(01-26-2022 03:50 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  My Disdain for Boise:
1) They pulled a Texas have special rules in their current conference
2) Horrible academics
3) Location does not align at all with Big XII whether latitude or longitude
4) Haven’t done much in football the last 5 years and everything else about them seems well below par

In fairness, their record over the past five years (a down period for that program) is 45-15, and they finished three of those seasons ranked. And they just this year snapped a streak of 19 consecutive years with an appearance in the AP poll.

That deserves more credit than many Big 12 fans give it. Particularly among the newcomers, who all benefited from the success Boise had and the respect that success earned other top G5 programs.

I'll grant you the other negatives (though I think their men's basketball program has potential). I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

(01-26-2022 03:57 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:50 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  My Disdain for Boise:
1) They pulled a Texas have special rules in their current conference
2) Horrible academics
3) Location does not align at all with Big XII whether latitude or longitude
4) Haven’t done much in football the last 5 years and everything else about them seems well below par

In fairness, their record over the past five years (a down period for that program) is 45-15, and they finished three of those seasons ranked. And they just this year snapped a streak of 19 consecutive years with an appearance in the AP poll.

That deserves more credit than many Big 12 fans give it. Particularly among the newcomers, who all benefited from the success Boise had and the respect that success earned other top G5 programs.

I'll grant you the other negatives (though I think their men's basketball program has potential). I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

No doubt on field they are proven in football.

I also hate their blue turf haha but that is minor. Most of my disdain comes from when the American was coming together in early years, they were a prime target for obvious reasons but they gave me a small version impression of Texas/ND fans on numerous topics not just joining the league. Basically that they were better than everyone else in G5 and really just a step below Texas/ND level programs.

With that said, I still think they are a very poor expansion target outside of on field football success but just my two cents on the impression I have.

I think Colorado State is above Boise State in just about every metric except a couple of the really big ones -- football success, football brand, and TV ratings. If Colorado State's football program had half the success Boise State has in the past 20 years, they'd be in the Big 12 already. It's a shame because CSU really does have the geography, academics, facilities, and overall profile to be a strong addition. But they aren't strong enough in the major sports and don't have enough fan support right now IMO.

There's no reason to make a move until the Pac-12 signs a new deal. The Big 12 needs to sit tight and try everything they can to lure Pac-12 schools. It's a long shot, but it's a shot you have to take. At 12, we still have room to add at least 4. The Cali schools aren't coming, but the Arizona schools, Utah, and Colorado could be tempted if they don't like what they're hearing from the networks about the Pac-12's future. Colorado seems like the least likely since they recruit so many students and athletes from California, but you never know.

(01-26-2022 03:57 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

Unsurprising coming from a Baylor fan. What kind of sorcery are you guys up to down there anyways? How the hell do you go from scandals surrounding Patrick Dennehy, Art Briles, and David Koresh to a Sugar Bowl trophy and a hardwood natty?? Does Ann Richards have a statue on your campus yet?

(01-26-2022 03:11 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:03 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:23 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 01:45 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I've never understood the Boise hate/disrespect. That's a really good program that has earned everything it's ever gotten and has sustained its success across three decades and numerous coaching changes.

I've also never understood the Colorado State love. That's a really mediocre program that has no good excuse to be the afterthought it has been since Lubick left.

I'd take Colorado State as the 16th team to round out a Western pod with BYU, Boise and San Diego State. But otherwise, I'd rather not bring in a program that is closer to Kansas competitively than any of the other teams in this league.

Because it’s not only about football success, it’s the university as a whole. CSU has all the “hard” parts of realignment (location, academics, etc) covered, they just have to hire better coaches, and they have the means and resources to do it.

I may be in the minority, but I could not care less about academics in an athletic conference. And that was true before the relatively desperate set of circumstances that have forced the Big 12 into its current situation.

And location is moderately important. But it's not as important at athletic potential. I'm looking for teams that can elevate the national perception of this conference and Baylor's program. Wins on the football field over Boise do that. Beating Colorado State does not. Colorado State would be an instant bottom-feeder in both football and men's basketball (the present season notwithstanding) and would do nothing to make people outside of the Big 12's footprint respect it more.

Love Boise or hate them, most nationwide respect the program they've built and the success they've had. Beating them means something. The more teams we have in the Big 12 for which that is true, the better.

Which is why it is best to stay at 12 and wait and see what happens with the Pac and ACC. The TV negotiations will certainly reflect that.

I don't think you do anything before the PAC-12 inks its media deal. But I think you have to be prepared to expand after that, if the general consensus is that doing so makes the Big 12 a more lucrative/marketable/respected conference.

There isn't much for the Big12 or its' institutions to prepare for if it comes to adding G5s or not. The networks will make the determination and the Big 12 will ask how high to jump and then take the offer with the most $$$. It stinks but it is what it is.

(01-26-2022 04:13 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:57 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:50 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  My Disdain for Boise:
1) They pulled a Texas have special rules in their current conference
2) Horrible academics
3) Location does not align at all with Big XII whether latitude or longitude
4) Haven’t done much in football the last 5 years and everything else about them seems well below par

In fairness, their record over the past five years (a down period for that program) is 45-15, and they finished three of those seasons ranked. And they just this year snapped a streak of 19 consecutive years with an appearance in the AP poll.

That deserves more credit than many Big 12 fans give it. Particularly among the newcomers, who all benefited from the success Boise had and the respect that success earned other top G5 programs.

I'll grant you the other negatives (though I think their men's basketball program has potential). I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

No doubt on field they are proven in football.

I also hate their blue turf haha but that is minor. Most of my disdain comes from when the American was coming together in early years, they were a prime target for obvious reasons but they gave me a small version impression of Texas/ND fans on numerous topics not just joining the league. Basically that they were better than everyone else in G5 and really just a step below Texas/ND level programs.

With that said, I still think they are a very poor expansion target outside of on field football success but just my two cents on the impression I have.

I will join you in your distaste for their blue turf. That field is an eyesore.

(01-26-2022 04:31 PM)CYOWA Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:57 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

Unsurprising coming from a Baylor fan. What kind of sorcery are you guys up to down there anyways? How the hell do you go from scandals surrounding Patrick Dennehy, Art Briles, and David Koresh to a Sugar Bowl trophy and a hardwood natty?? Does Ann Richards have a statue on your campus yet?

Baylor must own the Dave Bliss and Art Briles scandals, but we had nothing to do with David Koresh. Waco was just unlucky to be the nearest mid-sized city to Mount Carmel.

And just to clarify my point, I care about Baylor's academics. I just could not care less about the academics of the schools with which we compete in athletics. This is an athletic conference, not a research consortium.

(01-26-2022 04:42 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:11 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:03 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:23 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  Because it’s not only about football success, it’s the university as a whole. CSU has all the “hard” parts of realignment (location, academics, etc) covered, they just have to hire better coaches, and they have the means and resources to do it.

I may be in the minority, but I could not care less about academics in an athletic conference. And that was true before the relatively desperate set of circumstances that have forced the Big 12 into its current situation.

And location is moderately important. But it's not as important at athletic potential. I'm looking for teams that can elevate the national perception of this conference and Baylor's program. Wins on the football field over Boise do that. Beating Colorado State does not. Colorado State would be an instant bottom-feeder in both football and men's basketball (the present season notwithstanding) and would do nothing to make people outside of the Big 12's footprint respect it more.

Love Boise or hate them, most nationwide respect the program they've built and the success they've had. Beating them means something. The more teams we have in the Big 12 for which that is true, the better.

Which is why it is best to stay at 12 and wait and see what happens with the Pac and ACC. The TV negotiations will certainly reflect that.

I don't think you do anything before the PAC-12 inks its media deal. But I think you have to be prepared to expand after that, if the general consensus is that doing so makes the Big 12 a more lucrative/marketable/respected conference.

There isn't much for the Big12 or its' institutions to prepare for if it comes to adding G5s or not. The networks will make the determination and the Big 12 will ask how high to jump and then take the offer with the most $$$. It stinks but it is what it is.

In general, I agree. But the Big 12 will still have to decide which schools to add. That will likely happen with the media partners' input, but they won't be making that decision.

(01-26-2022 05:37 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:42 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:11 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:03 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I may be in the minority, but I could not care less about academics in an athletic conference. And that was true before the relatively desperate set of circumstances that have forced the Big 12 into its current situation.

And location is moderately important. But it's not as important at athletic potential. I'm looking for teams that can elevate the national perception of this conference and Baylor's program. Wins on the football field over Boise do that. Beating Colorado State does not. Colorado State would be an instant bottom-feeder in both football and men's basketball (the present season notwithstanding) and would do nothing to make people outside of the Big 12's footprint respect it more.

Love Boise or hate them, most nationwide respect the program they've built and the success they've had. Beating them means something. The more teams we have in the Big 12 for which that is true, the better.

Which is why it is best to stay at 12 and wait and see what happens with the Pac and ACC. The TV negotiations will certainly reflect that.

I don't think you do anything before the PAC-12 inks its media deal. But I think you have to be prepared to expand after that, if the general consensus is that doing so makes the Big 12 a more lucrative/marketable/respected conference.

There isn't much for the Big12 or its' institutions to prepare for if it comes to adding G5s or not. The networks will make the determination and the Big 12 will ask how high to jump and then take the offer with the most $$$. It stinks but it is what it is.

In general, I agree. But the Big 12 will still have to decide which schools to add. That will likely happen with the media partners' input, but they won't be making that decision.

I disagree, I think it would be the networks making the decision of which schools to add, and they will decide by offering the most money for the ones they want or don't based on TV ratings. As of now my guess is they don't, and the Big 12 and its member institutions will never agree to an option that doesn't payout the most.

(01-26-2022 05:51 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 05:37 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:42 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:11 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:03 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  Which is why it is best to stay at 12 and wait and see what happens with the Pac and ACC. The TV negotiations will certainly reflect that.

I don't think you do anything before the PAC-12 inks its media deal. But I think you have to be prepared to expand after that, if the general consensus is that doing so makes the Big 12 a more lucrative/marketable/respected conference.

There isn't much for the Big12 or its' institutions to prepare for if it comes to adding G5s or not. The networks will make the determination and the Big 12 will ask how high to jump and then take the offer with the most $$$. It stinks but it is what it is.

In general, I agree. But the Big 12 will still have to decide which schools to add. That will likely happen with the media partners' input, but they won't be making that decision.

I disagree, I think it would be the networks making the decision of which schools to add, and they will decide by offering the most money for the ones they want or don't based on TV ratings. As of now my guess is they don't, and the Big 12 and its member institutions will never agree to an option that doesn't payout the most.

I don't think the Big 12 would allow any media partner to make such an important (and largely irreversible) decision that will impact the long-term viability and strength of league -- particularly a media partner that has already tried to kill the conference once.

I think that input will be important and be given a lot of weight. But you can't base any decision solely on one temporary media agreement.

Ultimately, the Big 12 will need to make its own decision whether it should expand further and who it should add if it does.

There’s nothing about Boise St, Colorado St, or any of the G5 possibilities that scream must adds.

I think it would be better to sit at 12 and wait to see if the Big 10 and/or SEC make any landscape altering moves that gut the ACC and/or PAC 12 and be there to sweep the remnants under a giant Big 12 umbrella.

(01-26-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s nothing about Boise St, Colorado St, or any of the G5 possibilities that scream must adds.

I think it would be better to sit at 12 and wait to see if the Big 10 and/or SEC make any landscape altering moves that gut the ACC and/or PAC 12 and be there to sweep the remnants under a giant Big 12 umbrella.

yep

(01-26-2022 05:34 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:31 PM)CYOWA Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:57 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

Unsurprising coming from a Baylor fan. What kind of sorcery are you guys up to down there anyways? How the hell do you go from scandals surrounding Patrick Dennehy, Art Briles, and David Koresh to a Sugar Bowl trophy and a hardwood natty?? Does Ann Richards have a statue on your campus yet?

Baylor must own the Dave Bliss and Art Briles scandals, but we had nothing to do with David Koresh. Waco was just unlucky to be the nearest mid-sized city to Mount Carmel.

And just to clarify my point, I care about Baylor's academics. I just could not care less about the academics of the schools with which we compete in athletics. This is an athletic conference, not a research consortium.

Eh- just giving you a hard time. Wish we could absorb a scandal and win a Big 12 title. The Koresh reference was a joke. NEVER drink the Kool-Aid!

I will however argue that the university presidents DO care about academics, and television networks care about markets. Denver >>> Boise. That’s why I believe Colorado State would be a better investment in the long term as at some point they could start winning meaningful games again- and people would tune in to see the higher profile matchups.

(01-26-2022 07:39 PM)CYOWA Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 05:34 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:31 PM)CYOWA Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:57 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I, personally, just don't weigh academics or location very heavily in conference expansion candidates.

Unsurprising coming from a Baylor fan. What kind of sorcery are you guys up to down there anyways? How the hell do you go from scandals surrounding Patrick Dennehy, Art Briles, and David Koresh to a Sugar Bowl trophy and a hardwood natty?? Does Ann Richards have a statue on your campus yet?

Baylor must own the Dave Bliss and Art Briles scandals, but we had nothing to do with David Koresh. Waco was just unlucky to be the nearest mid-sized city to Mount Carmel.

And just to clarify my point, I care about Baylor's academics. I just could not care less about the academics of the schools with which we compete in athletics. This is an athletic conference, not a research consortium.

Eh- just giving you a hard time. Wish we could absorb a scandal and win a Big 12 title. The Koresh reference was a joke. NEVER drink the Kool-Aid!

I will however argue that the university presidents DO care about academics, and television networks care about markets. Denver >>> Boise. That’s why I believe Colorado State would be a better investment in the long term as at some point they could start winning meaningful games again- and people would tune in to see the higher profile matchups.

I agree with your point about university presidents and academics. But the TV networks care about audience. They don't care where people are watching from as long as people are watching, and way more people watch Boise State games than Colorado State games.

That's why Boise has its own TV contract and consistently gets premier time slots while Colorado State games get buried on the occasions they're actually televised.

Colorado State is only a good investment if they can compete well on the field and draw eyeballs. And they haven't shown much ability to do either since about 2002.

I’m sure Boise’s audience has dropped a lot since it’s NY6 days, and will continue to decline. CSU could draw a much bigger audience if they actually make a good hire in football, they’re already attracting a lot of attention in basketball this year.

How many posters here have any idea of the level of support for college athletics in the state of Colorado?

I’ve lived here for 6 years and have yet to find a single full-time resident that gives one flying f*#k about college sports. Not one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Texas and OU were still around we could afford to take on a project like Colorado St. they are a good school in a area where man of our alums live etc. However Colorado St is 50 games below .500 all time in football. Their biggest bowl ever is the holiday bowl. They have not dominated the MWC. This would be like the B10 adding Rutgers. I don’t think we can take on that type of project program with the league in flux

Between Boise and Colorado st, who do you trust more to be really good in football more often? Which one is the average non big 12 fan more likely to watch in tv? Which of the two is going to draw a bigger gate on our campuses. Boise is the easy answer to each question

Jackson

I see no reason for the B12 to be in a big hurry to invite anyone not in a P5 league now.
If by a miracle the Arizona schools opened up, of course you grab them, but that is highly unlikely.
No G5 school is going to raise the average per school TV deal when it comes due, stand pat for at least a couple of years of the new TV deal.
Watch the 4 or 5 names out there and see what they do.

(01-27-2022 12:29 AM)GumbyFromPokeyLand Wrote:  How many posters here have any idea of the level of support for college athletics in the state of Colorado?

I’ve lived here for 6 years and have yet to find a single full-time resident that gives one flying f*#k about college sports. Not one!

Yeah, that's a problem. And a big reason why the Pac 12 is struggling right now. Only Oregon and Utah give a crap.

I'd bet you would have seen plenty of Buffaloes gear in the Rockies during the McCartney-Neuheisel-Barnett era. Since then the Buffaloes have really tanked with just a few decent seasons in between. Elway finally delivering a couple SuperBowls around the same time probably cemented the Broncos as the main show in town, right?

It's location, academics, and that god-awful 36,000 capacity stadium that I just can't get around when it comes to Boise. I don't doubt the loyalty of their fans, but delivering the state of Idaho isn't that big of a deal. Their ceiling isn't that high.

Personally, I'd prefer SDSU over both of them. None of this is going to happen anyway, though.