(10-04-2021 08:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  I think if the big 12 add 2 more by 25, they will take programs with strong academic with so do athletic records. This second round selection will be different from the first round considerations. Four good to strong football programs were taken to replace 2 strong football programs; 2 strong academic programs will be taken to replace one strong academic program (UT). I do not believe Boise or Memphis will make the cut.

However, it was reported regarding the Big12 selection process that, of the schools not selected, only Boise and Memphis had unanimous support for being considered for inclusion. They were the two that went to the last stage of the decision making process, when the six schools with unanimous support for inclusion were considered to pick the four to invite.

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  I think if the big 12 add 2 more by 25, they will take programs with strong academic with so do athletic records. This second round selection will be different from the first round considerations. Four good to strong football programs were taken to replace 2 strong football programs; 2 strong academic programs will be taken to replace one strong academic program (UT). I do not believe Boise or Memphis will make the cut.

However, it was reported regarding the Big12 selection process that, of the schools not selected, only Boise and Memphis had unanimous support for being considered for inclusion. They were the two that went to the last stage of the decision making process, when the six schools with unanimous support for inclusion were considered to pick the four to invite.

I understand but I think it is possible things were taken out of context. It might have been that x programs were considered for phase 1 of expansion and this was then narrowed to 6-8, of which 4 were selected. Phase 1 programs mandated athletic prowess.
We are assuming that phase 2 would be the remaining two or uses the same considerations. Maybe so but maybe not. They may start phase 2 with a clean slate. If so I suspect with the 4 additions athletic prowess may not be as mandated and academic standards may take precedence.

If 6 programs had unanimous votes why were only 4 taken? The big 12 could have taken 2 for 23, 2 for 24, and 2 for 26. Put their expansion best foot forward and move on! But only 4 were taken and the two that were not both had weaker academic.

(10-04-2021 08:53 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  I think if the big 12 add 2 more by 25, they will take programs with strong academic with so do athletic records. This second round selection will be different from the first round considerations. Four good to strong football programs were taken to replace 2 strong football programs; 2 strong academic programs will be taken to replace one strong academic program (UT). I do not believe Boise or Memphis will make the cut.

However, it was reported regarding the Big12 selection process that, of the schools not selected, only Boise and Memphis had unanimous support for being considered for inclusion. They were the two that went to the last stage of the decision making process, when the six schools with unanimous support for inclusion were considered to pick the four to invite.

I understand but I think it is possible things were taken out of context. It might have been that x programs were considered for phase 1 of expansion and this was then narrowed to 6-8, of which 4 were selected. Phase 1 programs mandated athletic prowess.
We are assuming that phase 2 would be the remaining two or uses the same considerations. Maybe so but maybe not. They may start phase 2 with a clean slate. If so I suspect with the 4 additions athletic prowess may not be as mandated and academic standards may take precedence.

If 6 programs had unanimous votes why were only 4 taken? The big 12 could have taken 2 for 23, 2 for 24, and 2 for 26. Put their expansion best foot forward and move on! But only 4 were taken and the two that were not both had weaker academic.

Media contracts or conference bylaws may have prevented further expansion at this time.

(10-04-2021 08:22 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 07:32 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Boise State would have made more sense to me than UCF, but whatever. UCF does have better facilities and academics, but Boise State has a good football tradition, underrated basketball, semi-rivalry with BYU.

UCF: great recruiting grounds, great market, good fan support, good academics, strong football success, almost went to sweet 16 in basketball recently, huge enrollment

Boise State: football success, underrated basketball, pretty good fan support, close to BYU

Just think UCF is a weird geographical fit, but it’s all about “TV markets” and recruiting. Also Boise State and BYU is sort of a rivalry game these days.

I hope they go to an 8 or 12 team playoff either way

Once they went into Fla, USF was always more logical for phase 2. Memphis is logical but I’ve always felt USF had the inside track once they dabbled in that state. SMU makes a lot LESS sense as a result.

Had CSU shown amazing football credentials in the last few years it would not even be a debate. But with two openings coming up, the only plays are Memphis and USF. With an outside shot at 16, I think SMU is in, but if Boise continues to stall in all areas, CSU could be a dark horse.

(10-04-2021 10:41 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:53 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  I think if the big 12 add 2 more by 25, they will take programs with strong academic with so do athletic records. This second round selection will be different from the first round considerations. Four good to strong football programs were taken to replace 2 strong football programs; 2 strong academic programs will be taken to replace one strong academic program (UT). I do not believe Boise or Memphis will make the cut.

However, it was reported regarding the Big12 selection process that, of the schools not selected, only Boise and Memphis had unanimous support for being considered for inclusion. They were the two that went to the last stage of the decision making process, when the six schools with unanimous support for inclusion were considered to pick the four to invite.

I understand but I think it is possible things were taken out of context. It might have been that x programs were considered for phase 1 of expansion and this was then narrowed to 6-8, of which 4 were selected. Phase 1 programs mandated athletic prowess.
We are assuming that phase 2 would be the remaining two or uses the same considerations. Maybe so but maybe not. They may start phase 2 with a clean slate. If so I suspect with the 4 additions athletic prowess may not be as mandated and academic standards may take precedence.

If 6 programs had unanimous votes why were only 4 taken? The big 12 could have taken 2 for 23, 2 for 24, and 2 for 26. Put their expansion best foot forward and move on! But only 4 were taken and the two that were not both had weaker academic.

Media contracts or conference bylaws may have prevented further expansion at this time.

(10-06-2021 12:09 PM)pesik Wrote:  CSU AD on podcast about aac talks
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/athletic-director-joe-parker-joins-to-talk-about-the/id1509883324?i=1000537540349


-- the big 12 told them they might reevaluate in a few years ..notes the current big 12 tv deal notes can not exceed 14 members ..will be at 14 till texas and ou leave..think when they leave will be the time of action if the big 12 were to make a move

(10-04-2021 08:53 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  I think if the big 12 add 2 more by 25, they will take programs with strong academic with so do athletic records. This second round selection will be different from the first round considerations. Four good to strong football programs were taken to replace 2 strong football programs; 2 strong academic programs will be taken to replace one strong academic program (UT). I do not believe Boise or Memphis will make the cut.

However, it was reported regarding the Big12 selection process that, of the schools not selected, only Boise and Memphis had unanimous support for being considered for inclusion. They were the two that went to the last stage of the decision making process, when the six schools with unanimous support for inclusion were considered to pick the four to invite.

I understand but I think it is possible things were taken out of context. It might have been that x programs were considered for phase 1 of expansion and this was then narrowed to 6-8, of which 4 were selected. Phase 1 programs mandated athletic prowess.

However, it was quite specific in process ... a first cut to arrive at a first short list, a vote on additions acceptable to the Core Eight schools with six schools receiving unanimous support and two more receiving 6 Yes / 2 No votes, the list taken to the six receiving unanimous support, and the top four out of six selected.

Quote: We are assuming that phase 2 would be the remaining two or uses the same considerations. Maybe so but maybe not. They may start phase 2 with a clean slate. If so I suspect with the 4 additions athletic prowess may not be as mandated and academic standards may take precedence.

That certainly doesn't guarantee that the same schools would received the same votes in a future vote, but it surely means that there is no solid grounds, from the outside looking in, for absolutely ruling out either Boise or Memphis.

All eight did refrain from filtering Memphis and Boise out on academic standards, which does seem to make it less likely that they will found to be unacceptable in the next round.

And it's not as if schools are selected because of their academic standing alone ... more that schools are selected from among those that are "good enough".

Quote: If 6 programs had unanimous votes why were only 4 taken?

Even if many (including myself) do not expect OK/TX to still be in the conference on July 1, 2024, they have still pro forma only notified the Big12 that they are leaving when the current contract and GOR expired, and have only officially been admitted to the SEC for July 1, 2025. Reportedly the current contract allows for expansion up to 14 members, so 4 are all that can be promised admission for prior to July 1, 2025. ...

... until (and, formally, "unless") it becomes official that OK/TX are moving sooner.

But the fact that neither Boise or Memphis were selected does suggest that while academic wasn’t a phase 1 considerations/ discussion, that academic might have played a role in selection.

The 14 teams cap is applied to playing and paid members. With 10 -2 +4 the result of 12 members for the 24 season allowed for the addition of two more additions to be announced but not actually added for 24 was possible. The big 12 paused at +4 for a projected 12 members playing in 24 rather than the possible 14. There is no denying despite receiving “unanimous” votes for phase 1 neither Boise nor Memphis were taken. Only academics appear to differentiated these 2 from the selected 4. Are there other commonality I am missing?

Despite the announcements the big 12 is currently a ten teams conference. Announcing 6 additions wouldn’t bump the 14 teams cap if they never have more than 14 playing teams at a time.

(10-04-2021 10:41 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:53 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  I think if the big 12 add 2 more by 25, they will take programs with strong academic with so do athletic records. This second round selection will be different from the first round considerations. Four good to strong football programs were taken to replace 2 strong football programs; 2 strong academic programs will be taken to replace one strong academic program (UT). I do not believe Boise or Memphis will make the cut.

However, it was reported regarding the Big12 selection process that, of the schools not selected, only Boise and Memphis had unanimous support for being considered for inclusion. They were the two that went to the last stage of the decision making process, when the six schools with unanimous support for inclusion were considered to pick the four to invite.

I understand but I think it is possible things were taken out of context. It might have been that x programs were considered for phase 1 of expansion and this was then narrowed to 6-8, of which 4 were selected. Phase 1 programs mandated athletic prowess.
We are assuming that phase 2 would be the remaining two or uses the same considerations. Maybe so but maybe not. They may start phase 2 with a clean slate. If so I suspect with the 4 additions athletic prowess may not be as mandated and academic standards may take precedence.

If 6 programs had unanimous votes why were only 4 taken? The big 12 could have taken 2 for 23, 2 for 24, and 2 for 26. Put their expansion best foot forward and move on! But only 4 were taken and the two that were not both had weaker academic.

Media contracts or conference bylaws may have prevented further expansion at this time.

Correct. This has been posted multiple times. The Big 12 is "capped" at 14. The league has 10 members and is adding four. Once UT and OU leave, it could (in theory) add two more to get back to 14. From what we know, Boise and Memphis were both very acceptable when the first vote was taken. But the presidents had to reduce the list of invitees from six to four. We know the four who "won."

Boise and Memphis seemingly had solid support. Whether they will still if the Big 12 decides in the future to return to 14 (or even increase to 16) ... who knows?

(10-06-2021 02:29 PM)Huan Wrote:  But the fact that neither Boise or Memphis were selected does suggest that while academic wasn’t a phase 1 considerations/ discussion, that academic might have played a role in selection.

The 14 teams cap is applied to playing and paid members. With 10 -2 +4 the result of 12 members for the 24 season allowed for the addition of two more additions to be announced but not actually added for 24 was possible. The big 12 paused at +4 for a projected 12 members playing in 24 rather than the possible 14. There is no denying despite receiving “unanimous” votes for phase 1 neither Boise nor Memphis were taken. Only academics appear to differentiated these 2 from the selected 4. Are there other commonality I am missing?

Despite the announcements the big 12 is currently a ten teams conference. Announcing 6 additions wouldn’t bump the 14 teams cap if they never have more than 14 playing teams at a time.

As posted on the board multiple times, Memphis has a solid shot of being designated a RI institution in January. True, the university is not as academically sound as the four universities that were invited. But UM is making academic strides.

Memphis and USF just need verbal agreements to make the investments in research and sports. CSU and SMU are most likely back fills should they lose programs to the PAC12 and ACC.

(10-06-2021 06:46 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Memphis and USF just need verbal agreements to make the investments in research and sports. CSU and SMU are most likely back fills should they lose programs to the PAC12 and ACC.

Our president says we are lined up to make R1 on the next review in January. We invest plenty in sports. We just need to either redo the Liberty Bowl or commit to an OCS. The city and state aren't much help.

(10-06-2021 03:10 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:29 PM)Huan Wrote:  But the fact that neither Boise or Memphis were selected does suggest that while academic wasn’t a phase 1 considerations/ discussion, that academic might have played a role in selection.

The 14 teams cap is applied to playing and paid members. With 10 -2 +4 the result of 12 members for the 24 season allowed for the addition of two more additions to be announced but not actually added for 24 was possible. The big 12 paused at +4 for a projected 12 members playing in 24 rather than the possible 14. There is no denying despite receiving “unanimous” votes for phase 1 neither Boise nor Memphis were taken. Only academics appear to differentiated these 2 from the selected 4. Are there other commonality I am missing?

Despite the announcements the big 12 is currently a ten teams conference. Announcing 6 additions wouldn’t bump the 14 teams cap if they never have more than 14 playing teams at a time.

As posted on the board multiple times, Memphis has a solid shot of being designated a RI institution in January. True, the university is not as academically sound as the four universities that were invited. But UM is making academic strides.

Boise is also making academic strides.

I am not suggesting either aren’t putting efforts into improving their academic mission, which should be for all academic institutions. I am suggesting that:
1. A reason why they weren’t invited thus far might have been their academics compared to the four selected institutions.
2. That if a phase 2 selection would to occur, the big 12 may start with a clean slate with a greater emphasis on academics for selection.

(10-06-2021 08:08 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 03:10 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:29 PM)Huan Wrote:  But the fact that neither Boise or Memphis were selected does suggest that while academic wasn’t a phase 1 considerations/ discussion, that academic might have played a role in selection.

The 14 teams cap is applied to playing and paid members. With 10 -2 +4 the result of 12 members for the 24 season allowed for the addition of two more additions to be announced but not actually added for 24 was possible. The big 12 paused at +4 for a projected 12 members playing in 24 rather than the possible 14. There is no denying despite receiving “unanimous” votes for phase 1 neither Boise nor Memphis were taken. Only academics appear to differentiated these 2 from the selected 4. Are there other commonality I am missing?

Despite the announcements the big 12 is currently a ten teams conference. Announcing 6 additions wouldn’t bump the 14 teams cap if they never have more than 14 playing teams at a time.

As posted on the board multiple times, Memphis has a solid shot of being designated a RI institution in January. True, the university is not as academically sound as the four universities that were invited. But UM is making academic strides.

Boise is also making academic strides.

I am not suggesting either aren’t putting efforts into improving their academic mission, which should be for all academic institutions. I am suggesting that:
1. A reason why they weren’t invited thus far might have been their academics compared to the four selected institutions.
2. That if a phase 2 selection would to occur, the big 12 may start with a clean slate with a greater emphasis on academics for selection.

I agree on both counts. But ...

... and as I have noted before, it's not as if the universities with strong academics and who the Big 12 could, in theory, invite offer an impressive one-two punch of football and men's basketball. The league could invite Rice or Tulane but ... Of the "last four out," Memphis and SMU have enjoyed some "nationally relevant" achievements in both football and hoops during the past 15 years or so. USF and Boise have not.

IF the Big 12 wants to get back to 14 universities once UT and OU leave, it will not be in a position to be overly selective. So "starting with a clean slate," as you note, is not particularly attractive — much less doable. The number of options for schools to invite is limited. As such, I could see the league standing pat with 12.

4 athletically strong programs may not replace the lost of Ou and UT, but they may approximate the difference. Currently OU is #6 and UT is #21; UC is #5 and BYU is #10. Hopefully when UC or BYU are having down years UCF and UH are up. 2 more football contenders may help but the return is less.
What is still missing is the academic power and prestige that UT (and A&M, Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado) provided. We are the 5th ranked among the P5s and the invited 4 don’t do much the span the gap. University presidents care about academic rankings of their institutions and who their institutions hang with. And they will get more return/improvements of their standings if invite #5 and #6 were academic powers rather than athletic powers (of which none are available).

I see this situation as a potential win win for Boise and Memphis. They should build up their academic credentials and be better academic institutions (win #1) and possibly get big 12 invitations (win #2). The worse thing either should do is to cruise control expecting invitations because they had “unanimous” votes in phase 1 of big 12 expansion.

Nah I think Boise and Memphis should be the top of the heap of an expanded 8 or 12 team playoff and they leave this expansion BS alone. So tired of this unnecessary college sports change because markets and TV.

Just weird to me that UCF is in the Big 12 over Memphis to me. Oh well I see the logic, beating LSU is no joke. Memphis seems like a natural rival to WVU and Cincy to me though. Same with BYU/Boise.

(10-04-2021 07:32 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Boise State would have made more sense to me than UCF, but whatever. UCF does have better facilities and academics, but Boise State has a good football tradition, underrated basketball, semi-rivalry with BYU.

The difference for me is that UCF has 70k+ students and is in a huge talent rich market. Big 12 likely wanted a piece of Florida and UCF with it's future massive alumni base will be a good bet to deliver that.

(10-03-2021 06:22 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:54 PM)Huan Wrote:  Based on his presentation I do not think BSU or MU will get invited. While they were among those considered in phase 1, I suspect academics will matter much more in phase 2.

I got the same impression…the strategy consultant was fairly direct in explaining why USF (they shouldn’t leave UCF on an island) and SMU (strong academics, high endowment and location) would be great expansion candidates.

There are two kinds of programs left:
Strong academic and good athletic: AFA and Navy
Strong academic and weak athletic: Tulane (AAU), Rice (AAU), USF, Temple, SMU, and Army

Phase 1 programs were strong athletic and good academic: BYU, UC, UCF, and UH

The order of the next 4 schools, in order, is Boise State, Memphis, SMU and South Florida. To say SMU is weak in athletics is rediculous - I believe they are the highest, and only, school on your list in current football Top 25. SMU has a good basketball program and very good in "country club" sports. SMU's endowment is probably as big as the other 3 schools combined - 2 weeks ago SMU kicked off a new $1.5 bil fund drive - already have $675 mil.

(10-07-2021 09:19 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 06:22 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:54 PM)Huan Wrote:  Based on his presentation I do not think BSU or MU will get invited. While they were among those considered in phase 1, I suspect academics will matter much more in phase 2.

I got the same impression…the strategy consultant was fairly direct in explaining why USF (they shouldn’t leave UCF on an island) and SMU (strong academics, high endowment and location) would be great expansion candidates.

There are two kinds of programs left:
Strong academic and good athletic: AFA and Navy
Strong academic and weak athletic: Tulane (AAU), Rice (AAU), USF, Temple, SMU, and Army

Phase 1 programs were strong athletic and good academic: BYU, UC, UCF, and UH

The order of the next 4 schools, in order, is Boise State, Memphis, SMU and South Florida. To say SMU is weak in athletics is rediculous - I believe they are the highest, and only, school on your list in current football Top 25. SMU has a good basketball program and very good in "country club" sports. SMU's endowment is probably as big as the other 3 schools combined - 2 weeks ago SMU kicked off a new $1.5 bil fund drive - already have $675 mil.

SMU would be a strong add to the Big 12. Your school has earned it.

(10-07-2021 09:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 07:32 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Boise State would have made more sense to me than UCF, but whatever. UCF does have better facilities and academics, but Boise State has a good football tradition, underrated basketball, semi-rivalry with BYU.

The difference for me is that UCF has 70k+ students and is in a huge talent rich market. Big 12 likely wanted a piece of Florida and UCF with it's future massive alumni base will be a good bet to deliver that.

Exactly.

There are institutional factors that will be in place for a long time that gave UCF an advantage that went beyond its football performance (and with respect to its location and size, those institutional factors are major reasons why they've had excellent football performance in the first place).