Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,898
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 800
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #41
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 03:19 PM)johnintx Wrote:  I have fond memories of the Big 8, but it was Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri's conference. Nebraska and Iowa State were along for the ride. Colorado was an outlier. OU was an outlaw, especially with its NCAA issues and, in the 80's, it's renegade coaches (Switzer and Tubbs). OSU wasn't allowed to come along with the original schools, and didn't make it into the conference until 1957. Conference headquarters were in Kansas City. There was always a basketball tournament in Kansas City. Before post-season tournaments caught wind across the country, the Big 8 for decades conducted a holiday tournament in Kansas City. The Big 8 worked well for the five schools closest to KC. The Oklahoma schools often felt outnumbered in the power structure of the Big 8. In addition, Oklahomans, for better or worse, are more oriented to Texas than to the Midwest. Texans are much different from midwesterners.

See, I've been looking for a post like this, because while I have long understood the oil and water split between the Big 8 schools and the Texas schools, I have never understood *why* there was such a split.

That is, to me, never having lived in those parts of the country, states like Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Kansas should be very culturally compatible. They are all in my mind "western" states of the mid-continent. I think of cowboys and Home on the Range and the Great Plains and cattle drives, Fort Worth and Dodge City when i think of all of them. It's not like the ACC, with ridiculously different places like Boston, Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

So I always assumed the split, and what drove Nebraska and Mizzou and Colorado away was the same thing that drove TAMU away - pure raw power politics, namely the dislike of living in the Texas/Oklahoma shadow.

But until now I've never really felt a *cultural* difference between the non-Oklahoma Big 8 states and the Oklahoma/Texas nexus.

But now I think I do.

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 03:53 PM by quo vadis.)
10-23-2019 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 04:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He’s the one circulating the rumors. Come clean, Swaim.

I believe the PAC is fragile right now, but it’s fixable. The repair solution? Big XII schools who move on from that conference.

I also think something works itself out between the B1G and PAC. Let time and different personalities work out the kinks of scheduling football commitments. Too many schools were game for this in the PAC to let it die. You simply can’t force the PAC schools to move fast, and the B1G overreached.

I do believe there are some unhappy schools in the PAC, and the Zona’s are low-hanging fruit. We’ve never really gotten real “shots fired” from them at their source pains. Some cheap shots at the conference, but, let’s be real...if they’re really done with this, let them take shots at the California schools where the PAC universe revolves.

Why would Big 12 schools leave for lower revenues, less exposure, a weaker football and basketball league and more travel?

Theoretically? Security. For everyone who isn't UT or OU the conference is something of a prisoner's dilemma. Ultimately it's probably in everyone's best interest to just stick together but nobody wants to be one of the schools holding the proverbial bag if other parties start leaving. If you're, say, Kansas there's at least a debate to be had regarding a guaranteed spot in the PAC weighed against the twin probabilities of the Big 12 continuing on as-is or falling apart and winding up in a new Big12/AAC hybrid conference.
10-23-2019 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,898
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 800
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #43
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 04:08 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Theoretically? Security. For everyone who isn't UT or OU the conference is something of a prisoner's dilemma. Ultimately it's probably in everyone's best interest to just stick together but nobody wants to be one of the schools holding the proverbial bag if other parties start leaving. If you're, say, Kansas there's at least a debate to be had regarding a guaranteed spot in the PAC weighed against the twin probabilities of the Big 12 continuing on as-is or falling apart and winding up in a new Big12/AAC hybrid conference.

If I'm a Big 8 school that isn't in Oklahoma, like Kansas or Iowa State or Kansas State and I get an offer from the B1G or the PAC, then I absolutely take it, for the security reason you mention. It would be a closer call for an Oklahoma State or a Texas school, because they are less likely to get jettisoned by the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the conference. But maybe so as well.

Problem is, the odds that the B1G or PAC will make any of those schools an offer is close to zero. So all you can really do is cling to the Big 12 and just pray that Texas and Oklahoma decide to keep it together.

Which means licking their boots whenever necessary.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 04:24 PM by quo vadis.)
10-23-2019 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 04:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Problem is, the odds that the B1G or PAC will make any of those schools an offer is close to zero. So all you can really do is cling to the Big 12 and just pray that Texas and Oklahoma decide to keep it together.

I'm not going to speculate on the odds of anyone who isn't OU or Texas getting a PAC invite, which is a separate issue altogether, but I understand why they at least have a serious discussion about what to do if that call does get made.
10-23-2019 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,382
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 356
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
With all this speculation about the Big 12, I would have lost a ton of money betting that Todge Rodge would have chimed in with a 2,357 word post by now that would have included insulting the AAC and using the phrase SEC! SEC! SEC! in it.

[Image: ScholarlyUnevenCanvasback-small.gif]

USFFan
10-23-2019 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 21,665
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1900
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 03:19 PM)johnintx Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 11:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this before:

The Big 12 schools may like their money, but they hate their conference.

In contrast, the Pac-12 schools may not like their money, but they love their conference.

That's a great way to put it.

04-cheers

The problem of course is that the Big 12 remains a Big 8/SWC hybrid that has never really worked in a cultural sense. I thought it should have, since Texas/Oklahoma seemed a natural glue in that regard, but it hasn't.

In contrast, the PAC consists of schools that are an ideal cultural fit for all of them, save for the recent Colorado and Utah add-ons, and those schools are very grateful to be in the PAC.

The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It is less a conference and more a collection of schools with a TV contract.

I have fond memories of the Big 8, but it was Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri's conference. Nebraska and Iowa State were along for the ride. Colorado was an outlier. OU was an outlaw, especially with its NCAA issues and, in the 80's, it's renegade coaches (Switzer and Tubbs). OSU wasn't allowed to come along with the original schools, and didn't make it into the conference until 1957. Conference headquarters were in Kansas City. There was always a basketball tournament in Kansas City. Before post-season tournaments caught wind across the country, the Big 8 for decades conducted a holiday tournament in Kansas City. The Big 8 worked well for the five schools closest to KC. The Oklahoma schools often felt outnumbered in the power structure of the Big 8. In addition, Oklahomans, for better or worse, are more oriented to Texas than to the Midwest. Texans are much different from midwesterners. So, the Big 8, due to its geography and lack of markets, became unable to obtain a large TV contract. There was a lot of bitterness among what became the Big 12 North as it moved into a shotgun wedding with the Texas schools. It eventually bubbled into the loss of Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado.

Enter DeLoss Dodds and Donnie Duncan (Texas and OU athletic directors in the 1990's). They created a conference that would attract a large TV contract, while keeping a place in big-time college football for schools in the middle of the country. In the process, they created a conference that primarily benefited Texas and OU. Texas still got to be king of the hill, while OU got to be in a conference with both their old Big 8 rivals and schools in Texas, where a good portion of alumni and fans reside. As a consequence, Oklahoma State benefited in much the same way as OU, with a conference centered on Texas.

In hindsight, a zipper format (similar to the ACC) would have been a better division split for the Big 12 instead of North-South. It would have given everyone equal access to the state of Texas, and would have better integrated the two parts of the conference.

Big 12 3.0 has stabilized, at least until the GOR expires in 2025. There still isn't a whole lot in common between the Texas schools and the northern schools. West Virginia will always be an odd fit, through no fault of their own. But, as the years go by, the schools have learned to work together, as they know the alternatives are worse. Still, there will always be a separation between Texas/OU and the other 8 schools, especially with the division of revenue.

The Arizona schools can make more money in the Big 12, but their culture fits in the Pac 12. The Pac needs to fix their TV situation, especially their conference network. If they can do that, they won't have any problem keeping their conference together. Those schools want to be together.

Solid post! I've always felt that the most natural way to divide the Big 12 for purposes of realignment would be to have the Big 10 assimilate the Old Big 8 schools (minus the Oklahoma's) and the SEC to assimilate the Texas schools and possibly the Oklahoma's. If the PAC were better positioned then they would work as well on the latter.

Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas, or Colorado would have been a nice move to 16 for the Big 10. Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, & Oklahoma State for the SEC.

That's passed now and the Old Big 8 schools are split 3 ways. It's sad.
10-23-2019 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnintx Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 362
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #47
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  See, I've been looking for a post like this, because while I have long understood the oil and water split between the Big 8 schools and the Texas schools, I have never understood *why* there was such a split.

That is, to me, never having lived in those parts of the country, states like Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Kansas should be very culturally compatible. They are all in my mind "western" states of the mid-continent. I think of cowboys and Home on the Range and the Great Plains and cattle drives, Fort Worth and Dodge City when i think of all of them. It's not like the ACC, with ridiculously different places like Boston, Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

So I always assumed the split, and what drove Nebraska and Mizzou and Colorado away was the same thing that drove TAMU away - pure raw power politics, namely the dislike of living in the Texas/Oklahoma shadow.

But until now I've never really felt a *cultural* difference between the non-Oklahoma Big 8 states and the Oklahoma/Texas nexus.

But now I think I do.

04-cheers

It's both power politics and a difference in culture.

The core of the former Big 12 North ran the Big 8. When the Big 8 went away, they lost their conference. They went from running a conference to being subservient to Texas. They lost a lot of 7-5 votes when the Big 12 was formed, most notably the location of the headquarters: Dallas over Kansas City. In the meantime, the Oklahoma schools didn't mind being in a conference with the axis of power in Texas.

The differences between Big 12 North and South are more subtle than not. Kansas is much more like Texas than California. Kansas City is known for barbecue, as is Texas. There is a lot of wide open space with farming and ranching throughout the conference. The difference is that the northern states are not economically and culturally tied to the state of Texas, and would just as soon do without Texas. Oklahoma, on the other hand, is economically and culturally tied to the state of Texas. The connections between the states of Oklahoma and Texas lead to animosity and feed the rivalry between OU and UT.
10-23-2019 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnintx Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 362
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #48
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 05:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's passed now and the Old Big 8 schools are split 3 ways. It's sad.

I'd love to have Nebraska and Missouri back with us. Those core five schools of the old Big 12 North belong together. That's not going to happen. That train has left the station.

I'm fine with Colorado being out west. They were always an outlier, from their culture to their terrain to their time zone. They fit better in the Pac.

I'd even take the Texas Aggies back, but they're not coming back in a million years.
10-23-2019 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,898
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 800
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #49
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 06:06 PM)johnintx Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  See, I've been looking for a post like this, because while I have long understood the oil and water split between the Big 8 schools and the Texas schools, I have never understood *why* there was such a split.

That is, to me, never having lived in those parts of the country, states like Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Kansas should be very culturally compatible. They are all in my mind "western" states of the mid-continent. I think of cowboys and Home on the Range and the Great Plains and cattle drives, Fort Worth and Dodge City when i think of all of them. It's not like the ACC, with ridiculously different places like Boston, Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

So I always assumed the split, and what drove Nebraska and Mizzou and Colorado away was the same thing that drove TAMU away - pure raw power politics, namely the dislike of living in the Texas/Oklahoma shadow.

But until now I've never really felt a *cultural* difference between the non-Oklahoma Big 8 states and the Oklahoma/Texas nexus.

But now I think I do.

04-cheers

It's both power politics and a difference in culture.

The core of the former Big 12 North ran the Big 8. When the Big 8 went away, they lost their conference. They went from running a conference to being subservient to Texas. They lost a lot of 7-5 votes when the Big 12 was formed, most notably the location of the headquarters: Dallas over Kansas City. In the meantime, the Oklahoma schools didn't mind being in a conference with the axis of power in Texas.

... which surprises me, because the Big 12 was made up of the entire Big 8 and just four from the SWC. I am always surprised when I here laments from old Big 8 folks about how basically everything was lost by them, when they were intact and it was the SWC that was dismembered.

You would think with that situation, the Big 8 schools would run the show.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 08:38 PM by quo vadis.)
10-23-2019 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,940
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 142
I Root For: UCF
Location: NW Ark.
Post: #50
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 06:06 PM)johnintx Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  See, I've been looking for a post like this, because while I have long understood the oil and water split between the Big 8 schools and the Texas schools, I have never understood *why* there was such a split.

That is, to me, never having lived in those parts of the country, states like Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Kansas should be very culturally compatible. They are all in my mind "western" states of the mid-continent. I think of cowboys and Home on the Range and the Great Plains and cattle drives, Fort Worth and Dodge City when i think of all of them. It's not like the ACC, with ridiculously different places like Boston, Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

So I always assumed the split, and what drove Nebraska and Mizzou and Colorado away was the same thing that drove TAMU away - pure raw power politics, namely the dislike of living in the Texas/Oklahoma shadow.

But until now I've never really felt a *cultural* difference between the non-Oklahoma Big 8 states and the Oklahoma/Texas nexus.

But now I think I do.

04-cheers

It's both power politics and a difference in culture.

The core of the former Big 12 North ran the Big 8. When the Big 8 went away, they lost their conference. They went from running a conference to being subservient to Texas. They lost a lot of 7-5 votes when the Big 12 was formed, most notably the location of the headquarters: Dallas over Kansas City. In the meantime, the Oklahoma schools didn't mind being in a conference with the axis of power in Texas.

... which surprises me, because the Big 12 was made up of the entire Big 8 and just four from the SWC. I am always surprised when I here laments from old Big 8 folks about how basically everything was lost by them, when they were intact and it was the SWC that was dismembered.

You would think with that situation, the Big 8 schools would run the show.

Yes, and one does wonder how the 7-5 voting block above evolved. Even if the Oklahoma schools switch sides, that's 6-6. Who was the other vote flipping to cost the Big 8 schools decisions? Colorado?
10-23-2019 09:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,044
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1111
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 11:42 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 04:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He’s the one circulating the rumors. Come clean, Swaim.

I believe the PAC is fragile right now, but it’s fixable. The repair solution? Big XII schools who move on from that conference.

I also think something works itself out between the B1G and PAC. Let time and different personalities work out the kinks of scheduling football commitments. Too many schools were game for this in the PAC to let it die. You simply can’t force the PAC schools to move fast, and the B1G overreached.

I do believe there are some unhappy schools in the PAC, and the Zona’s are low-hanging fruit. We’ve never really gotten real “shots fired” from them at their source pains. Some cheap shots at the conference, but, let’s be real...if they’re really done with this, let them take shots at the California schools where the PAC universe revolves.

Why would Big 12 schools leave for lower revenues, less exposure, a weaker football and basketball league and more travel?

I think they are both fine where they are at. But the Pac-12 has more talent, top to bottom than the Big 12.

Using the NFL draft for the past over the past six years (2014-2019) and total draft picks by conference:
Pac-12 - 204
Big 12 - 128

For the NBA draft, I found this:
Over the last six years (2014-19), the ACC leads all conferences with 42 first-round selections, followed by the SEC (29), Pac-12 (25), Big Ten (19), Big 12 (14) and the Big East (8).

The Pac-12 has more total revenue than the Big 12, but they have not controlled their expenses, so the Big 12 ends up with more net revenue per school. Exposure, that is debatable. Kansas has played two home games on ESPN+ and a road game on LHN, a network that is not easy to find in Texas. Oregon State will play six consecutive games on the Pac-12 Network. The network is available nationally, it just may not be available with your local cable or satellite provider.

The higher revenue for the Pac 12 is because they own their network. I believe they have higher revenues than even the Big 10, but its not apples and apples. They have a lot of expenses associated with owning the network instead of Fox or ESPN absorbing the expenses.
10-23-2019 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,044
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1111
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 04:08 PM)Bogg Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 04:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He’s the one circulating the rumors. Come clean, Swaim.

I believe the PAC is fragile right now, but it’s fixable. The repair solution? Big XII schools who move on from that conference.

I also think something works itself out between the B1G and PAC. Let time and different personalities work out the kinks of scheduling football commitments. Too many schools were game for this in the PAC to let it die. You simply can’t force the PAC schools to move fast, and the B1G overreached.

I do believe there are some unhappy schools in the PAC, and the Zona’s are low-hanging fruit. We’ve never really gotten real “shots fired” from them at their source pains. Some cheap shots at the conference, but, let’s be real...if they’re really done with this, let them take shots at the California schools where the PAC universe revolves.

Why would Big 12 schools leave for lower revenues, less exposure, a weaker football and basketball league and more travel?

Theoretically? Security. For everyone who isn't UT or OU the conference is something of a prisoner's dilemma. Ultimately it's probably in everyone's best interest to just stick together but nobody wants to be one of the schools holding the proverbial bag if other parties start leaving. If you're, say, Kansas there's at least a debate to be had regarding a guaranteed spot in the PAC weighed against the twin probabilities of the Big 12 continuing on as-is or falling apart and winding up in a new Big12/AAC hybrid conference.

Alright, let's rephrase that. Why would Texas or Oklahoma want to move to the Pac for lower revenues, lower exposure and more travel?
10-23-2019 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnintx Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 362
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #53
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 09:52 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 06:06 PM)johnintx Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  See, I've been looking for a post like this, because while I have long understood the oil and water split between the Big 8 schools and the Texas schools, I have never understood *why* there was such a split.

That is, to me, never having lived in those parts of the country, states like Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Kansas should be very culturally compatible. They are all in my mind "western" states of the mid-continent. I think of cowboys and Home on the Range and the Great Plains and cattle drives, Fort Worth and Dodge City when i think of all of them. It's not like the ACC, with ridiculously different places like Boston, Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

So I always assumed the split, and what drove Nebraska and Mizzou and Colorado away was the same thing that drove TAMU away - pure raw power politics, namely the dislike of living in the Texas/Oklahoma shadow.

But until now I've never really felt a *cultural* difference between the non-Oklahoma Big 8 states and the Oklahoma/Texas nexus.

But now I think I do.

04-cheers

It's both power politics and a difference in culture.

The core of the former Big 12 North ran the Big 8. When the Big 8 went away, they lost their conference. They went from running a conference to being subservient to Texas. They lost a lot of 7-5 votes when the Big 12 was formed, most notably the location of the headquarters: Dallas over Kansas City. In the meantime, the Oklahoma schools didn't mind being in a conference with the axis of power in Texas.

... which surprises me, because the Big 12 was made up of the entire Big 8 and just four from the SWC. I am always surprised when I here laments from old Big 8 folks about how basically everything was lost by them, when they were intact and it was the SWC that was dismembered.

You would think with that situation, the Big 8 schools would run the show.

Yes, and one does wonder how the 7-5 voting block above evolved. Even if the Oklahoma schools switch sides, that's 6-6. Who was the other vote flipping to cost the Big 8 schools decisions? Colorado?

Yes. Colorado was the 7th vote to locate the conference headquarters to Dallas, and most likely for other decisions, as well, IIRC. For them, it was easier to fly to Dallas than to Kansas City for conference HQ activities. Plus, they weren't as tied to the core 5 schools of the north. They were truly an outlier.

The conference made an effort to move both the football championship game and the basketball tournament around the conference. St. Louis (on the edge of the footprint) had two championship games, Kansas City (outdoors in the cold) had a few, as did San Antonio and Houston. Likewise, Dallas and Oklahoma City took turns hosting basketball tournaments. After the conference shrunk to 10, those events made it to their natural homes of Arlington and Kansas City, respectively.
10-23-2019 10:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,044
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1111
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 06:06 PM)johnintx Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  See, I've been looking for a post like this, because while I have long understood the oil and water split between the Big 8 schools and the Texas schools, I have never understood *why* there was such a split.

That is, to me, never having lived in those parts of the country, states like Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Kansas should be very culturally compatible. They are all in my mind "western" states of the mid-continent. I think of cowboys and Home on the Range and the Great Plains and cattle drives, Fort Worth and Dodge City when i think of all of them. It's not like the ACC, with ridiculously different places like Boston, Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

So I always assumed the split, and what drove Nebraska and Mizzou and Colorado away was the same thing that drove TAMU away - pure raw power politics, namely the dislike of living in the Texas/Oklahoma shadow.

But until now I've never really felt a *cultural* difference between the non-Oklahoma Big 8 states and the Oklahoma/Texas nexus.

But now I think I do.

04-cheers

It's both power politics and a difference in culture.

The core of the former Big 12 North ran the Big 8. When the Big 8 went away, they lost their conference. They went from running a conference to being subservient to Texas. They lost a lot of 7-5 votes when the Big 12 was formed, most notably the location of the headquarters: Dallas over Kansas City. In the meantime, the Oklahoma schools didn't mind being in a conference with the axis of power in Texas.

The differences between Big 12 North and South are more subtle than not. Kansas is much more like Texas than California. Kansas City is known for barbecue, as is Texas. There is a lot of wide open space with farming and ranching throughout the conference. The difference is that the northern states are not economically and culturally tied to the state of Texas, and would just as soon do without Texas. Oklahoma, on the other hand, is economically and culturally tied to the state of Texas. The connections between the states of Oklahoma and Texas lead to animosity and feed the rivalry between OU and UT.

Other than the conference HQ, the 7-5 votes were Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and the 4 who left vs. Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Kansas St. and Iowa St. The haves vs. the have-nots.

As the Nebraska president said, there were no 2 schools more aligned on revenue issues than Texas and Nebraska.

The long post above said it well. The more midwest Big 8 schools ran the Big 8 conference and resented the change. They viewed themselves as "saving" the SWC 4. The last year of the Big 8, they had 4 schools in the top 10 (NU, CU, KU and KSU). The SWC 4 and OU viewed it as saving each other.
10-23-2019 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,044
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1111
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
Switching a little to an earlier topic. I ran some numbers from 2006 to present (I chose 2006 because I already had most of the top 25 data and didn't have to create it-that was the year BC moved to the ACC making them 12) on how conferences would look without their top 2 most valuable programs (Ohio St./Michigan, FSU/Clemson, Alabama/Florida, Texas/OU, USC/UCLA). Note this is most valuable. If it was best performing since 2006, Oregon would have replaced UCLA, TCU would have replaced Texas and WI/PSU or MSU would have replaced Michigan.

This is the number of times ranked in the top 25, # schools, # times after backing out 2 most valuable and the average # of times ranked per school of the remaining schools. For example the ACC had 46 teams in the top 25 representing 13 of their 14 schools. 18 of those were FSU or Clemson, leaving 28 for the rest. 28 divided by the 12 remaining schools is 2.333.

SEC is best but not way ahead of the pack, then Big 12, then Pac 12, then Big 10. ACC trails the P5 but is still ahead of the G5.

since 2006 Without top two programs (P5)
Top 25 # times # schools # times w/o average/school
ACC 46 13 28 2.333
B10 56 11 37 3.083
B12 51 9 34 4.250
P12 47 12 36 3.600
SEC 75 14 56 4.667
AAC 17 7 17 1.545
MWC 16 7 16 1.333
IND 11 3 11 1.571
Other 6 6 6 0.167
10-23-2019 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnintx Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 362
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #56
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 10:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Other than the conference HQ, the 7-5 votes were Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and the 4 who left vs. Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Kansas St. and Iowa St. The haves vs. the have-nots.

As the Nebraska president said, there were no 2 schools more aligned on revenue issues than Texas and Nebraska.

The long post above said it well. The more midwest Big 8 schools ran the Big 8 conference and resented the change. They viewed themselves as "saving" the SWC 4. The last year of the Big 8, they had 4 schools in the top 10 (NU, CU, KU and KSU). The SWC 4 and OU viewed it as saving each other.

1995 was an incredible year, as four Big 8 teams finished in the top 10, and none of them were named OU.

At the formation of the Big 12, Nebraska was in the middle of its greatest era ever, while OU was mired in a decade of probation and two horrible coaching hires.
10-23-2019 10:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,044
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1111
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
Same data but on top 10 and top 5. With the top 10, the SEC does have a significant advantage in the results of their "other guys." Big 12, Pac 12 and Big 10 are close. ACC is barely ahead of AAC and MWC.

With the top 5, the SEC and Pac 12 are clearly ahead excluding the top 2. The SEC "other guys" have 12 top 5 from 6 different schools (UGA-3, LSU-3, Auburn-2, Mizzou-2, Arkansas, South Carolina). The Pac 12 have 8 from 4 different schools (Oregon 4, Stanford 2, Utah, Washington). The Big 12 has 3 (TCU-2, Oklahoma St.) The Big 10 has 2 (Michigan St.-2). ACC has none.

Since 2006 Without top two programs (P5)
Top 10 # times # schools # times w/o average/school
ACC 14 6 5 0.417
Big 10 27 6 14 1.167
Big 12 23 7 11 1.375
Pac 12 19 7 13 1.300
SEC 38 10 22 1.833
AAC 4 3 4 0.364
MWC 4 1 4 0.333
IND 2 1 2
131
since 2006 Without top two programs (P5)
Top 5 # times # schools # times w/o average/school
ACC 5 2 0 0.000
B10 11 2 2 0.167
B12 10 4 3 0.375
P12 12 5 8 0.800
SEC 23 8 12 1.000
AAC 0 0 0 0.000
MWC 2 1 2 0.167
IND 2 1 2
65
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 10:32 PM by bullet.)
10-23-2019 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,405
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 84
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
The Big XII is definitely NOT pulling the AZ schools.
10-23-2019 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 3,275
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 92
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #59
RE: Greg Swaim gets the Arizona's to the Big 12 rumors going...
(10-23-2019 11:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The truly interesting possibility here is never really discussed, but to me seems to be the more viable solution. The PAC 12 and Big 12 GOR's expire within a year of one another. Therefore the possibility is there for the top schools of each conference to reorganize into a new conference which would permit the PAC schools to escape horrendous management of their rights, allow the up to possibly 6 of the Big 12 schools to join with them and reform a new Conference in much the same way the Big 12 was formed out of the SWC and Big 8.

Let's say that the PAC schools included everyone but their weakest 2 (WSU and OSU) and the Big 12 schools involved were Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas and Iowa State.

Your two divisions would become:
Arizona, Arizona State, the 4 California schools, Oregon, and Washington.
Add Utah and Colorado to the six from the Big 12 and you have it.
The new conference gets 6 CTZ slots to market includes all of the AAU schools from the PAC and Big 12, and expands the market of what was the PAC by the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus West Virginia.

That conference could earn in the 40 million range fairly easily.

The MWC could pick up WSU and OSU adding to their strength as a conference that might overtake the AAC competitively.

The GOR expirations are what make this kind of solution a possibility.

Will it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes.

So to Frank I'd say I agree with your assessment of both the PAC and Big 12. But what makes this concept worth considering is that it nullifies the PAC and Big 12 as they are presently contracted and comported. That benefits the 10 PAC schools by liberating them from a failed structure, but maintains those associations they love while culling the weakest 2 and adding a robust Texas/Oklahoma market plus the nearly 6 million in Kansas and Iowa.

If the ACC remained as is the SEC might be interested in TCU for the DFW market presence. Baylor and Kansas State would help boost the profile of the AAC. And WVU might find a spot in the ACC or might be considered by the SEC if all other moves were off the table.

Any way you cut such a move would produce a third competitive conference and would change all of the current thinking about realignment.

Something like this could happen in the future, but I will say this:. I do not know what Washington will do, but Oregon is not going to leave Oregon State. For better or worse, those two are tied at the hip. Think of them Alabama-Auburn, USC-UCLA, UNC-NC State, etc. The synergy between the two of them is amazing!!! Now, as I said before, Washington may decide to ditch Washington State. They would probably keep the Apple Cup series going non conference as well as basketball and all of the other sports. I can see that. Replace Iowa State with Kansas State, add back in Oregon State, and add in TCU. The conference would be somewhat unwieldy, but I could see it working. Kansas State has better football profile than Iowa State does, so I see them getting the nod over them. TCU is to balance things out with Oregon State added back in.
10-24-2019 02:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.