we are talking about the Big 12's mistakes. After Colorado and Nebraska left the conference. The Big12 should have got together and worked at getting Arkansas and New Mexico to join.

I think the Big XII did send feelers out to Arky...

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 07:57 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  We're happy, the Big 12 is happy. Let it go, water under the bridge.

We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

(03-18-2013 09:39 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  "The big 12 could have overruled fox and invited lville and cincy to join wvu."

Telling the networks to go stick it is a great idea. You add teams and the networks don't give you a cent more so everyone makes less money per team and the whole conference is pissed. Did you get your degree from Texas A&M?

"As it stands now, the Big 12's position is at least as tenuous as the ACC's"

Grant of rights. Sugar Bowl tie-in with the SEC. More $ per team. Texas & OU.

You can't say something completely ridiculous like that and not expect to get called out. The Big 12 is exponentially more secure than the ACC.

Until someone in the Big XII goes "Maryland" on us and tests the GOR.

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 07:57 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  We're happy, the Big 12 is happy. Let it go, water under the bridge.

We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

(03-18-2013 10:21 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  They don't even come anywhere close to replacing Texas A&M

?????

Just a few seasons ago, TCU capped off an undefeated season by beating the Big 10 champs in the Rose Bowl & finishing #3. A&M hasn't come close to a season like that since the 1920s.

Look, it is important to remember WHY Bowlsby/Dodds were so intently courting Notre Dame. When Swofford did his rounds to salvage the ACC (remember his unusual meeting with every decision maker at Clemson) he put this deal out to all of unhappy schools: If I can deliver ND as a partial member, will you stay? They said yes....and he delivered. If the Big 12 had landed ND, the mass exodus from the ACC would have already happened.

The Big 12 had a good strategy, it just didn't work out.

Here is the real question.....how long can the Big 12 wait for the B1G to raid the ACC and to leave it vulnerable before you decide you can't wait anymore and you just grab 2 non-ACC teams? Personally, I think the Big 12 can wait much longer. So, we wait.....

Are you kidding me? Did A&M not just finish at #5 with an 11-2 record with a win over #1 Alabama at their place and a blowout victory in the Cotton Bowl, and oh yeah had a star QB who won the Heisman?

TCU doesn't have anywhere near the fanbase, money, facilities, history, or TV ratings of A&M. TCU is a tiny speck in Texas. They're comparable in those areas to SMU, except SMU doesn't have BCS money coming in. If/when Patterson leaves, TCU will go back to being nothing. They were getting kicked around in CUSA not too long ago.

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 07:57 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  We're happy, the Big 12 is happy. Let it go, water under the bridge.

We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 07:57 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  We're happy, the Big 12 is happy. Let it go, water under the bridge.

We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

JR, you're right that the rivalries are popular and getting rid of them would make too many people unhappy. I think that the Pac ought to get rid of the permanent California crossover games but I'm in a small minority on that issue; if you polled fans of the four California teams it would probably be 90-10 in favor of having them continue all of the north vs. south games every year.

(03-18-2013 12:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

JR, you're right that the rivalries are popular and getting rid of them would make too many people unhappy. I think that the Pac ought to get rid of the permanent California crossover games but I'm in a small minority on that issue; if you polled fans of the four California teams it would probably be 90-10 in favor of having them continue all of the north vs. south games every year.

Wedge, if the PAC ever gets to 16 all they have to do is put all 4 of the California teams in the same 1/2 division (pod) and then the rotation will take care of everything else. That rotation doesn't even have to be with whole pods, but everyone would have access to the California teams who would have annual access to one another.