CBS: The Big 12 isn't breaking up, but perception of the league continues to sink

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,700
Reaction score
15,935
Points
113
per Dodd:

Actually, the astonishing thing is how far the Big 12 has sunk in terms of perception, talent and … winning. We can debate everything from revenue to recruiting, but what can't be argued is image.

The Big 12's is not good at the moment. Type the words "Big 12" on Twitter and mostly vitriol is shot back. What was once celebrated is now defended.

It is the first league to miss the three-year old College Football Playoff twice. It is the only Power Five league not to win a CFP game.

Conference realignment -- as well as a talent exodus -- has conspired against the Big 12 lately. Start with the fractionalization of the conference's recruiting hub in the state of Texas.

The loss of Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M in realignment meant 170 native Texas recruits have matriculated to those four schools in the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC since 2011.

That's the equivalent of almost seven Texas-only recruiting classes that could have ended up in the Big 12. Make no mistake, the Big 12's strength revolves around state of Texas recruiting.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...t-perception-of-the-league-continues-to-sink/

Go Gophers!!
 


The price to pay when "playing ball" with the University of Texas.
 

Schnauzer said:
The price to pay when "playing ball" with the University of Texas.
Click to expand...

The article talks about Texas making more money than any other school on media rights. What Texas will learn, someday, is that sharing a little with everyone else keeps the other schools solvent. Texas made a money grab that I'm very glad the Big Ten knew better than to let happen here.
 

Schnauzer said:
The price to pay when "playing ball" with the University of Texas.
Click to expand...

My understanding was earlier in B12 history Texas wanted a conference wide TV network / plan.... but the other teams didn't.

They should have made the deal....
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
My understanding was earlier in B12 history Texas wanted a conference wide TV network / plan.... but the other teams didn't.

They should have made the deal....
Click to expand...

I believe you're right but I think they always wanted an uneven share and that was part of what turned off other members.
 

Paul Finebaum: I think Oklahoma wants out of the Big 12 'desperately'

Better roll back the counter on days without the Big 12's stability put in question.
ESPN host, college football hot take-a-thon and SEC apologist Paul Finebaum says he thinks that Oklahoma wants out of the conference "pretty desperately" and that "it doesn't take very much" to get the conference expansion wheels turning again in the NCAA.
"I think the Big 12 is in big trouble, and I think this is something that we have been able to detect for some time," Finebaum said on Birmingham, Ala., radio station WJOX on Monday. "I don't think the Big 12 as we know it will still be in existence in five years."
Finebaum, while naming no sources and saying at one point that what he's sharing is "only rumors," claims that the lack of a Big 12 network plays into the uneasiness.
"There are schools in the Big 12 that have looked to get out, and I think continue to look to get out," Finebaum said. "And they can deny it all they want, but they don't have what the SEC and the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ultimately the ACC are going to have, and that's their own network, which is critical in this world of exploding television reality. And I don't know how you can really survive like that.
"Texas has its own network, but that's another issue. And the league just doesn't seem to be very strong from any standpoint.
"There are a lot of rumors out there -- they're only rumors -- I've heard Commissioner Snakey [Greg Sankey of the SEC] recently, I've heard other commissioners maintain that no one is really in the market for expansion. But it doesn't take very much, and usually these things go in twos. I can think of one school in the Big 12 that would like out pretty desperately, and if that happens, would it have a domino effect? And that school is the University of Oklahoma?"

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/co...ebaum-think-oklahoma-wants-big-12-desperately
 

I'm always fascinated by the possible expansion talks.

Oklahoma would be an interesting choice in that it might open the conference up to TX for recruiting. It would be an unusual choice however for the Big Ten to go there because usually they are all about hitting large media markets. For that matter, a Texas school would be appealing. Of course, everyone wants to have Texas and Notre Dame until you have to deal with Texas and Notre Dame.

Oklahoma at least would seem plausible, but who would their mate be?
Kansas?
Kansas of course, good for basketball, but horrible for football. (But the World needs ditch diggers too, right?) It would be nice for a MN, WI, NEB, OK, IA Big Ten West to have another possible doormat to mark up their records with.

Not sure how real appealing a KC market would be though.

OK might have some washover from TX. Maybe fans in Texas would watch just for the sake of seeing how OK adapts.

Back for the ACC was locked down, a tempting choice would have been Georgia Tech. Everything football in Georgia is all about the bulldogs, but having a little brother in Tech playing in a big conference would have driven viewership. G-Tech is in the center of Atlanta, so that would have been a cool choice.
Partner school at the time could have been Florida State, opening the Big Ten to a strong recruiting ground with Big Ten games being televised down there.

Anyway, The Big Twelve has to die. They couldn't find a school to adopt for expansion, so the opposite becomes more likely.

Grabbing TX A&M before they jumped to the SEC with OK would have worked out well for the Big Ten.
 




The B1G has been fairly emphatic that schools have to be AAU members and in existing or adjacent states to be considered. Nebraska has lost it's membership in AAU, but the other 13 teams are still members. If that is the case the only candidates would be Texas, Iowa State or KU with I State and KU passing the adjacent state test. I'll say it here, I can't imagine a scenario where that would happen.

There is another designation called Carnegie 1 that is slightly less prestigious (115 members vs. 62), but all 14 members of the B1G are members. If that would be the bar then you add OU, TT, K State and WV as possibilities. For the sake of argument, should the B1G want 16 teams and be willing to drop to Carnegie 1, what two schools buy you anything out of those? I State, KU, K State and WV pass the adjacent state test. However I State adds zero dollars, KU, K State and WV add minimal dollars. None really make much sense.

Tech makes sense if you can get BTN on TV's in TX, but fails the adjacent state test. They might want to get out of UT's shadow though.

That said, Texas is the gem, obviously, though also fails the adjacent state test. I know all the drama that would come with them (kind of like the Hope Diamond - I might die but the risk might be worth it?). If ESPN agreed to a deal to sell Longhorn Network to BTN to be merged together (probably would since I have to imagine it's bleeding money) I could see where Texas could be persuaded to join.

So then, who is the next best choice? If you're going to go TX, geography is less important. OU becomes a legitimate candidate if adding TX and the B1G are OK going Carnegie 1. But if not, unless KC and the state of KS has more TV's than I think KU doesn't make much sense and I State makes ZERO sense.

However, there are a couple other options (assuming nobody from ACC, SEC or PAC-12 would bolt). Laugh if you will, but think TV's rather than athletic ability: Tulane or Buffalo. Both are AAU members that are in smaller conferences and would probably jump at the drop of a hat. Both are in states with large populations that add a lot of TV's. Are either really any worse than adding Rutgers?

In the end, I think the B1G may just sit out the demise of the Big 12. As much as it seems like a good opportunity it may just dilute the money more than it adds, which hurts all the schools...
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
The B1G has been fairly emphatic that schools have to be AAU members and in existing or adjacent states to be considered. Nebraska has lost it's membership in AAU, but the other 13 teams are still members. If that is the case the only candidates would be Texas, Iowa State or KU with I State and KU passing the adjacent state test. I'll say it here, I can't imagine a scenario where that would happen.

There is another designation called Carnegie 1 that is slightly less prestigious (115 members vs. 62), but all 14 members of the B1G are members. If that would be the bar then you add OU, TT, K State and WV as possibilities. For the sake of argument, should the B1G want 16 teams and be willing to drop to Carnegie 1, what two schools buy you anything out of those? I State, KU, K State and WV pass the adjacent state test. However I State adds zero dollars, KU, K State and WV add minimal dollars. None really make much sense.

Tech makes sense if you can get BTN on TV's in TX, but fails the adjacent state test. They might want to get out of UT's shadow though.

That said, Texas is the gem, obviously, though also fails the adjacent state test. I know all the drama that would come with them (kind of like the Hope Diamond - I might die but the risk might be worth it?). If ESPN agreed to a deal to sell Longhorn Network to BTN to be merged together (probably would since I have to imagine it's bleeding money) I could see where Texas could be persuaded to join.

So then, who is the next best choice? If you're going to go TX, geography is less important. OU becomes a legitimate candidate if adding TX and the B1G are OK going Carnegie 1. But if not, unless KC and the state of KS has more TV's than I think KU doesn't make much sense and I State makes ZERO sense.

However, there are a couple other options (assuming nobody from ACC, SEC or PAC-12 would bolt). Laugh if you will, but think TV's rather than athletic ability: Tulane or Buffalo. Both are AAU members that are in smaller conferences and would probably jump at the drop of a hat. Both are in states with large populations that add a lot of TV's. Are either really any worse than adding Rutgers?

In the end, I think the B1G may just sit out the demise of the Big 12. As much as it seems like a good opportunity it may just dilute the money more than it adds, which hurts all the schools...
Click to expand...

Athletic Department Budgets (in millions)

Rutgers - $83.97
Buffalo - $31.9
Tulane - $30.0 (est.)

Yes, they both are much worse than adding Rutgers. They can't keep up in vastly inferior conferences, and you want to add them to the Big Ten? Huh? Plus there's the small matter of Rutgers bringing the #1 media market in the country.
 

I'm pretty happy with where B1G is at now, BUT if they do add 2 more schools my choices would be....

Oklahoma
Kansas

From a money/TV perspective...
Oklahoma adds the 41st largest media market in Oklahoma City.
Kansas theoretically adds Kansas City, the 33rd media market.

From a football stand point...
Oklahoma is a no-brainer. Immediately upgrades conference.
Kansas is a doormat. Recruiting wise, could benefit from being a "southern" team in the conference, versus being a "northern" team.

From a basketball stand point...
Oklahoma is decent. Wouldn't hurt at all.
Kansas would be a slam dunk. Immediately puts B1G back into conversation with new ACC.

From an academic stand point...
Oklahoma isn't AAU, but is Carnegi 1.
Kansas is AAU.


Add Oklahoma/Kansas to West and move Purdue to East. Basically trade 1 doormat in West for another, but add a helmet school to offset the East's heavyweights.

Now......I highly doubt we'll see any of this go down for 1 reason. In the above scenario, the Big 12 dies, and that makes Texas a free agent, and likely to move to SEC. I think Delaney is very concerned about that possibility, which would give SEC a virtual stranglehold on all the recruiting hotbeds AND insane numbers of TV sets.
 

You really don't want to add Texas

Forget about its academic standing for a minute(both UT and A&M are exceptional), as
well as its commitment to athletics. Texas does not play well with others in the sandbox.

Texas did much to usher the fall of the old SWC, and Texas was a main reason why
Nebraska (a marquee Big XII school if there ever was one) sought greener pastures.
Even A&M was willing to part ways with them.

I'm all for self-determination and looking out for what's best for your school, but UT
has taken that overboard. The BIG has it right- they share everything. Has it hurt the
competitiveness of the league? Nope. The BIG is still the gold standard of college
athletic conferences, and its because its members value their league membership
so much that they are willing to share. Throwing Texas into the mix would be like
mixing oil and water.
 



I know money will prevent this, but I would just prefer we let the Big12 teams die a natural death and become a lower-tier conference. Clearly a weak Texas and Oklahoma helps everyone except Texas and Oklahoma (which IS the Big 12 - everyone else is just there out of convenience)...but, unfortunately, they have large enough followings where a conference will want them. Just don't make the Big10 West any tougher and I am fine.
 

metrolax said:
Forget about its academic standing for a minute(both UT and A&M are exceptional), as
well as its commitment to athletics. Texas does not play well with others in the sandbox.

Texas did much to usher the fall of the old SWC, and Texas was a main reason why
Nebraska (a marquee Big XII school if there ever was one) sought greener pastures.
Even A&M was willing to part ways with them.

I'm all for self-determination and looking out for what's best for your school, but UT
has taken that overboard. The BIG has it right- they share everything. Has it hurt the
competitiveness of the league? Nope. The BIG is still the gold standard of college
athletic conferences, and its because its members value their league membership
so much that they are willing to share. Throwing Texas into the mix would be like
mixing oil and water.
Click to expand...

It's only a problem if Texas doesn't want to share. But if you could add Notre Dame and Texas, as was rumored once, and they agree to revenue sharing like every other school, you do it. I don't think that will happen, but you never know.
 



Something to keep in mind, the ACC is pretty much on lockdown, but the SEC may still be open.
Most SEC teams aren't going to leave the SEC for the Big Ten but Missouri and Texas A&M are both AAU.

If they weren't 100% happy with the SEC a move to the Big Ten could be better for both.
A&M would open a market. This would likely only happen in an SEC - Big 12 takeover where the SEC grabs Texas Tech, OU, OSU, etc., and would be more likely to let a couple teams float out.

Florida is also an AAU school.
 

If we can get Texas and OU I say go to 16.

I'm sure the Big 10 is reading this and will take my advice.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
Would you and others really want Texas and OU in the West division? Because I don't, and that's what would happen.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I'd rather take Iowa State and Kansas and get another couple of wins on the schedule. We can't even beat wisconsin - what luck would we have against ACTUAL power programs.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Would you and others really want Texas and OU in the West division? Because I don't, and that's what would happen.
Click to expand...


GopherHomer said:
Absolutely not. I'd rather take Iowa State and Kansas and get another couple of wins on the schedule. We can't even beat wisconsin - what luck would we have against ACTUAL power programs.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic guys. The Big 10 isnt really reading this and I don't have enough pull to add teams. Sorry to get you worried.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Athletic Department Budgets (in millions)

Rutgers - $83.97
Buffalo - $31.9
Tulane - $30.0 (est.)

Yes, they both are much worse than adding Rutgers. They can't keep up in vastly inferior conferences, and you want to add them to the Big Ten? Huh? Plus there's the small matter of Rutgers bringing the #1 media market in the country.
Click to expand...

I don't really want either of them. If I had my choice they'd stand pat and if they did expand they'd add USC and Florida (a guy can dream, right?). But if you get all of Louisiana with Tulane (would you?) you get a few more TV's than the entire state of Kansas and KC, MO (Would you get KC, MO? I'd assume?) at 4.7 million vs. around 3.5-4 million populations. New York state has 19.8 million people, 11.3 million in NYC and Long Island (I assume already covered by BTN with Rutgers). That means the rest of NY has over 8 million residents. Granted, I am assuming BTN doesn't go much past NYC as it is.

The point really is that the AAU requirement is a big hurdle. If they had a chance to get UT and UT was willing to play by the B1G's rules it may be too good of an opportunity to pass up. Then it comes to who would be the 16th team.

I grant, KU is still more likely than either Buffalo or Tulane. But if KU got snapped up by the SEC (for example), the options become very limited.

Unless they can convince McGill and/or Toronto to convert to US football. ;)
 

I don't want Oklahoma and Texas (or any other teams) screwing up the best thing the Gophers have going in football -- membership in the Big Ten West, which is the best of both worlds for a school like Minnesota. All the money, exposure, and cachet of the Big Ten, with a very reasonable chance of making it to a major bowl game, conference title game, or even the playoff. Want Oklahoma to skim 50% of the West titles off the top over the coming decades? No thanks.

Not to mention expanding that far afield continues to screw up the league's historical character, Midwestern regional identity, and traditional rivalries. Also, no thanks.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom