jhawkmvp, you beat me to it. I also loved the old OU/NU rivalry. It's likely that the Big 12 split was inevitable due to other cultural and economic factors, but it's a shame that we didn't know then what we know now, and could have tried to do some things differently to create a more cohesive conference.

(04-23-2014 03:52 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  jhawkmvp, you beat me to it. I also loved the old OU/NU rivalry. It's likely that the Big 12 split was inevitable due to other cultural and economic factors, but it's a shame that we didn't know then what we know now, and could have tried to do some things differently to create a more cohesive conference.

With 20/20 hindsight, a Big 12 with a revenue model similar to existing P5 conferences and a repentant Texas should have maintained the following schools for decades and decades:

Colorado
Nebraska
Iowa State
Missouri
Kansas State
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

That is a heck of a 12 team conference that would have staying power. I think the decision to bring on Baylor at the expense of Arkansas changed the dynamics of the conference in a way that eventually led to settling on TCU and reaching way out for West Virginia. Baylor and TCU should have always been in conference with BYU, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, and Tulane. That is a marketable private school conference that could have added some good regional public universities, not unlike the old Big East. Air Force would have fit well there, too.

Thats not what happened though.

Arkansas left before any idea of the SWC completely breaking up happened...though many consider the Hogs leaving to be the writing on the wall for the conference. But they were never in consideration for the B12 because they had already joined the SEC by then.

I agree with Phog that the B12 was probably doomed from the start because it was a Frankenstein monster of two VERY different pieces sewn together purely for TV money but never addressed the key issue of having no major markets or population bases outside Texas which led to problems it had and still has today. The only reason it even existed was because Stanford vetoed UT's original request to join. Had the PAC had more foresight, they wouldn't have let Stanford do it.

IMO the Big 12 would have worked a LOT better if instead of going for Texas markets, they instead convinced the western B1G schools to join and create a super Midwest conference centered around the Denver-KC-Minneapolis-Chicago corridor.

Theoretical "Heartland Conference" (permanent cross division rival)

-Colorado (Nebraska)
-Illinois (Missouri "Arch Rivalry")
-Minnesota (Oklahoma State)
-Wisconsin (Oklahoma)
-Iowa (Kansas)
-Iowa State (Kansas State "Farmageddon")

-Nebraska (Colorado)
-Missouri (Illinois "Arch Rivalry")
-Kansas (Iowa)
-Kansas State (Iowa State "Farmageddon")
-Oklahoma (Wisconsin)
-Oklahoma State (Minnesota)

In this better 1995, UT goes to the PAC where they belong, A&M goes to the SEC where we belong and the rest form a new SWC

(04-23-2014 04:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thats not what happened though.

Arkansas left before any idea of the SWC completely breaking up happened...though many consider the Hogs leaving to be the writing on the wall for the conference. But they were never in consideration for the B12 because they had already joined the SEC by then.

I agree with Phog that the B12 was probably doomed from the start because it was a Frankenstein monster of two VERY different pieces sewn together purely for TV money but never addressed the key issue of having no major markets or population bases outside Texas which led to problems it had and still has today. The only reason it even existed was because Stanford vetoed UT's original request to join. Had the PAC had more foresight, they wouldn't have let Stanford do it.

IMO the Big 12 would have worked a LOT better if instead of going for Texas markets, they instead convinced the western B1G schools to join and create a super Midwest conference centered around the Denver-KC-Minneapolis-Chicago corridor.

Theoretical "Heartland Conference" (permanent cross division rival)

-Colorado (Nebraska)
-Illinois (Missouri "Arch Rivalry")
-Minnesota (Oklahoma State)
-Wisconsin (Oklahoma)
-Iowa (Kansas)
-Iowa State (Kansas State "Farmageddon")

-Nebraska (Colorado)
-Missouri (Illinois "Arch Rivalry")
-Kansas (Iowa)
-Kansas State (Iowa State "Farmageddon")
-Oklahoma (Wisconsin)
-Oklahoma State (Minnesota)

That would have been a incredibly good cultural league, 10th, but would there be concern about losing Texas recruiting grounds? We are already starting to see some issues for Nebraska. None of those states produce enough talent to fill out all of those rosters.

(04-23-2014 04:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thats not what happened though.

Arkansas left before any idea of the SWC completely breaking up happened...though many consider the Hogs leaving to be the writing on the wall for the conference. But they were never in consideration for the B12 because they had already joined the SEC by then.

I agree with Phog that the B12 was probably doomed from the start because it was a Frankenstein monster of two VERY different pieces sewn together purely for TV money but never addressed the key issue of having no major markets or population bases outside Texas which led to problems it had and still has today. The only reason it even existed was because Stanford vetoed UT's original request to join. Had the PAC had more foresight, they wouldn't have let Stanford do it.

IMO the Big 12 would have worked a LOT better if instead of going for Texas markets, they instead convinced the western B1G schools to join and create a super Midwest conference centered around the Denver-KC-Minneapolis-Chicago corridor.

Theoretical "Heartland Conference" (permanent cross division rival)

-Colorado (Nebraska)
-Illinois (Missouri "Arch Rivalry")
-Minnesota (Oklahoma State)
-Wisconsin (Oklahoma)
-Iowa (Kansas)
-Iowa State (Kansas State "Farmageddon")

-Nebraska (Colorado)
-Missouri (Illinois "Arch Rivalry")
-Kansas (Iowa)
-Kansas State (Iowa State "Farmageddon")
-Oklahoma (Wisconsin)
-Oklahoma State (Minnesota)

That would have been a incredibly good cultural league, 10th, but would there be concern about losing Texas recruiting grounds? We are already starting to see some issues for Nebraska. None of those states produce enough talent to fill out all of those rosters.

You make a good point. Lets revise and throw in Northwestern to the North division and UT to the South division instead of the PAC.

Lots of good stuff could have happened without Texas politicians trying to protect two unneeded and unwanted schools just because they went there.

Revised 14 team league:

-Colorado (Nebraska)
-Illinois (Missouri "Arch Rivalry")
-Northwestern (Kansas)
-Minnesota (Oklahoma State)
-Wisconsin (Oklahoma)
-Iowa (Texas)
-Iowa State (Kansas State "Farmageddon")

-Nebraska (Colorado)
-Missouri (Illinois "Arch Rivalry")
-Kansas (Northwestern)
-Kansas State (Iowa State "Farmageddon")
-Oklahoma (Wisconsin)
-Oklahoma State (Minnesota)
-Texas (Iowa)

(04-23-2014 04:22 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:52 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  jhawkmvp, you beat me to it. I also loved the old OU/NU rivalry. It's likely that the Big 12 split was inevitable due to other cultural and economic factors, but it's a shame that we didn't know then what we know now, and could have tried to do some things differently to create a more cohesive conference.

With 20/20 hindsight, a Big 12 with a revenue model similar to existing P5 conferences and a repentant Texas should have maintained the following schools for decades and decades:

Colorado
Nebraska
Iowa State
Missouri
Kansas State
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

That is a heck of a 12 team conference that would have staying power. I think the decision to bring on Baylor at the expense of Arkansas changed the dynamics of the conference in a way that eventually led to settling on TCU and reaching way out for West Virginia. Baylor and TCU should have always been in conference with BYU, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, and Tulane. That is a marketable private school conference that could have added some good regional public universities, not unlike the old Big East. Air Force would have fit well there, too.

That would have been perfect, but like 10th said, Arkansas had already joined the SEC before the Big 8/12 came into the picture. So sad politics and division ruined a conference that battled it out pretty much toe to toe with the SEC as the best football conference going for a long time. Originally Texas just wanted themselves and A&M (would have been great, plus NU/OU never ends as a yearly rivalry). The Big 8 supposedly thought a full merger with the SWC of 16 schools (that conference would have died quickly - too much deadweight). Ended up, after Texas politicians got involved, as 12 schools with Baylor and TTU. A 10 school B12 (Big 8 plus UT and A&M) would still be going strong as would a 12 school B12 with Arkansas, IMO.

Remember though, A&M never wanted to be in the Big 12 to begin with. Its no offense to you guys, but we had little to no connection to any of the Big 8 teams prior to the Big 12 forming (people always seem to forget that playing OK was always UT's thing, not ours).

A&M was forced to join because that was the Big 8's demand in order to accept Baylor and Tech being foisted on them (People also forget that at this time of realignment, A&M was riding high on a decade of being the best team in Texas so having us was a must for the Big 8 if they had to choke down Baylor and Tech).

Had there been no pressure from Texas politicians, A&M simply would have gone ahead with its original plan to join the SEC with LSU as our sponsor.

Though potentially, a 10 team B12 with UT and BYU instead of A&M (BYU was considered a potential candidate too at the time) could be a strong 10 team league

(04-24-2014 03:31 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Remember though, A&M never wanted to be in the Big 12 to begin with. Its no offense to you guys, but we had little to no connection to any of the Big 8 teams prior to the Big 12 forming (people always seem to forget that playing OK was always UT's thing, not ours).

A&M was forced to join because that was the Big 8's demand in order to accept Baylor and Tech being foisted on them (People also forget that at this time of realignment, A&M was riding high on a decade of being the best team in Texas so having us was a must for the Big 8 if they had to choke down Baylor and Tech).

Had there been no pressure from Texas politicians, A&M simply would have gone ahead with its original plan to join the SEC with LSU as our sponsor.

Though potentially, a 10 team B12 with UT and BYU instead of A&M (BYU was considered a potential candidate too at the time) could be a strong 10 team league

BYU would have been fine. Better actually, from a network standpoint due to adding the SLC DMA.

(04-24-2014 03:31 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Remember though, A&M never wanted to be in the Big 12 to begin with. Its no offense to you guys, but we had little to no connection to any of the Big 8 teams prior to the Big 12 forming (people always seem to forget that playing OK was always UT's thing, not ours).

A&M was forced to join because that was the Big 8's demand in order to accept Baylor and Tech being foisted on them (People also forget that at this time of realignment, A&M was riding high on a decade of being the best team in Texas so having us was a must for the Big 8 if they had to choke down Baylor and Tech).

Had there been no pressure from Texas politicians, A&M simply would have gone ahead with its original plan to join the SEC with LSU as our sponsor.

Though potentially, a 10 team B12 with UT and BYU instead of A&M (BYU was considered a potential candidate too at the time) could be a strong 10 team league

This must be painful for a few of our Texas Tech friends to swallow. (and we know who they are) Having someone like a politician intervene to make sure you do not wind up in the WAC at the time...

Lots of interesting thoughts here. 10th is right about Arkansas having left the SWC in advance of the big merger, and while his alternate concept accounts for that and for aTm's preference for the SEC, I don't think that it would have been feasible for the Big 12 to have pulled members of the B1G, even if it would create a strong conference like the one he imagined above.

While still imperfect (and still prone to potential poaching by others) another alternative given hindsight that may have been more feasible would be to move sooner, let aTm go to the SEC along with South Carolina (giving the SEC an even stronger boost than it had at the time), and adding Texas, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and New Mexico. From the start, hindsight would mandate a permanent cross-divisional rival setup. Here's the breakdown:

Colorado - New Mexico
Missouri - Arkansas
Nebraska - Oklahoma
Iowa State - Oklahoma State
Kansas State - Texas Tech
Kansas - Texas

The top 3 cross-rivalries seem pretty obvious based on geography for the first two, and of course keeping the historic OU/NU rivalry intact. The remaining 3 matchups put the land grant/agricultural schools in the closest geographic matchups, and then KU/Texas is a matchup of the remaining flagships. KU has a strong alumni presence in DFW as well, so it's a good matchup from that standpoint.

Taking it a bit further, knowing the rough history of the conference and the "us vs. them" cross-divisional dynamic that developed, I'd also implement the following:

The conference offices would still move to TX, but the basketball tournament would be permanently placed in Kansas City. The football championship game would rotate between the pro stadiums in KC and Dallas.

No restrictions on partial qualifiers. It is true that Texas wasn't the only team that voted on restricting them, but this quickly became a big issue for Nebraska and caused a lot of conflict. Given the rich recruiting ground of Texas UT would still make plenty of hay, and perhaps the weaker northern teams could have emulated Nebraska and taken some advantage of this rule rather than trying to use the rule change against them.

Equal revenue sharing on at least all Tier 1 and Tier 2 content. Possibly still allow schools to retain and monetize their own Tier 3 rights, at least for the short term while evaluating the feasibility of a conference network.

This would have broadened the original Big 8 footprint using land-grant and flagship schools. It would be contiguous, with minimal duplication taking place solely in a very populous, prosperous, and football-crazed state. New Mexico would be a "project", but they would be a good rival for Colorado and Texas Tech, and it would give the conference the two most attractive brands on the east side of the Mountain time zone. Texas's strengths are obvious - whether they'd want to play by these rules in hindsight is an open question, but in my alternate universe they can still capitalize on their strengths while benefitting from a stable conference. Texas Tech gives more Texas exposure, and provides both Texas and Arkansas another game on their schedule against a long-time conference mate. Arkansas would likewise have a couple of old rivals to play, while having a chance to build rivalries with Missouri and the Oklahoma schools in a conference that's not otherwise comprised entirely of Texas schools. History shows that they're obviously a good SEC fit, but I think they'd have fit well in this alternate Big 12 as well.

Good stuff Phog,

The only part of that scenario that might be difficult is Arkansas. It was their leaving that precipitated the looking around for a new conference by A&M and UT that eventually led to the SWC ending and the formation of the Big 12.

This scenario would assume that the Big 8 decided to expand on its own sometime prior to 1990 which would be a lot less likely.

To me, your scenario makes a little more sense with A&M and Arkansas going to the SEC (possibly with FSU or Clemson to compliment SC) and BYU being added as the 12th team

Yes, my version of the Big 12 requires both hindsight and foresight. . BYU would have been another option. They would likely have been more attainable, and it was closer to their zenith as a football program as well.

I would LOVE to see an Alabama-Notre Dame game every year. That would make me happy.

(04-25-2014 02:46 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:31 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Remember though, A&M never wanted to be in the Big 12 to begin with. Its no offense to you guys, but we had little to no connection to any of the Big 8 teams prior to the Big 12 forming (people always seem to forget that playing OK was always UT's thing, not ours).

A&M was forced to join because that was the Big 8's demand in order to accept Baylor and Tech being foisted on them (People also forget that at this time of realignment, A&M was riding high on a decade of being the best team in Texas so having us was a must for the Big 8 if they had to choke down Baylor and Tech).

Had there been no pressure from Texas politicians, A&M simply would have gone ahead with its original plan to join the SEC with LSU as our sponsor.

Though potentially, a 10 team B12 with UT and BYU instead of A&M (BYU was considered a potential candidate too at the time) could be a strong 10 team league

This must be painful for a few of our Texas Tech friends to swallow. (and we know who they are) Having someone like a politician intervene to make sure you do not wind up in the WAC at the time...

The University of Texas had no problem adding Texas Tech. The school in College Station has always been the one that didn't want us but they didn't have any support.

Sorry little buddy but the Big 8 didn't want you or Baylor.

They only took you because your boy Lt Gov Bullock told them they didn't get UT and A&M (ie the ONLY Texas schools they wanted) unless they agreed to take you and Baylor too.

They grudgingly accepted you to get the schools they really wanted.

But I get it, the truth is painful so you like to make up stories to hide the fact that pure political luck is the only reason you aren't in the AAC with Houston and SMU.

Tech needs a statue to Bob Bullock and a national Tech day of worship dedicated to him because otherwise, you are coog high.

Yes Bob Bullock demanded that we be included but the University of Texas had no problem with that.

I think it would be absolutely hilarious if Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St got an invite to the SEC. Adding us and Texas definitely makes Texas a true SEC state and would control all TV markets in Texas.

I personally don't want Tech in the SEC but the crying and screaming from aggie fans would be well worth it.

Quote:Yes Bob Bullock demanded that we be included but the University of Texas had no problem with that.

You know who didn't have a problem with it either? Texas A&M. Because A&M didn't want to go to the B12 to begin with and couldn't have cared less who ended up in it.

Problem is, the Big 8 was not cool with that.

They said that if they had to be forced to take two schools they DIDNT want (Tech) then they had to have the other school they DID want (A&M).

So the Big 8's problem with you became our problem with you. Thankfully thats all over now because your adorable little techy wet dream fantasies aside, we'll never have to deal with you trying to tag along ever again.

You're UT's "Tech problem" now.

Quote:"I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a 'Tech' problem," Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.

(04-26-2014 05:24 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thankfully thats all over now because your adorable little techy wet dream fantasies aside, we'll never have to deal with you trying to tag along ever again.

You're UT's "Tech problem" now.

I'm glad we have the relationship with Texas that we do. They realize that we are a good conference partner and would like to see us succeed.

We aren't a tag along. 20 years ago aggy was about the same size as Tech is today. UT realizes we have every bit the same potential as aggy did 20 years ago and that scares aggies.

If I were an aggie fan, I guess I wouldn't want a school that has won more than they lost as conference partners. Tech 27-24-1 vs aggie since 1960

Bwahahahahahahahaha

I love your rich fantasy world where Tech is UTs valued and trusted ally whom they are always looking out for because they believe in your vast potential!

Dude...you are getting played. UT keeps you around because like a good parasite, you're more trouble than its worth to get rid of but in the mean time you are an easy win in every sport and because you owe them so much, they know that if there is ever a big vote they really need, they can always say "We need you to vote yes on this and its non-negotaible."

You are a pawn.

You are a pawn and you are, as UT'S PRESIDENT said: Their "Tech Problem"

That is what you are to them. An obstacle they are stuck with so they might as well use you.

(04-26-2014 06:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Bwahahahahahahahaha

I love your rich fantasy world where Tech is UTs valued and trusted ally whom they are always looking out for because they believe in your vast potential!

Dude...you are getting played. UT keeps you around because like a good parasite, you're more trouble than its worth to get rid of but in the mean time you are an easy win in every sport and because you owe them so much, they know that if there is ever a big vote they really need, they can always say "We need you to vote yes on this and its non-negotaible."

You are a pawn.

You are a pawn and you are, as UT'S PRESIDENT said: Their "Tech Problem"

That is what you are to them. An obstacle they are stuck with so they might as well use you.

LOL