Think BIG. Take the Arizonas.

(09-14-2021 09:45 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 08:46 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 06:04 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:28 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 12:34 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  Wasn't the B1G at one point looking at both USC and Oregon? I saw some older articles prior to the announcement of the alliance, but I haven't seen much else about it after the alliance was announced.

As a B1G grad school alum (Illinois), those internet rumors seem BOGUS to me.

Why would the B1G add a West Coast school.............and then schedule tons of matches against East Coast schools (Maryland and Rutgers) with exorbitant travel costs?

Not worth it. Doesn't seem to pass the "common sense" test.

While it doesn't make a ton of sense, nothing surprises me anymore. I read the articles a while back and thought, "This is getting ridiculous." I just wouldn't put anything past anyone at this point. The SEC was aggressive with this go and while I don't like what is happening in college sports, it is all about content and dollars. I do like that we (The SEC) have remained pretty regional though. Especially with either the West/East proposed changes or the pod idea. (I prefer West/East).

The Big 12 is doing what it needs to, to survive; however, I think it is a mistake to even stop short right now. The fact Memphis and one other (Boise State or USF) weren't invited with the other four shows lack of leadership and foresight. The Big Ten is at 14, The Pac 12 is at 12 and if this P4 agenda goes through they won't stay there, the ACC is at 14, and the SEC is at 16. If the goal is for all to eventually be at 16, then others will be taken. The Big 12 is doing what the Big 12 always does and trying to maximize money instead of building the best conference it can. The money will still be solid, and it will work out best for the conference in general. In the end they will probably pay for it and this will not be the last time they are left scrambling.

Again, nothing surprises me anymore.

There is nothing magical about 16 team conferences.

If Texas Tech and Oklahoma St were the two schools that had approached the SEC instead of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC would have stayed at 14 teams. The PAC12 and B10 are unlikely to expand for the same reasons.

The new B12 needs to stabilize with 12 teams and prove that the conference is more than Oklahoma and Texas (who by the way only has a 50-39 Conference record over the last decade) so the rest of the B12 is not as bad as people assume.

I don't think they're bad. I don't know anyone personally that thinks that 8 teams left in the Big 12 are bad. The only ones on this board that call them the little 8 is the new schools coming into the Big 12 in 2-3 years. A lot of us see their value and that's why most of us think others will be poached at some point. Also regardless of their conference records. Texas and OU were the name brands in the Big 12. There isn't anyone the Big 12 can add that can even come close to bringing in the value of those two schools. Whether you add just the 4 or 10 more.

Like I said in my post. It's about content and dollars. The more content you can produce, the more money you are worth. The higher quality the content is obviously even better. The Big 12 was quick to do what they needed to to get back at ESPN and the AAC when they thought the AAC was going to try and take teams with ESPN's help, but stopping there is a mistake.

Kansas does not want to be in the New Big 12. WVU does not want to be in the New Big 12. There are rumors that the Pac 12 already looked at Houston and TCU. If they do decide to expand Houston and TCU are gone. Iowa State is hoping for the B1G invite as well. Unless several programs change their minds, there is no stabilize with 12. It will be like the AAC was. Everyone looking for the first ticket out. I have even heard some stuff about the ACC looking at Cincy as well.

The Big 12 is weakening any future adds by stopping now. Memphis, SMU, USF, or any other potential add out of the AAC will be negatively impacted by waiting if the end result is going to be to add them anyway.

Great post. You're 100% correct. It's a shame that the B12 leadership is so hellbent on minimalising stability by trying to maximize instant $$$ for appearances.

(09-15-2021 08:04 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:45 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 08:46 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 06:04 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:28 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote:  As a B1G grad school alum (Illinois), those internet rumors seem BOGUS to me.

Why would the B1G add a West Coast school.............and then schedule tons of matches against East Coast schools (Maryland and Rutgers) with exorbitant travel costs?

Not worth it. Doesn't seem to pass the "common sense" test.

While it doesn't make a ton of sense, nothing surprises me anymore. I read the articles a while back and thought, "This is getting ridiculous." I just wouldn't put anything past anyone at this point. The SEC was aggressive with this go and while I don't like what is happening in college sports, it is all about content and dollars. I do like that we (The SEC) have remained pretty regional though. Especially with either the West/East proposed changes or the pod idea. (I prefer West/East).

The Big 12 is doing what it needs to, to survive; however, I think it is a mistake to even stop short right now. The fact Memphis and one other (Boise State or USF) weren't invited with the other four shows lack of leadership and foresight. The Big Ten is at 14, The Pac 12 is at 12 and if this P4 agenda goes through they won't stay there, the ACC is at 14, and the SEC is at 16. If the goal is for all to eventually be at 16, then others will be taken. The Big 12 is doing what the Big 12 always does and trying to maximize money instead of building the best conference it can. The money will still be solid, and it will work out best for the conference in general. In the end they will probably pay for it and this will not be the last time they are left scrambling.

Again, nothing surprises me anymore.

There is nothing magical about 16 team conferences.

If Texas Tech and Oklahoma St were the two schools that had approached the SEC instead of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC would have stayed at 14 teams. The PAC12 and B10 are unlikely to expand for the same reasons.

The new B12 needs to stabilize with 12 teams and prove that the conference is more than Oklahoma and Texas (who by the way only has a 50-39 Conference record over the last decade) so the rest of the B12 is not as bad as people assume.

I don't think they're bad. I don't know anyone personally that thinks that 8 teams left in the Big 12 are bad. The only ones on this board that call them the little 8 is the new schools coming into the Big 12 in 2-3 years. A lot of us see their value and that's why most of us think others will be poached at some point. Also regardless of their conference records. Texas and OU were the name brands in the Big 12. There isn't anyone the Big 12 can add that can even come close to bringing in the value of those two schools. Whether you add just the 4 or 10 more.

Like I said in my post. It's about content and dollars. The more content you can produce, the more money you are worth. The higher quality the content is obviously even better. The Big 12 was quick to do what they needed to to get back at ESPN and the AAC when they thought the AAC was going to try and take teams with ESPN's help, but stopping there is a mistake.

Kansas does not want to be in the New Big 12. WVU does not want to be in the New Big 12. There are rumors that the Pac 12 already looked at Houston and TCU. If they do decide to expand Houston and TCU are gone. Iowa State is hoping for the B1G invite as well. Unless several programs change their minds, there is no stabilize with 12. It will be like the AAC was. Everyone looking for the first ticket out. I have even heard some stuff about the ACC looking at Cincy as well.

The Big 12 is weakening any future adds by stopping now. Memphis, SMU, USF, or any other potential add out of the AAC will be negatively impacted by waiting if the end result is going to be to add them anyway.

Great post. You're 100% correct. It's a shame that the B12 leadership is so hellbent on minimalising stability by trying to maximize instant $$$ for appearances.

I actually go back and forth on this. Is it better to move now or to let the new additions dominate the AAC/MWC for a couple years, get more notoriety as a NY6 team, etc?

I can see an argument either way.

(09-15-2021 09:01 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:04 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:45 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 08:46 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 06:04 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  While it doesn't make a ton of sense, nothing surprises me anymore. I read the articles a while back and thought, "This is getting ridiculous." I just wouldn't put anything past anyone at this point. The SEC was aggressive with this go and while I don't like what is happening in college sports, it is all about content and dollars. I do like that we (The SEC) have remained pretty regional though. Especially with either the West/East proposed changes or the pod idea. (I prefer West/East).

The Big 12 is doing what it needs to, to survive; however, I think it is a mistake to even stop short right now. The fact Memphis and one other (Boise State or USF) weren't invited with the other four shows lack of leadership and foresight. The Big Ten is at 14, The Pac 12 is at 12 and if this P4 agenda goes through they won't stay there, the ACC is at 14, and the SEC is at 16. If the goal is for all to eventually be at 16, then others will be taken. The Big 12 is doing what the Big 12 always does and trying to maximize money instead of building the best conference it can. The money will still be solid, and it will work out best for the conference in general. In the end they will probably pay for it and this will not be the last time they are left scrambling.

Again, nothing surprises me anymore.

There is nothing magical about 16 team conferences.

If Texas Tech and Oklahoma St were the two schools that had approached the SEC instead of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC would have stayed at 14 teams. The PAC12 and B10 are unlikely to expand for the same reasons.

The new B12 needs to stabilize with 12 teams and prove that the conference is more than Oklahoma and Texas (who by the way only has a 50-39 Conference record over the last decade) so the rest of the B12 is not as bad as people assume.

I don't think they're bad. I don't know anyone personally that thinks that 8 teams left in the Big 12 are bad. The only ones on this board that call them the little 8 is the new schools coming into the Big 12 in 2-3 years. A lot of us see their value and that's why most of us think others will be poached at some point. Also regardless of their conference records. Texas and OU were the name brands in the Big 12. There isn't anyone the Big 12 can add that can even come close to bringing in the value of those two schools. Whether you add just the 4 or 10 more.

Like I said in my post. It's about content and dollars. The more content you can produce, the more money you are worth. The higher quality the content is obviously even better. The Big 12 was quick to do what they needed to to get back at ESPN and the AAC when they thought the AAC was going to try and take teams with ESPN's help, but stopping there is a mistake.

Kansas does not want to be in the New Big 12. WVU does not want to be in the New Big 12. There are rumors that the Pac 12 already looked at Houston and TCU. If they do decide to expand Houston and TCU are gone. Iowa State is hoping for the B1G invite as well. Unless several programs change their minds, there is no stabilize with 12. It will be like the AAC was. Everyone looking for the first ticket out. I have even heard some stuff about the ACC looking at Cincy as well.

The Big 12 is weakening any future adds by stopping now. Memphis, SMU, USF, or any other potential add out of the AAC will be negatively impacted by waiting if the end result is going to be to add them anyway.

Great post. You're 100% correct. It's a shame that the B12 leadership is so hellbent on minimalising stability by trying to maximize instant $$$ for appearances.

I actually go back and forth on this. Is it better to move now or to let the new additions dominate the AAC/MWC for a couple years, get more notoriety as a NY6 team, etc?

I can see an argument either way.

I don't think it really matters at this point. Chances are it will be Cincy, UCF, or Memphis for the next 2-3 seasons anyway. They will all still be AAC schools. At that point based on current timelines. Realistically two years, possibly the third. I think majority of everyone involved is hoping next season. (SEC, AAC, and Big 12)

The difference will be that Cincy, UCF, and Houston will get the benefits of the teams in waiting, while SMU, USF, Memphis, Tulane, and other AAC teams won't.

Memphis is 10-1 against Houston and Cincy the last 5 seasons. Memphis is the winningest program in the AAC since 2014. Memphis is one of a few programs that has won 8+ games in whatever amount of seasons in a row. Their basketball program is back on the rise after a couple of bad hires and are a favorite to win the title this season. I don't know much about their baseball or other sports but those really don't matter anyway. I guess the no OCS is a knock for them but the Liberty Bowl and FedEx Forum are both really nice. The last season where there was no Covid Impact Memphis avged 38,816 per game but have avged 42k+ while being in the AAC. Compared to Houston's 25,518 and Cincy's 35,985. Also from their board- Ticket sales Memphis was #1 in AAC at 10.76 Million. Football budget Memphis was #1 at 20.8 Million. Donors Memphis was #1 at 13.1 Million. The Liberty Bowl can hold 60k+ so it won't need to be expanded. They just need to open up more seating/take tarps off. Academics are also climbing and they are set to get R1 status this year. Also, their basketball attendance is top 10 nationally and pretty consistently.

Boise State won't be impacted unless MWC teams leave, but their brand is powerful as well. It will only make them stronger by adding them now, if the Big 12 intends to add them at some point. They have VERY nice facilities and are the team in Idaho. They get solid ratings, have a ton of fan support, and they have been a consistent winner for 2 decades. They have also been in a NY6 bowl since the CFP changes. From what I gather, they avg around 34k-35k per game. They are just a very unique brand. The biggest knock on them is Academics. Which can be improved, but honestly it doesn't matter.

The reason I bring those two up, is because they seem to be the most mentioned along with USF. USF though in my opinion has a lot more work to do. They were in the Big East and the AAC with all of these programs. They have had a couple of good seasons but really under performed. This may be the wake up call they need to get everything going in the right direction but we'll see.

Adding Memphis/Boise State will only help them continue to improve. Increased fan support. Increased budgets. Increased recruiting. Increased donations. Facilities upgrades and so on. That's why I say add them now (Not that it matters to the Big 12 what I say lol). It will make the Big 12 stronger in the long run.

Based on AAC success Memphis was #1-#2 overall. Based on MWC Boise State was #1 overall.

12 is a good number. I like playing the teams in our conference. I don’t want to play Oklahoma St only once every 4 years. That’s not fun. I’m a no on 16. And I think we should only go to 14 if we hook a big one.

I think there are a few factors that will influence the number taken, assuming none of the remaining 8 are going elsewhere(which I don't believe they are).
1. If the league is part of the Alliance it would seem 14 teams make sense.
2. If they have a scheduling arrangement with the SEC, they might need to get to 16 teams.
3. If the networks are paying a premium for late night content, you at least need 14 to get one more team that plays in MST or PST. I think BSU is the first choice because they have always done well ratings wise and Memphis probably gets added with them. If we go to 16, I think SDSU gets one of the spots over CSU. If USF isn't blocked heavily by UCF they are probably the other school. If UCF got an agreement not to add USF then maybe CSU gets in as 16.

The other thing to keep in mind is being part of the alliance or a scheduling agreement with the SEC dictating who some of those choices might be? Those other leagues will have schools that want exposure in Tampa and San Diego over Boise, Fort Collins and even Memphis.

(09-15-2021 12:44 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think there are a few factors that will influence the number taken, assuming none of the remaining 8 are going elsewhere(which I don't believe they are).
1. If the league is part of the Alliance it would seem 14 teams make sense.
2. If they have a scheduling arrangement with the SEC, they might need to get to 16 teams.
3. If the networks are paying a premium for late night content, you at least need 14 to get one more team that plays in MST or PST. I think BSU is the first choice because they have always done well ratings wise and Memphis probably gets added with them. If we go to 16, I think SDSU gets one of the spots over CSU. If USF isn't blocked heavily by UCF they are probably the other school. If UCF got an agreement not to add USF then maybe CSU gets in as 16.

The other thing to keep in mind is being part of the alliance or a scheduling agreement with the SEC dictating who some of those choices might be? Those other leagues will have schools that want exposure in Tampa and San Diego over Boise, Fort Collins and even Memphis.

Memphis???? Memphis is in the heart SEC country and produces a lot of SEC talent every year. That's how Memphis has been able to rise and become so successful. So are you talking what you know or are assuming. If you are assuming it's okay, Memphis fans are used to fans of other places having unfounded negative opinions about us.:coffee3::cheers:

(09-15-2021 04:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 12:44 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think there are a few factors that will influence the number taken, assuming none of the remaining 8 are going elsewhere(which I don't believe they are).
1. If the league is part of the Alliance it would seem 14 teams make sense.
2. If they have a scheduling arrangement with the SEC, they might need to get to 16 teams.
3. If the networks are paying a premium for late night content, you at least need 14 to get one more team that plays in MST or PST. I think BSU is the first choice because they have always done well ratings wise and Memphis probably gets added with them. If we go to 16, I think SDSU gets one of the spots over CSU. If USF isn't blocked heavily by UCF they are probably the other school. If UCF got an agreement not to add USF then maybe CSU gets in as 16.

The other thing to keep in mind is being part of the alliance or a scheduling agreement with the SEC dictating who some of those choices might be? Those other leagues will have schools that want exposure in Tampa and San Diego over Boise, Fort Collins and even Memphis.

Memphis???? Memphis is in the heart SEC country and produces a lot of SEC talent every year. That's how Memphis has been able to rise and become so successful. So are you talking what you know or are assuming. If you are assuming it's okay, Memphis fans are used to fans of other places having unfounded negative opinions about us.

I didn't mean to dismiss Memphis, especially personally. I think Memphis based on fan support and content (especially if bball is figured in at all) would be next up. I was only approaching it if a scheduling partner wanted big cities and recruiting areas. While Memphis and Tn. have a fair amount of recruits its still not like Florida with USF or probably even San Diego. I'm an ISU fan and our school tends to get left out of realignment also at least on the surface even drawing 60K for football now. And while excited about the matchups of the new league (wouldn't mind a 14 team league either), am a little discouraged at even the new estimated revenues if they hit low 40's. I know it sounds ok but realizing what a hit that is in reality because the new tv deal didn't take even a cost of living increase.

A fun Memphis story. I had a nephew play JUCO football with Roger Joseph who was from Florida and played OT probably 2-3 yrs ago. I was able to meet Roger or he went by Tannis after a game or two. Since he was a long ways from home he came to my home for Thanksgiving one year in Iowa with my nephew.

(09-15-2021 07:59 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  Think BIG. Take the Arizonas.

Best suggestion yet. At least try to get them. If we fail take Memphis and SDSU.

Best option is PAC or ACC schools if the SEC or B1G raid their top tier first.

Barring that it's probably best to pause at 12 then potentially revisit some combo of Memphis, Boise, USF, SDSU, SMU, UNLV, or CSU depending on who's grown by that time. Most likely limited to just Memphis, Boise, and one other as primary candidates.