Do y'all 'Eers (really) want to expand?
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
Of course many of us do. The problem the Big 12 is facing is not so much the number of teams in the conference as the size of the conference footprint. It is by far the smallest of the power 5. Florida and Ohio could go a long way towards rectifying that.
No to Cincy. 2.5 million plus metro area population and $500 million in facility improvements over the last 10 years is not worthy. A willingness to expand a newly remodeled 40k stadium to 58k is definitely not worthy. 10-3, 10-3, 9-4, 9-4, and 7-6 in football during the past five years with five bowl appearances is certainly not worthy. Who do they think they are? WVU coming out of the depleted Big East? How dare they?
Damn these metro area schools, it's not like they're Miami. Miami is a small private university with over 11k undergraduates and access to a pro stadium. Of course the Big 12 should welcome them with open arms, right? Then why not Marshall as well? Freakin' hypocrites.
Damn these metro area schools, it's not like they're Miami. Miami is a small private university with over 11k undergraduates and access to a pro stadium. Of course the Big 12 should welcome them with open arms, right? Then why not Marshall as well? Freakin' hypocrites.
Last edited:
I like the 10 team format. I also like stability and prosperity. I like that they are looking closely at all the options. I'm OK with whatever they do but it would sure be nice if they could all see eye to eye and do what is best for the conference. I think there are two schools who are more focused on being equals with the SEC and the BIG and less focused on the very attainable goal of staying ahead of the PAC and the ACC.
Not with any school not already in the ACC, SEC, or B1G, cause every other option totally sucks (let me count the ways) and makes the SOS rating and my fan interest meter plummet faster than the Dow Jones in the fall of 2008.
And even then with schools already in one of those conferences, I'm not a fan of expansion. I like round robin play and seeing the same 9 conference opponents. I'm open for a football championship game with 10 schools by taking the best 2 at seasons end and playing for an outright title if they want to, even though when the playoffs expand to 8 this conference won't have to worry about ever getting left out.
I am also not sold on a conference TV network either. The SEC shows "SEC storied" more than any meaningful games & that "Book of Manning" narrated by James Earl Jones, ugh John Goodman is the most worn out piece of revisionist history I've ever seen. And the B1G network is a worse display of programming than the SEC network. Given how technology (Netflix, Hulu, Internet broadcasting, etc), is costing regular TV subscriptions and the loss of subscriptions to ESPN, conference networks may not be here for the long haul. Options mean the consumer isn't forced to pay for crap they don't watch.
I can only hope the kibosh gets put on this expansion insanity. They're gonna screw it up.
And even then with schools already in one of those conferences, I'm not a fan of expansion. I like round robin play and seeing the same 9 conference opponents. I'm open for a football championship game with 10 schools by taking the best 2 at seasons end and playing for an outright title if they want to, even though when the playoffs expand to 8 this conference won't have to worry about ever getting left out.
I am also not sold on a conference TV network either. The SEC shows "SEC storied" more than any meaningful games & that "Book of Manning" narrated by James Earl Jones, ugh John Goodman is the most worn out piece of revisionist history I've ever seen. And the B1G network is a worse display of programming than the SEC network. Given how technology (Netflix, Hulu, Internet broadcasting, etc), is costing regular TV subscriptions and the loss of subscriptions to ESPN, conference networks may not be here for the long haul. Options mean the consumer isn't forced to pay for crap they don't watch.
I can only hope the kibosh gets put on this expansion insanity. They're gonna screw it up.
Having a Big XII network is not "dumb business". What is "dumb business" is considering a CCG with just 10 members.
The only way I would do it is to add one team only...for now. Keep the RR format that way. Eliminate the season opening creampuff everyone has on their schedule. Develop that program and if that works then we can either expand again in 5-6 years or wait until the GOR is up.
Benefits: 1) Keeps the schedule as RR
2) strengthen SOS without needing a CCG if schools are risk adverse
3) expand our footprint without making a huge financial risk since it seems like we would get a pro-rated bump for each team we would get (within reason). Obviously, that has been a major point of disagreement since no one has seen how that is written.
4) MOST IMPORTANTLY: LEVERAGE!! If we can build another top 20 program (or two) in the next 10 years, then it lessens the loss of a UT or OU and therefore helps our negotiations with those schools. That new school, even if super-successful, would always be indebted to the other schools for saving them from complete irrelevance.
Drawback: losing a potential spot for a P5 team later. Since we wore a big fat cream pie on our face a few years ago with the Clemson/FSU fiasco, I'm not pumped up to wait for the "two in the bush" as I was then. Plus, we only would have 11 teams. We have plenty of room later for "the right teams."
Soooo...who would my 1 team be? UCF. One bad year doesn't ...
1) Take away what they have done the prior 5 years
2) Reduce their TV market size
3) Reduce their recruiting territory, which is the best anywhere
4) Reduce their student population...which is massive.
My potential second team? Cinci.
Why second?
1) B10 and PAC12 don't want them.
2) Completely outside the SEC footprint. I know Mizzu is as well...but that exactly hasn't been a great asset for the SEC either.
3) The ACC is already catching enough heat for taking an academic lower tier school (UL) for the pursuit of $$$$. I don't think they want to go there twice unless it's an instant homerun program. Therefore they are going to be there whenever we would want them.
This plan would work. I would not be down with any other plan that deviates from this. Anything else is simply expanding for expansion's sake.
Benefits: 1) Keeps the schedule as RR
2) strengthen SOS without needing a CCG if schools are risk adverse
3) expand our footprint without making a huge financial risk since it seems like we would get a pro-rated bump for each team we would get (within reason). Obviously, that has been a major point of disagreement since no one has seen how that is written.
4) MOST IMPORTANTLY: LEVERAGE!! If we can build another top 20 program (or two) in the next 10 years, then it lessens the loss of a UT or OU and therefore helps our negotiations with those schools. That new school, even if super-successful, would always be indebted to the other schools for saving them from complete irrelevance.
Drawback: losing a potential spot for a P5 team later. Since we wore a big fat cream pie on our face a few years ago with the Clemson/FSU fiasco, I'm not pumped up to wait for the "two in the bush" as I was then. Plus, we only would have 11 teams. We have plenty of room later for "the right teams."
Soooo...who would my 1 team be? UCF. One bad year doesn't ...
1) Take away what they have done the prior 5 years
2) Reduce their TV market size
3) Reduce their recruiting territory, which is the best anywhere
4) Reduce their student population...which is massive.
My potential second team? Cinci.
Why second?
1) B10 and PAC12 don't want them.
2) Completely outside the SEC footprint. I know Mizzu is as well...but that exactly hasn't been a great asset for the SEC either.
3) The ACC is already catching enough heat for taking an academic lower tier school (UL) for the pursuit of $$$$. I don't think they want to go there twice unless it's an instant homerun program. Therefore they are going to be there whenever we would want them.
This plan would work. I would not be down with any other plan that deviates from this. Anything else is simply expanding for expansion's sake.
The schools the BIG 12 is considering aren't "commuter schools" all with the exception of BYU are major state institutions. UConn is even a state flagship.
Expansion ain't my problem to deal with. Let the shiny shoes worry about it. They are the ones that stand to profit from it.
Ohhhhhhh...I see some of the "they're not worthy to be in the same conference as us" crowd are out. Must be nice to be so elitist and rule the world. Should start a political party. They use non-logic as the starting point in any debate as well. lol.
Yes I have been in favor of a 12 team conference and a championship game since we joined. Right now we have what could be considered the perfect set up but at this point the rest of college athletics has moved well past it.
b12 doesn't need 12 teams for
b12 network....
longhorn network would merge into b12 network ....
championship game can happen w 10 members
you all need to explain how two bottom feeders,
help b12...
expand sure, but w two quality teams....
and i would not consider Pitt a splash, either
Only expand if it helps the conference. BYU helps. I also think Colorado St would be a good candidate.
However, If we cannot renegotiate money with the TV deal, why would we add two teams and get the same money meaning each of the existing teams gets less?
The current contract calls for a pro rated increase for additional members according to Bowlsby. That is only for broadcast money. ESPN/FoxSports likely have a say in who is added.
ok look at it like this; would you seriously rather trade Texas or Oklahoma for Cinci and one of those other scrubs? Because adding them puts WVU in a different division and means WVU won't play them every year. If so, please stop following WVU now. You should be embarrassed.
Don't be so judgmental. I was probably a fan before you were born and they have not always played Oklahoma and Texas every year. Remember the Big East? WVU also plays Iowa State and Kansas every year. So you're saying WVU was a 'scrub' before joining the Big 12?
Michael...you are talking to a rock with some of these folk. Bet they are watching a TV and think it is made in America just because of the brand name. Companies go out of business when they don't keep up with the competition. The Big 12-2=10 will see the market coverage/money gap increase between them and the other P5 if they don't get pro active.They don't get that conference expansion is the most important thing in WVU's athletic self interest for the long haul. I keep hearing the same anti expansion arguments that I heard in the old Big East...and we all know how that ended!
If the 'B1G is now the official name of that conference is the name 'Big 10' now available? At least a couple of you guys must be attorneys. I know, I know, "Call my office and make an appointment and we can discuss it." [eyeroll]
I would like to expand, but this activity reminds me of what VT, Miami and BC did prior to leaving during our Big East days.
Yeah, but I fill mine out better! Besides, I'm an out of the closet, in your face, pure heterosexual. Now a leather vest on a chick can really look sweet. Bobby, you do have your moments! [roll]
good lord, try to keep up. Most fans would prefer playing Oklahoma and Texas every year versus missing out on one or both of them to play Memphis and Cincinnati. And yes, they are scrubs compared to Texas and Oklahoma.
Keep up? I'm backing up to find you. "Most fans would prefer playing Oklahoma and Texas every year versus missing out on one or both of them to play Memphis and Cincinnati" Sorry Mr. P but the numbers do not support you. Last year the Mountaineers dogged the mighty Longhorns by 2 1/2 TDs in front of a mediocre 56,736 fans at MP Stadium. That was 1,804 more fans than showed up for Texas Tech the week before following a four game losing streak.
In all fairness, the last time WVU played Cincinnati at MP Stadium in 2010 the attendance was only 56.593. So comparing head to head numbers Texas out drew Cincy by 143 fans. Cincy was going through a losing season that year, just like Texas has been recently. Cincy has now been to five straight bowls.
What part of your post is correct in any way? Try researching a little before you pass judgement.
In all fairness, the last time WVU played Cincinnati at MP Stadium in 2010 the attendance was only 56.593. So comparing head to head numbers Texas out drew Cincy by 143 fans. Cincy was going through a losing season that year, just like Texas has been recently. Cincy has now been to five straight bowls.
What part of your post is correct in any way? Try researching a little before you pass judgement.
This is the one and only expansion plan I would favor, but the lone school that makes sense to me as an 11th member is BYU. Let's face it, this is all about football and they're the single available candidate who would help the conference raise its SOS on a near-annual basis.
Rather than the wasted time the Big 12 spent lobbying the NCAA for the option to host a pointlessly redundant "conference championship game" with 10 members, the Big 12 would've been better advised spending its time petitioning the NCAA to either expand the playoff or to allow only the Big 12 (and any other league that does not play a phony championship game) to play a 13th game instead.
The pitch to the NCAA would be really easy: "After studying all the scenarios that would lead to more conference upheaval, we've determined that in the best interests of college football this small change would allow everyone to have greater stability...blah blah blah..."
Other than this, "no" on expansion. Never wanted it, and still don't.
No. The football and basketball schedules are pretty close to ideal now.
If the big 12 did expand though, we had might as well expand in name to 20 teams. Then play a championship game that ensures the top two teams haven't played already.
Are there 10 worthy teams worth adding? Good question. As far as I am concerned, there's not even one. So what the difference.
Lgm!
If the big 12 did expand though, we had might as well expand in name to 20 teams. Then play a championship game that ensures the top two teams haven't played already.
Are there 10 worthy teams worth adding? Good question. As far as I am concerned, there's not even one. So what the difference.
Lgm!