Big 12 to meet to consider 6 new teams(PAC)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,944
3,285
743
36
tractor
#64
big 12 needs some vision here.
take the 4 best PAC 12 schools available, to kill the PAC for good.
Save room for the eventual demise of the ACC.

i think the sec takes nc state, vt, clemson, and fsu.
i think BIG takes NC, Duke, UVA, and either miami/G tech.

big 12 should have its pick of Pitt, Wake Forest, maybe Miami, bc, syracuse, louisville.
I do not understand VT, they suck and have sucked but its been quiet because nobody watches them. I believe Miami is much more similar to the Big 10 than than the SEC. Their med school is off the charts.

I am seeing more and more opinions that it will be Oklahoma State and Clemson going to the SEC due to quality of programs.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,980
8,089
1,743
#65
That improves our conference.
Ever so slightly.

Sorry I'm cynical AF right now, a bit chapped at all of this, and I'm in the bucket of "no matter what, the B12 is a dead conference*".

*Unless somehow we end up with some combination of ND, Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Oregon, or Washington... lmmfao.

We have ZERO blue bloods in the conf. This entire fiasco is being orchestrated by people that only have the blue blood's in their interests. What pisses me off most about this is we are on the outside looking in when there's a dozen B1G and SEC schools that we are sooooo much better than... and even bring more viewers... and they're on the "in" just by association (Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Northwestern, Rutgers, Vandy, Miss St, etc...).
 
Oct 16, 2003
1,204
578
1,743
Edmond, OK
#66
I think the BIg-12 needs to be thinking "Big." Be the first to go to 21 teams with 3 divisions. That would put them ahead of the Big-10/Sec in size (at the moment). Everybody plays their 6 divisional opponents plus 2 crossover from the other divisions. That's 10 Conference games plus 2 non-conference.

The Big-12 Championship would then be a 3-game series between the 3-divisional champions plus a wild-card team.

West:
Oregon
Washington

Ariz
Ariz St
Colorado
Utah
BYU

Central:
Oklahoma St
Kansas
Kansas St
Baylor
Tx Tech
TCU
Houston

East:
Iowa State
West Virginia
Cincinnati
UCF
(3 of Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia, Pittsburgh)

That would give you TV markets across all time zones, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That would solidify 3 (and only 3) Super Conferences with the Big-12 being one of them.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,521
4,977
1,743
35
Keller, Texas
#67
I think the BIg-12 needs to be thinking "Big." Be the first to go to 21 teams with 3 divisions. That would put them ahead of the Big-10/Sec in size (at the moment). Everybody plays their 6 divisional opponents plus 2 crossover from the other divisions. That's 10 Conference games plus 2 non-conference.

The Big-12 Championship would then be a 3-game series between the 3-divisional champions plus a wild-card team.

West:
Oregon
Washington

Ariz
Ariz St
Colorado
Utah
BYU

Central:
Oklahoma St
Kansas
Kansas St
Baylor
Tx Tech
TCU
Houston

East:
Iowa State
West Virginia
Cincinnati
UCF
(3 of Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia, Pittsburgh)

That would give you TV markets across all time zones, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That would solidify 3 (and only 3) Super Conferences with the Big-12 being one of them.
I actually really like this idea. Hope we can pull it or something like it off...
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,347
17,525
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#68
I think the BIg-12 needs to be thinking "Big." Be the first to go to 21 teams with 3 divisions. That would put them ahead of the Big-10/Sec in size (at the moment). Everybody plays their 6 divisional opponents plus 2 crossover from the other divisions. That's 10 Conference games plus 2 non-conference.

The Big-12 Championship would then be a 3-game series between the 3-divisional champions plus a wild-card team.

West:
Oregon
Washington

Ariz
Ariz St
Colorado
Utah
BYU

Central:
Oklahoma St
Kansas
Kansas St
Baylor
Tx Tech
TCU
Houston

East:
Iowa State
West Virginia
Cincinnati
UCF
(3 of Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia, Pittsburgh)

That would give you TV markets across all time zones, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That would solidify 3 (and only 3) Super Conferences with the Big-12 being one of them.
I definitely like the 3 regional divisions, but do not like the 10 conference games. The SEC has perfected the scheduling model; 8 conf, 4 non-con consisting of one marquee matchup, two middle of the road matchup and one lower division matchup. It will be interesting to see if they change that once the new teams are added.

If they don't change, then we need to copy it. 6 division games and one game each from the other two divisions...either rotating or every team gets a permanent cross division rival. And 4 non-cons.
 
Dec 7, 2006
519
284
1,613
#69
East:
Iowa State
West Virginia
Cincinnati
UCF
(3 of Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia, Pittsburgh)

That would give you TV markets across all time zones, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That would solidify 3 (and only 3) Super Conferences with the Big-12 being one of them.
Any plan that includes Clemson, Florida State, and (probably) Miami in the Big 12 is a fantasy (even beyond the fact that those ACC schools are likely tied up for the next decade due to contractual obligations). If Bowlsby or New Guy called their athletic directors, those school's ADs would think it's a prank call and then they would laugh and say "No thanks." The Oregon and Washington athletic directors would probably be a lot nicer on the call (because they don't know if they have a soft landing spot yet) but would probably tell Bowlsby/New Guy that they're waiting on a better offer.

The only questions, at this point, for the big-name brands in realignment/consolidation are whether the SEC/Big 10 go to 20 or 24 teams and then when they do it (now or when the GOR issues are resolved for the ACC). From there, everybody else is just fighting for scraps. Right now, the SEC has drafted OU and Texas and the Big 10 has drafted USC and UCLA. Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Oregon/Washington, and Duke/UNC (I think the last four are probably package deals) are all valuable properties that should have a place in the Big 10/SEC. Those schools are just waiting by their phones for a call from the Big 10/SEC and, until those big names are off the board, nobody else can make a move.

Our best hope as a current member of the Big 12 Conference is that (1) at some point, the SEC/Big 10 kick members out (Rutgers, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, etc.) to make room for us and (2) in the interim, we're able to cobble together a conference that, even if it's not competitive financially, is still recognizable enough as a product that it warrants a pathway toward the playoff.

As an aside, I think the risk the networks and Big 10/SEC are weighing in their calculations here is that, even if there are two 40/48 team superpowers, there still has to be something left for fans of other schools. Otherwise, you'll have a whole lot of people who are fans of schools outside of those 40/48 team superpowers who will lose interest in the sport as a whole. I watch, for example, Ohio State-Michigan not because I like those two schools but because I have an interest in the sport, that's one of its biggest games, and I already planned my day around watching Oklahoma State play Kansas State earlier. But if Oklahoma State is not playing on the same level as Ohio State-Michigan or has no path to compete against them in the future, I'm not watching Ohio State-Michigan (I'd rather just watch the NFL the next day). And neither are super fans of Texas Tech, Houston, Pitt, Virginia Tech, etc. That's a lot of eyeballs that the networks are missing out on. So I think the way this ends up is with two super powers who have the best chance of actually winning a championship (and the most teams in the playoff) and a conglomeration of that next tier of schools with a pathway to the playoff but no chance of ever winning in it.
 

pokefan05

Country Boys Country Toys
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
2,126
1,607
1,743
Tulsa
#71
Arizona State & Oregon State would be huge assets for wrestling


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Even more so for baseball. That's two absolutely premier programs walking in to the big 12. U of A has had their share of baseball success as well, not to mention they are an all time top 10-15 basketball program. Any school that wants to come to big 12 out of the pac 12 has a lot to offer, regardless of their current standing. We should roll out the red carpet for all of them, including Colorado, who did exactly what we all wanted to do in 2010, move to the Pac 12.
 

pokefan05

Country Boys Country Toys
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
2,126
1,607
1,743
Tulsa
#72
Arizona State and Arizona might be a long drive from Stilly, but culturally are probably the closest thing we'll find to the midwest from the schools that are available.
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,968
41,988
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#73
I think the BIg-12 needs to be thinking "Big." Be the first to go to 21 teams with 3 divisions. That would put them ahead of the Big-10/Sec in size (at the moment). Everybody plays their 6 divisional opponents plus 2 crossover from the other divisions. That's 10 Conference games plus 2 non-conference.

The Big-12 Championship would then be a 3-game series between the 3-divisional champions plus a wild-card team.

West:
Oregon
Washington

Ariz
Ariz St
Colorado
Utah
BYU

Central:
Oklahoma St
Kansas
Kansas St
Baylor
Tx Tech
TCU
Houston

East:
Iowa State
West Virginia
Cincinnati
UCF
(3 of Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia, Pittsburgh)

That would give you TV markets across all time zones, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That would solidify 3 (and only 3) Super Conferences with the Big-12 being one of them.
Directional divisions is part of what killed the Big 12 in the first place. Divide teams every year based on prior results so that you have a balance of competition.
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
11,530
1,540
1,743
39
Edmond, OK
#74
The Big 12 seems to be in the best position of the lower 3 Power conferences right now. The best thing we can do is wait. Yes, it is possible the B12 gets raided again, but there isn't much that can be done about that and if we are raided Oklahoma State will almost certainly be a part of it. Here are the scenarios I see.

ACC Grant of Rights Holds - ND and 1-3 others joins B1G
In this scenario, we will have our pick of the remaining teams in the PAC, whoever the B1G wants they will get. No reason to try to do something now as it won't make a difference. Just wait to see who is left when the dust settles. Though unlikely, if the SEC wanted to expand to match the B1G then the B12 is the only place to go and Oklahoma State is almost certainly in.

ACC Grant of Rights Breaks
Obviously in this scenario B1G and SEC will scoop up whoever they want. Meanwhile, the B12 will now be in a position to add whoever the heck they want. My big question in this scenario is are we locked in to the 4 planned members or can that be re-evaluated? Either way, the B12 will solidly be the best conference not named B1G or SEC.

Note, I don't see how the ACC Grant of Rights can be broken without months (if not years) of legal action. This IMHO makes it a non-starter, but I'm adding it here anyway because I very easily could be wrong.

ACC Grant of Rights Holds - ND doesn't join B1G
This is probably the scenario where the B12 is most vulnerable. Still though, it is debatable if the ACC actually offers anything better to B12 members. If ND joins as a full and equal member then obviously it would be a better place for any B12 team, but I don't really see anyway that happens. Meanwhile, joining with unequal revenue sharing would likely doom the ACC long term. Not a situation any school would want to sign up for.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,347
17,525
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#75
As an aside, I think the risk the networks and Big 10/SEC are weighing in their calculations here is that, even if there are two 40/48 team superpowers, there still has to be something left for fans of other schools. Otherwise, you'll have a whole lot of people who are fans of schools outside of those 40/48 team superpowers who will lose interest in the sport as a whole. I watch, for example, Ohio State-Michigan not because I like those two schools but because I have an interest in the sport, that's one of its biggest games, and I already planned my day around watching Oklahoma State play Kansas State earlier. But if Oklahoma State is not playing on the same level as Ohio State-Michigan or has no path to compete against them in the future, I'm not watching Ohio State-Michigan (I'd rather just watch the NFL the next day). And neither are super fans of Texas Tech, Houston, Pitt, Virginia Tech, etc. That's a lot of eyeballs that the networks are missing out on. So I think the way this ends up is with two super powers who have the best chance of actually winning a championship (and the most teams in the playoff) and a conglomeration of that next tier of schools with a pathway to the playoff but no chance of ever winning in it.
Heard it mentioned on the radio this morning that a move to two super conferences would necessitate the powers that be to promote the brands of those teams at the expense of the others. In other words, they don't want people who are fans of an alma mater, they want fans who glom on to a team that is winning or is located in the same geographical area as they live...just like fans of pro teams do.

How they plan on doing that, I don't know. But I'm with you, if OSU is in another collegiate division than those teams, I'll watch other teams in that division, not the super conferences.

I wouldn't really care all that much as long as there was a championship in football that OSU could compete for....BUT the financial differences would be felt in other sports. So it would be more difficult to compete with the haves in basketball, baseball, wrestling, soccer, golf as we would all still be in the same collegiate division there....and that gap would widen exponentially as time goes on.
 
Sep 2, 2014
301
115
593
42
#76
Directional divisions is part of what killed the Big 12 in the first place. Divide teams every year based on prior results so that you have a balance of competition.
I kinda like the new way the conferences are looking at scheduling....two to three permanent rivals, and then work through the schedule. That way every one has fairly equal access to each school and Texas, and one division does not become a complete afterthought again like the North did.
 

superpoke

Territorial Marshal
Jun 28, 2005
5,332
2,543
1,743
Orange Country USA
#77
Heard it mentioned on the radio this morning that a move to two super conferences would necessitate the powers that be to promote the brands of those teams at the expense of the others. In other words, they don't want people who are fans of an alma mater, they want fans who glom on to a team that is winning or is located in the same geographical area as they live...just like fans of pro teams do.

How they plan on doing that, I don't know. But I'm with you, if OSU is in another collegiate division than those teams, I'll watch other teams in that division, not the super conferences.

I wouldn't really care all that much as long as there was a championship in football that OSU could compete for....BUT the financial differences would be felt in other sports. So it would be more difficult to compete with the haves in basketball, baseball, wrestling, soccer, golf as we would all still be in the same collegiate division there....and that gap would widen exponentially as time goes on.
In this scenario, they're also going to want to give as many desirable timeslots and assignments as possible to the super conferences, and that's going to hurt just as much as the difference in payout. Anyone really want to have Tuesday night games just to get on ESPNU? I don't, and that kind of crap is certainly possible in the future.
 
Dec 7, 2006
519
284
1,613
#78
I wouldn't really care all that much as long as there was a championship in football that OSU could compete for....BUT the financial differences would be felt in other sports. So it would be more difficult to compete with the haves in basketball, baseball, wrestling, soccer, golf as we would all still be in the same collegiate division there....and that gap would widen exponentially as time goes on.
Exactly. And if that's where this is headed, then there will be a push to just create an entirely different level of athletics above D-II but below D-I where the superpowers reside. I think that's the only solution that's "fair" but I also don't think that schools like OU and Texas want that. They want a system similar to what they currently have where they have more money than everyone but still compete against everyone so the championship looks legit. The issue right now is that those schools have more money than everyone right now through sort of a free enterprise system (they get it outside of the existing media rights structure) but if the financial disparities are baked in structurally, it's less appealing for everyone else.

I just don't buy the theory that Oklahoma State fans, especially alumni, [or insert any other Left Behind school here] are going to latch onto another college football team just because it's playing at a higher level. A 40/48 team Power Two structure that just competes against each other is basically an NFL G-League. That will turn off a lot of college sports fans. They'll likely just try to create a structure like March Madness where everyone theoretically has a "chance" but only a few teams can actually win. (And also one without the Cinderella possibilities of basketball, since Steph Curry could carry Davidson but Arch Manning couldn't carry Tulane). My biggest fear is the one you raised: That the structural disparities in football also spill over to the other sports where we have more success, making it more challenging for us to compete there. You might argue that's happened already with wrestling where our Big 10 peers are having more success with more money.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,944
3,285
743
36
tractor
#79
Exactly. And if that's where this is headed, then there will be a push to just create an entirely different level of athletics above D-II but below D-I where the superpowers reside. I think that's the only solution that's "fair" but I also don't think that schools like OU and Texas want that. They want a system similar to what they currently have where they have more money than everyone but still compete against everyone so the championship looks legit. The issue right now is that those schools have more money than everyone right now through sort of a free enterprise system (they get it outside of the existing media rights structure) but if the financial disparities are baked in structurally, it's less appealing for everyone else.

I just don't buy the theory that Oklahoma State fans, especially alumni, [or insert any other Left Behind school here] are going to latch onto another college football team just because it's playing at a higher level. A 40/48 team Power Two structure that just competes against each other is basically an NFL G-League. That will turn off a lot of college sports fans. They'll likely just try to create a structure like March Madness where everyone theoretically has a "chance" but only a few teams can actually win. (And also one without the Cinderella possibilities of basketball, since Steph Curry could carry Davidson but Arch Manning couldn't carry Tulane). My biggest fear is the one you raised: That the structural disparities in football also spill over to the other sports where we have more success, making it more challenging for us to compete there. You might argue that's happened already with wrestling where our Big 10 peers are having more success with more money.
If I latch onto to another team it damn sure won't be from Norman or Austin.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,980
8,089
1,743
#80
I just don't buy the theory that Oklahoma State fans, especially alumni, [or insert any other Left Behind school here] are going to latch onto another college football team just because it's playing at a higher level.
Exactly. If anything it will drive those fans to just flat out quit.

I haven't watched an NFL game since the mid-1990's. I ABSOLUTELY.WILL.NOT.WATCH a CFB Blue Bloods league only football game. I'll gladly find something else to do with my Saturdays in the fall.

There has to be literally millions and millions of viewers like me that are sick of this sh*t. Give me at least a semblance of parity or give me nothing.