FBS realignment talk is back in season...

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.

Register Log in
treeman said:
I think the big 12 still has too good of a nucleus to be raided by the AAC. The AAC better be worried about Houston, Cincy and to a lesser extent SMU jumping ship. This shift does seem to have a different “feel” to it as it leaves some schools (mainly Baylor) in a somewhat vulnerable position. But I still think you’ll see b Big 12 grab from the AAC which will scrap from the c-USA which will pick from Sun-belt. And maybe just maybe the MVC/MVFC feels something with a NDSU move.
Click to expand...

There is also a rumor that the Pac 12 could try to grab Baylor and a couple others.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
The Big 12 screwed itself when it failed to add members and get back to 12, thereby leaving a ton of money on the table by not having a conference championship game in football and making it harder for their conference champion to get into the four team playoff. They sat still at ten members and let other leagues lap them.
 
Bluethunder said:
The Big 12 screwed itself when it failed to add members and get back to 12, thereby leaving a ton of money on the table by not having a conference championship game in football and making it harder for their conference champion to get into the four team playoff. They sat still at ten members and let other leagues lap them.
Click to expand...

Except the Big 12 HAS staged a Football Championship game since 2017 and from Big 12 inception (1996) through 2010.

Lot of problems in FBS, chiefly the jacked playoff "system"... when they went to a playoff, it should have been 16 teams. period. The 10 FBS conference champs (as determined BY the Conf) and 6 "at-large", note F**K you Notre Dame and the rest of the independents, fight through a season and maybe snag an at-large but NO SCHOOL gets named w/ out winning and/or claiming a conf title.
 
Last edited:
Jason Svoboda said:
There is also a rumor that the Pac 12 could try to grab Baylor and a couple others.
Click to expand...
I can see the PAC 12 grabbing three. W. Virginia will likely go to the ACC. And with Kansas already contacting the Big 10, another team like Iowa State would join as well. But any way this goes, it’s likely the end of the Big 12.
 
4Q_iu said:
Except the Big 12 HAS staged a Football Championship game since 2017 and from Big 12 inception (1996) through 2010.

Lot of problems in FBS, chiefly the jacked playoff "system"... when they went to a playoff, it should have been 16 teams. period. The 10 FBS conference champs (as determined BY the Conf) and 6 "at-large", note F**K you Notre Dame and the rest of the independents, fight through a season and maybe snag an at-large but NO SCHOOL gets named w/ a conf title.
Click to expand...
After they dropped to ten members they didn’t have a championship game for several years. Oklahoma and Texas were both put on the sidelines while the other P5 leagues got all kinds of press and attention (not to mention money) while hosting championship games. They had about six seasons where they didn’t have a championship game. While everyone else was expanding, the Big 12 sat on their hands. I would guess that the seeds of Texas and Oklahoma wanting to leave were sown in those years.

The Big 12 isn’t nearly as prestigious as it was twenty years ago. Losing Nebraska and Texas A&M to the big ten and SEC proved that. If it was, Texas and Oklahoma wouldn’t be looking for a way out.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Bluethunder said:
After they dropped to ten members they didn’t have a championship game for several years. Oklahoma and Texas were both put on the sidelines while the other P5 leagues got all kinds of press and attention (not to mention money) while hosting championship games. They had about six seasons where they didn’t have a championship game. While everyone else was expanding, the Big 12 sat on their hands. I would guess that the seeds of Texas and Oklahoma wanting to leave were sown in those years.

The Big 12 isn’t nearly as prestigious as it was twenty years ago. Losing Nebraska and Texas A&M to the big ten and SEC proved that. If it was, Texas and Oklahoma wouldn’t be looking for a way out.
Click to expand...

We're in violent agreement. However, texas is living under the delusions that they "matter" on the field much as noter damme believes they "matter" the field. texas stayed in the big 12 because they couldn't get the deal they wanted in the Pac-12 - which was the same as USCs and UCLAs; ergo a bigger piece of the pie.

when the pac-10 added colorado and utah in 2011; texas then flirted w/ the pac-12 but the pac-12 pie is cut into ~14 pieces; usc and ucla get 2, everyone else gets 1. texas wanted a bigger piece and (i recall) the longhorn network.

if utexas thinks they're all that AND 8 bags of chips, tell every conf. to pound sand and go independent but DEEP in their heart, they know they won't fare well to snag an 'at-large' because

1) they fold like a cheap hooker when punched in the stomach
2) they don't have the ability to "force" their name into an at-large conversation in the way that the delusioned folks in north crook have forced their name

and tx a/m didn't leave the big 12 over "conf prestige slippage" -- they left because the $EC was going to treat them better than they were treated in the B12. A lot of the other b12 schools would have left over the longhorn network deal - they simply didn't have a place to go
 
Last edited:
But isn’t leaving (ala Texas A&M) because they would be treated better (more money, more name recognition, better competition, more exposure) proof that the Big 12 had “conference prestige slippage”? If the Big 12 was on equal footing with the other conferences why would they lose four teams in a short period of time? And if it was all about the longhorn network deal, why not go make their own deal? Was it because they weren’t a big enough name or with a passionate enough following (ala Texas)? If Texas isn’t as big of a name as they think they are, why would they be able to pull of a lucrative network, be courted by another conference and be one of a few athletic departments that turns a decent profit year over year?
 
Bluethunder said:
But isn’t leaving (ala Texas A&M) because they would be treated better (more money, more name recognition, better competition, more exposure) proof that the Big 12 had “conference prestige slippage”? If the Big 12 was on equal footing with the other conferences why would they lose four teams in a short period of time? And if it was all about the longhorn network deal, why not go make their own deal? Was it because they weren’t a big enough name or with a passionate enough following (ala Texas)? If Texas isn’t as big of a name as they think they are, why would they be able to pull of a lucrative network, be courted by another conference and be one of a few athletic departments that turns a decent profit year over year?
Click to expand...

I recall Colo and Utah moving to the Pac-12 b/c they recruit a lot of students from Pac-12 "territory" AND a LOT of Colo and Utah alumni work, live, retire in Pac-12 territory.
I don't recall their leaving b/c of "Big 12" prestige slippage.

an easy way to look at texas and tx a&m is very similar to the big ten schools in indiana... drive around Indiana and how many ass-clowns do you see wearing 'iu' gear?
a helluva lot and MOST of them have zero tie to the university - as they say "when you cross the state line, it doesn't say, welcome to purdue..." keep driving around indiana, how many other goofballs do you see wearing 'purdue' gear? damn fewer... because if someone is wearing purdue gear, they have a personnel connection (parent, sibling, child, etc) to the place. The same cannot be said of ass-clowns in their iu gear.

the same is true in texas; if you see someone running around texas in tx a&m gear, they have a connection; either they went, spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent.
the same is also true about u.texas... any ass-clown can go into dollar general store and buy a u.texas shit orange t-shirt

the only $$ piece i recall w/ tx a&m leaving was tx cutting the longhorn network deal on their own and still demanding a full (or more) share of the b12 pie. I don't think anyone in college station fretted about 'b12 prestige'

tx and okla can go to the $EC, I won't watch MORE $EC products because of it. I'll continue watching Valley as much as I can, with a dose of Big Ten (because I was raised in 'big ten' territory'...)
 
Last edited:
You're probably right about Colorado, but Utah was in the Mountain West so moving to the Pac 10 was just a common sense move. Same deal with TCU, who left the MWC for the Big 12.
 
I think Texas only stayed in the Big 12 last go round because they wanted to see if their Longhorn Network had the name brand pull they thought it would. They launched it in the wake of the BTN and then late Notre Dame launching their own content network. It didn't get the traction they hoped (sic: couldn't get it on basic cable in Big 12 markets) so they now want a piece of that SEC media deal, which will be even more massive with the addition to them and Oklahoma.

I think they didn't want the negative stigma of the Big 10 -- teams are slow, unathletic, etc... because it would hurt them in recruiting and be used against them.

Going to be interesting to see if the Big 12 can remain a conference, but if Kansas gets picked off by the Big 10, it's over. Nobody is going to give the collection of cast offs any sort of decent media package. Look at the AAC/CUSA's media money for an example of the stark drop off. So the Power 5 will now be the Power 4 and that divide will grow larger.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Jason Svoboda said:
I think Texas only stayed in the Big 12 last go round because they wanted to see if their Longhorn Network had the name brand pull they thought it would. They launched it in the wake of the BTN and then late Notre Dame launching their own content network. It didn't get the traction they hoped (sic: couldn't get it on basic cable in Big 12 markets) so they now want a piece of that SEC media deal, which will be even more massive with the addition to them and Oklahoma.

I think they didn't want the negative stigma of the Big 10 -- teams are slow, unathletic, etc... because it would hurt them in recruiting and be used against them.

Going to be interesting to see if the Big 12 can remain a conference, but if Kansas gets picked off by the Big 10, it's over. Nobody is going to give the collection of cast offs any sort of decent media package. Look at the AAC/CUSA's media money for an example of the stark drop off. So the Power 5 will now be the Power 4 and that divide will grow larger.
Click to expand...

Pete Thamel @ yahoo.sports captures EXACTLY why texas a&m left the Big 12 for the $EC

https://sports.yahoo.com/texas-was-...l-have-to-pipe-down-in-the-sec-231205247.html

And another article with several astute points on conference expansion

https://sports.yahoo.com/conference-expansion-inevitable-sec-mindful-215547744.html
 
Last edited:
Iowa State is much better fit overall for the Big10 than Kansas. Other than basketball KU brings nothing to the table for the Big10. There will be a mass merger of the major conferences coming soon so it will likely be immaterial who is the best fit with who.
 
It’s water under the bridge now but I always thought the Big 12 should have brought Houston and SMU in. Both are in football hotbeds and both would have benefitted recruiting wise from joining and I believe would have become solid programs/additions. Plus both have been strong in other sports, specifically basketball. Then they could have had a conference championship game and not skipped 6 years without. Doesn’t matter now but sitting at ten members was the worst decision they could make. Adding Houston or SmU or anyone else would have made more sense than doing nothing.
 
Kansas and Iowa State would be perfect fits for the Big Ten. Kansas is an elite basketball program and Iowa State has a good football program and a good basketball program. Both are AAU and both are Midwestern schools. I'd actually be surprised if the Big Ten doesn't take them both.

I think the other 6 schools will be the big losers in all of this. WVU might get saved by the ACC, but I can't see the Pac 12 wanting schools that the Big Ten doesn't want and I think they will stay put at 12. The PAC 12 really doesn't have to be aggressive because of geography, and I don't really see how any of the three Texas schools, OKSU, and/or KSU would benefit them in any way.

I think the Big XII will survive, but it will be vastly different. It will be sort of a revamped AAC. I'm thinking it will end up being TCU, TXTC, Baylor, HOU, SMU, OKSU, KSU, MEM, CINCY, and WVU. Tulane has a ton of money and a big market so they might also be considered. Lots of big names and that will still be a tough conference, especially in basketball.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Bluethunder said:
Think Tulsa could be a possibility?
Click to expand...
I don't think they are a big enough sports name to be included, but you never know. I don't think Tulane is either, which is why I didn't include them in my list, but Tulane has the advantage of not being in a market that the Big 12 already has.
 
I bet they are both in before 2025. A&M fans are upset that the vote wasn't 13-1 (A&M voted yes). Decided to look into it since votes are always reported as unanimous even though they often aren't. Like in the Valley for example (both "unanimous"), UNI voted no on Loyola; and SIU and MO State voted no on Valpo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top