Many reports saying TCU invited to Big 12 [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 10:49 AM

And TCU would pay the $5 million exit fee to the Big East and could start Big 12 play next year.

Interesting... At least it would be good for fans travelling. And the fans are the least-considered in all these moves.

Of course, I think the Big 12 is still on borrowed time anyway.

I would do it if I were TCU. TCU (the University itself) probably won't even have to pay the exit fee out of their own pockets. I'm willing to bet the Alumni would kick in and pay it all. If not all, most of it. (TCU has some mega rich Alumni who still carry a huge interest in the school) Big East sucks for football and I don't think the Big 12 is anywhere near dead as most of you seem to think. Especially with the new agreement.

TCU has growing support, but is still a relatively small school. I know why the Big 12 would want them, but I can also see why they wouldn't. This could be a huge boon for TCU. Especially over the Big East.

btw, any links you can provide?

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 10:52 AM

Wow, it actually seems like it's all but official now (http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/32536916).

TCU is replacing Texas A&M.

DFWJC

10-06-2011, 10:54 AM

TCU fits better in the Big 12, imo.

I've heard rumblings that the Big East was considering adding SMU so that TCU would have a Big East rival, but I don't think TCU like thats idea.

Once Missouri decides what they are doing there will be another shuffle.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 10:57 AM

Dallas

10-06-2011, 10:59 AM

And TCU would pay the $5 million exit fee to the Big East and could start Big 12 play next year.

Interesting... At least it would be good for fans travelling. And the fans are the least-considered in all these moves.

Of course, I think the Big 12 is still on borrowed time anyway.

It's not over yet and I doubt very seriously Texas and Oklahoma and the rest of the schools are just playing around and waiting to fail.

They will end up w/ 12 teams again soon.

Hopefully TCU-BYU and another team which hopefully isn't from Texas.

I think the 12 can do better than say an SMU.

I hear some rumblings about Boise State but Im highly suspect. The travel alone isn't fair for that school.

DFWJC

10-06-2011, 11:01 AM

TCU, IMO, is a strong get for the Big 12. As I said before, so long as Texas and OU stay in the Big 12, I think you have the core of a solid Conference. You add TCU, maybe BYU, and Boise State and your a better conference, IMO, then you were when you had TAMU, Nebraska and Colorado. If Missouri leaves, maybe you make another run at ND.

I like the direction this is taking.
If they get those teams, they should be fine.

However, I would not say TCU/BSU/BYU are better overall sports programs than TAMU/Nebraska/Colorado.
But it's a decent patch.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 11:16 AM

If they get those teams, they should be fine.

However, I would not say TCU/BSU/BYU are better overall sports programs than TAMU/Nebraska/Colorado.
But it's a decent patch.

I would. TCU is a good Football and Baseball school with a decent Track Program (TAMU). BYU is a very good Football and Basketball Program (Nebraska) and BSU is light years better in Football then is Colorado who is really good in nothing.

I think they improve with those schools.

Dallas

10-06-2011, 11:24 AM

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 11:25 AM

If they get those teams, they should be fine.

However, I would not say TCU/BSU/BYU are better overall sports programs than TAMU/Nebraska/Colorado.
But it's a decent patch.

Hmm. I disagree. TCU + BSU + BYU is greater than Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Colorado.

Nebraska is the biggest and best of all six teams. Texas A&M doesn't carry near the weight it did many many years ago. Colorado brings no value. They have really nothing to add. They aren't any good and haven't been any good. TCU, BSU, and BYU? All three are competitive and all three have garnered many nationally televised games recently.

Of course, as of right now, it's only TCU joining the Big 12.

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 11:33 AM

IBTimes (http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20111006/226350_big-12-expansion-byu-tcu-louisville-west-virginia.htm) says BYU, Louisville, and WVU also in the running. (nothing about BSU)

If they grab WVU and BYU on top of TCU, to would still be a huge win for the Big 12 even without BSU.

BrAinPaiNt

10-06-2011, 11:35 AM

Rumor I heard.

BYU having a presser later today and some believe it is to announce they are headed to Big XII

Just a rumor I heard...have no clue of the validity.

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 12:02 PM

It's all but offical. TCU has not only already informed the Big East of it's intentions, but Mountain West Conference too (http://espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/story/_/id/7066994/sources-tcu-horned-frogs-meeting-discuss-big-12-invite). It appears the only thing left is to get TCU's board of regents to perform the actual formal voting process.

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 12:05 PM

Rumor I heard.

BYU having a presser later today and some believe it is to announce they are headed to Big XII

Just a rumor I heard...have no clue of the validity.

Unsubstantiated rumor (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220342)! BAN HIM!!! :laugh2:

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 12:07 PM

The conference is more competitive than it has ever been and with the stability of solid and consistent programs like TCU and BYU it will remain an elite AQ conference, definitely a better one in 2012 than it is in 2011 or 2010.

Chocolate Lab

10-06-2011, 12:56 PM

Rumor I heard.

BYU having a presser later today and some believe it is to announce they are headed to Big XII

Just a rumor I heard...have no clue of the validity.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. They've been mentioned in this Big 12 talk for weeks now, and it would make sense if they and TCU announced on the same day.

BTW, there's no way this conference is stronger than it was with NU and A&M, but this would limit the damage. As a north Texan, I like TCU coming back to play UT and Baylor and Tech like in the old SWC days. And they should have good games with OU and OSU, too. Very nice that they're geographically close, as it should be.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 12:59 PM

Unsubstantiated rumor (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220342)! BAN HIM!!! :laugh2:

Tomorrow we can Ban him NYC. By that time, it will be a substantiated story and we will have saved ourselves all the trouble of Banning somebody?

Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 01:06 PM

Tomorrow we can Ban him NYC. By that time, it will be a substantiated story and we will have saved ourselves all the trouble of Banning somebody?

Don't you love it when a plan comes together?The Big 12 is really shapng up nicely, really thwarts a certain departing bitter institution's plan to undo the conference as if they were the linch pin of it, now all they've done is shut themselves out of Texas sports, sad really.

But a Big 12 South comprised of OU, UT, OK St., Baylor, Tech and TCU is pretty outstanding in terms of competition.

The Big 12 North needs a bit of a face lift but Kansas State is no slouch, Kansas has it's good years, Mizzou needs to to decide if it wants to stay or go and the addition of BYU and let's speculate WV or BSU would make a terrific balance of power.

StylisticS

10-06-2011, 01:32 PM

The Texas 247 site is saying Notre Dame is in the mix as well.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 01:34 PM

Wouldn't surprise me at all. They've been mentioned in this Big 12 talk for weeks now, and it would make sense if they and TCU announced on the same day.

BTW, there's no way this conference is stronger than it was with NU and A&M, but this would limit the damage. As a north Texan, I like TCU coming back to play UT and Baylor and Tech like in the old SWC days. And they should have good games with OU and OSU, too. Very nice that they're geographically close, as it should be.

I agree, adding TCU is enough to pull the Big XII off life suport, but their long term fate, is still tied to UT and OU. I can still see both schools bolting to the Pac 12 (along with OSU and TTU) in a few years.

I would also add what Missouri does will be key. If they get a formal invite to the SEC, then the Big XII will still need another 3 schoold to get to the 12 needed for a conference championship game.

If Missouri gets an invite from the SEC, then I really feel UT, TTU, OU and OSU will end up bolting for the Pac 12 and the remaining schoold will be forced to scramble for a new conference.

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 01:34 PM

The Texas 247 site is saying Notre Dame is in the mix as well.Certainly a profile bonanza, they'd spice up the Big 12 North.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 01:39 PM

The Texas 247 site is saying Notre Dame is in the mix as well.

no way is Notre Dame joing the Big 12. If they join a conference it will either be the Big X, so they can keep the majority of their big money games, Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue or the ACC where they still have Boston College and Pittsburgh as well as a much easier conference.

StylisticS

10-06-2011, 01:42 PM

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 01:43 PM

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 01:46 PM

no way is Notre Dame joing the Big 12. If they join a conference it will either be the Big X, so they can keep the majority of their big money games, Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue or the ACC where they still have Boston College and Pittsburgh as well as a much easier conference.

Word is DeLoss Dodds is in direct conversations with Notre Dame about joining the Big12. Whether that happens or not, remains to be seen. Of course, rumors are flying about WVU joining the Big12 on top of TCU and possibly BYU.

If the Big12 lands TCU, WVU, Notre Dame, and BYU? That would be an enormous boost over the last several years of the Big12.

I think it would be huge for Notre Dame too. They haven't exactly being tearing it up lately. They could use a big conference to help them and if those schools all join. The Big12 would be become a prime conference again.

StylisticS

10-06-2011, 01:53 PM

Word is DeLoss Dodds is in direct conversations with Notre Dame about joining the Big12. Whether that happens or not, remains to be seen. Of course, rumors are flying about WVU joining the Big12 on top of TCU and possibly BYU.

If the Big12 lands TCU, WVU, Notre Dame, and BYU? That would be an enormous boost over the last several years of the Big12.

I think it would be huge for Notre Dame too. They haven't exactly being tearing it up lately. They could use a big conference to help them and if those schools all join. The Big12 would be become a prime conference again.

Its a huge boost for both sides. You get a national market and ND has access to Texas recruits.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 01:56 PM

Big 10 will not happen. If they join the Big 10, they half to give up their exclusive TV contract with NBC.

and I doubt the big XII would allow them to keep their exclusive TV contract, if so, you're almost begging the smaller schools like Missouri to look for better options.

I don't neccesarily think the Big X or ACC will hapen, unless it's a situation where ND has to join a conference. Like I've been harping on, if the 4 big xii schools join the pac 12, it will likely lead to the 4 remaining football conferences (ACC, SEC, Big X and Pac 12) to begin expanding with the remnants of the Big East and Big 12. Nothing short of that will force Notre Dame to join a conference.

Kolemmitt

10-06-2011, 01:57 PM

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 01:59 PM

and I doubt the big XII would allow them to keep their exclusive TV contract, if so, you're almost begging the smaller schools like Missouri to look for better options.

I don't neccesarily think the Big X or ACC will hapen, unless it's a situation where ND has to join a conference. Like I've been harping on, if the 4 big xii schools join the pac 12, it will likely lead to the 4 remaining football conferences (ACC, SEC, Big X and Pac 12) to begin expanding with the remnants of the Big East and Big 12. Nothing short of that will force Notre Dame to join a conference.

ND is getting to the point that they are going to have to join a conference. They aren't recruiting as well as they used too. If they don't stay competitive, their own network isn't going to do **** for them.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 02:00 PM

I agree, adding TCU is enough to pull the Big XII off life suport, but their long term fate, is still tied to UT and OU. I can still see both schools bolting to the Pac 12 (along with OSU and TTU) in a few years.

I would also add what Missouri does will be key. If they get a formal invite to the SEC, then the Big XII will still need another 3 schoold to get to the 12 needed for a conference championship game.

If Missouri gets an invite from the SEC, then I really feel UT, TTU, OU and OSU will end up bolting for the Pac 12 and the remaining schoold will be forced to scramble for a new conference.

If Missouri gets an invite to join the SEC, which IMO in no sure thing, the Big 12 will not fold and Texas, OU, Tech and OkieSt. will not bolt. They already have plans to address this. In addition to TCU and BYU, which has been mentioned, the Big 12 is also considering WV, Louisville, Tulane and reports are resurfacing on Notre Dame as well. Whatever happens, the Big 12 is not going to fold if Missouri leaves.

Besides, at this point, I have seen nothing that suggests the SEC is offering membership.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 02:01 PM

Love to see this! College football without the Big XII is just not right. I would love to see BYU and BSU also added, but I would not be surprised if Boise comes up on the next round of expansion talks if and when they decide to go to 14 or 16.

Honestly, had the Big XII added TCU and Boise when Nebraska and Colorado left, there may not have been a need to placate Texas with the amount of freedoms for their Longhorns network and Texas A&M may not have left.

All of this could have been avoided, but bad leadership landed this conference in the mess it's in now and I'm not sure if adding TCU now will be enough to save it.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 02:06 PM

Honestly, had the Big XII added TCU and Boise when Nebraska and Colorado left, there may not have been a need to placate Texas with the amount of freedoms for their Longhorns network and Texas A&M may not have left.

All of this could have been avoided, but bad leadership landed this conference in the mess it's in now and I'm not sure if adding TCU now will be enough to save it.

TAMU was planning to jump ship before Texas ever came up with the idea to start the LHN. Missouri would get paid more this year if they stayed in the Big 12 (20 Million) then if they joined the SEC (18.5). If Missouri leaves, it's because they want to leave and it probably has nothing to do with money.

Chocolate Lab

10-06-2011, 02:12 PM

I've been listening to OKC radio in the mornings where this is a big topic of discussion and several of them are really wired in to what's going on behind the scenes. What they've been saying is that Missouri really wants out, but that the Big Ten and now the SEC (at least for now) don't want them. So they might not have much choice but to stay.

I don't think the Pac 12 wants Texas because they won't allow UT to keep the Longhorn Network. And without UT, the Pac 12 doesn't want OU and OSU.

I'd still like to see OU join the SEC, but they want to stay with Okla State and supposedly don't love the rep the SEC has for shady recruiting. But now that their real preference Pac-12 has said no, who knows.

One thing that's been tossed around has been the SEC adding three teams to go with A&M to get to that 16 number, and then maybe they could take OU, OSU, and some other school.

It's all pretty wild and I don't think it's over yet. These schools are wary of Texas now and know the Big 12 is still on very shaky ground.

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 02:14 PM

If Missouri gets an invite to join the SEC, which IMO in no sure thing, the Big 12 will not fold and Texas, OU, Tech and OkieSt. will not bolt. They already have plans to address this. In addition to TCU and BYU, which has been mentioned, the Big 12 is also considering WV, Louisville, Tulane and reports are resurfacing on Notre Dame as well. Whatever happens, the Big 12 is not going to fold if Missouri leaves.

Besides, at this point, I have seen nothing that suggests the SEC is offering membership.Exactly and what is so dog gone special about Mizzou anyhow, the St. Louis tv market is their biggest draw, they're a solid program from time to time but they aren't indispensable and they're even less equipped than A&M to handle the SEC, A&M at least had the battle tests of the Big 12 South, the Big 12 North even with Nebraska at full strength was never as imposing.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 02:33 PM

ND is getting to the point that they are going to have to join a conference. They aren't recruiting as well as they used too. If they don't stay competitive, their own network isn't going to do **** for them.

Conventional wisdom does agree with you, but Notre Dame is still the biggest draw in college football. Notre Dame hasn't been good in a while, but NBC back in 2008 signed an extension through 2015.

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 02:34 PM

Conventional wisdom does agree with you, but Notre Dame is still the biggest draw in college football. Notre Dame hasn't been good in a while, but NBC back in 2008 signed an extension through 2015.
I think ND would gain greatly from creating new rivalries as their old ones have diminished to near nothing, does anyone care about the USC/ ND show down anymore, particularly in light of the state of both programs?

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 02:40 PM

TAMU was planning to jump ship before Texas ever came up with the idea to start the LHN. Missouri would get paid more this year if they stayed in the Big 12 (20 Million) then if they joined the SEC (18.5). If Missouri leaves, it's because they want to leave and it probably has nothing to do with money.

yeah but they declined an invite or at the very least, assurances that an invite would be given out, last year when Nebraska and Colorado left. TAMU had an opportunity to bolt then, but choose to stay because their preference was to stay in the Big XII, but the Longhorns network gave Texas a much larger advantage so they decided to stay.

and as far as money for Missouri goes, ofcourse they will get a bigger cut in a conference with 10 teams, than a conference with 12 teams. however, for Missouri, the fear of getting left out is driving them. At the very least we know the Pac 12, ACC, Big X and SEC aren't going anywhere. And we know that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will find a home if the Big XII folds. The other schools all kinda feel like they need to find a home asap, or they could get left out.

Missouri isn't that great of a program, but if the SEC/Big Ten decide to expand, Missouri is likely more attractive than anyone else in the field.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 02:46 PM

I think ND would gain greatly from creating new rivalries as their old ones have diminished to near nothing, does anyone care about the USC/ ND show down anymore, particularly in light of the state of both programs?

Easy to say if your not a ND/USC fan (I'm not either), but people do pay attention to USC/Notre Dame and Michigan/Notre Dame. I mean should Florida State and Miami discontinue their rivalry as well? Ofcourse not.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 02:52 PM

yeah but they declined an invite or at the very least, assurances that an invite would be given out, last year when Nebraska and Colorado left. TAMU had an opportunity to bolt then, but choose to stay because their preference was to stay in the Big XII, but the Longhorns network gave Texas a much larger advantage so they decided to stay.

and as far as money for Missouri goes, ofcourse they will get a bigger cut in a conference with 10 teams, than a conference with 12 teams. however, for Missouri, the fear of getting left out is driving them. At the very least we know the Pac 12, ACC, Big X and SEC aren't going anywhere. And we know that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will find a home if the Big XII folds. The other schools all kinda feel like they need to find a home asap, or they could get left out.

Missouri isn't that great of a program, but if the SEC/Big Ten decide to expand, Missouri is likely more attractive than anyone else in the field.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but TAMU did not have the chance to jump to the SEC last year. SEC wanted Texas and OU as part of the deal. They stayed in the Big 12 because they did not have an exclusive invite to the SEC. So long as Texas an OU stay in the Big 12, the Big 12 is viable. Missouri doesn't have any reason to fear because the Big 12 is not losing either of those two Marquee teams but either way, it doesn't matter. They can leave if they want. The Big 10 has already said that they have no interest so they aren't going there. SEC has not made any formal offer so I don't see them headed there. If they are not careful, they are going to find themselves with no chair left when the music stops.

Chocolate Lab

10-06-2011, 02:55 PM

Conventional wisdom does agree with you, but Notre Dame is still the biggest draw in college football. Not sure if serious...

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 03:00 PM

Not sure if serious...

I agree. I think ND is still a draw but I don't think they are the Biggest Draw. I would say that Texas, USC (when not on probation), Bama, Florida, OU and LSU are the biggest draws in College football right now.

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 03:13 PM

Conventional wisdom does agree with you, but Notre Dame is still the biggest draw in college football. Notre Dame hasn't been good in a while, but NBC back in 2008 signed an extension through 2015.

That isn't even close to correct. Actually, I'm not even sure ND was top 10 last year. I read somewhere that Nebraska beat ND in viewer ratings by a substantial amount.

DFWJC

10-06-2011, 03:25 PM

I would. TCU is a good Football and Baseball school with a decent Track Program (TAMU). BYU is a very good Football and Basketball Program (Nebraska) and BSU is light years better in Football then is Colorado who is really good in nothing.

I think they improve with those schools.

Let's just go with two things that College ADs and Presidents look at for an all-sports conference:

Overall Sports ranking 2010-11 Seasons:
TAMU (8th) so WAY ahead of the rest...now good in almost all sports
.
.
Nebraska (33rd)
BYU (37th)
.
.
TCU (53rd)
Colorado (66th)
.
.
Boise St (83rd)

-------------------------------
Academic ranking (this is not the ACC folks...lol):

TAMU (58th) also a big lead
.
BYU (71)
.
Colorado (94)
TCU (97)
Nebraska (101)
.
.
.
.
Boise St (>>200)

-----------------------------------------
Also, rolling average top sports shcools over last 10 years:
There are 4 in group the top 40:

Nebraska (19th)
TAMU (24th)
BYU (25th)
Colorado (38th)

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 03:30 PM

Easy to say if your not a ND/USC fan (I'm not either), but people do pay attention to USC/Notre Dame and Michigan/Notre Dame. I mean should Florida State and Miami discontinue their rivalry as well? Ofcourse not.OU/ nebraska did and they aren't going through hard times with their programs, A&M just ditched UT.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 03:41 PM

Let's just go with two things that College ADs and Presidents look at for an all-sports conference:

Overall Sports ranking 2010-11 Seasons:
TAMU (8th) so WAY ahead of the rest...now good in almost all sports
.
.
Nebraska (33rd)
BYU (37th)
.
.
TCU (53rd)
Colorado (66th)
.
.
Boise St (83rd)

-------------------------------
Academic ranking (this is not the ACC folks...lol):

TAMU (58th) also a big lead
.
BYU (71)
.
Colorado (94)
TCU (97)
Nebraska (101)
.
.
.
.
Boise St (>>200)

-----------------------------------------
Also, rolling average top sports shcools over last 10 years:
There are 4 in group the top 40:

Nebraska (19th)
TAMU (24th)
BYU (25th)
Colorado (38th)

Would be a good argument if all sports made money. They don't so really what we are talking about are major TV draws. That's Football, Baseball and Basketball. All the rest drain money. If you break it down that way, review these programs again and see how they stack up.

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 03:41 PM

Let's just go with two things that College ADs and Presidents look at for an all-sports conference:

Overall Sports ranking 2010-11 Seasons:
TAMU (8th) so WAY ahead of the rest...now good in almost all sports
.
.
Nebraska (33rd)
BYU (37th)
.
.
TCU (53rd)
Colorado (66th)
.
.
Boise St (83rd)

-------------------------------
Academic ranking (this is not the ACC folks...lol):

TAMU (58th) also a big lead
.
BYU (71)
.
Colorado (94)
TCU (97)
Nebraska (101)
.
.
.
.
Boise St (>>200)

-----------------------------------------
Also, rolling average top sports shcools over last 10 years:
There are 4 in group the top 40:

Nebraska (19th)
TAMU (24th)
BYU (25th)
Colorado (38th)

Where are you getting these numbers? They aren't all matching stuff I'm finding listing this type info on Google.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 04:01 PM

Exactly and what is so dog gone special about Mizzou anyhow, the St. Louis tv market is their biggest draw, they're a solid program from time to time but they aren't indispensable and they're even less equipped than A&M to handle the SEC, A&M at least had the battle tests of the Big 12 South, the Big 12 North even with Nebraska at full strength was never as imposing.

Missouri imo, is likely just the best of the rest. WVU academic profile is holding them back, Kansas and K-State just aren't as big of draws in football. Louisville's program isn't really strong enough. So imo, Missouri will get the first call from the SEC or Big Ten if they decide to expand

MC KAos

10-06-2011, 04:08 PM

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 04:08 PM

Whatever the case, with regards to Missouri and the SEC, according to discussion with the SEC today, the SEC meet to plan for an athletic season of 2012-2013 consisting of 13 teams. According to reports, there was no consideration for further expansion until some time after that.

What that means to me is that Missouri isn't going to the SEC until 2013-2014 earliest and they have already said, themselves, that the BIG 10 had no interest in offering an invitation so I don't know what their options are. I would expect the Big 12 offer Missouri a place in the Big 12 in exchange for a long term commitment. If Missouri elects not to accept that, then I don't know what they would do. I guess they could be an independent for a year and hope that they get an offer next year. They could try a TAMU deal and promise to stay on but leave the next year. I don't see that working myself. I would expect that the new Big 12 Commissioner will probably block that by adding stiff monetary penalties designed to discourage any sort of commitment defaults. I think that if what the SEC is saying turns out to be true, Missouri is in a bad spot. Not a lot of options that I can see.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 04:13 PM

in regards to ND joining the big 12, from what ive heard, this would be as a non football member. basically the same deal they currently have with the big east. they would probably start a yearly rivalry with texas though and rotate games with other teams in the big 12.

They would be stupid not to play Texas, OU, OkSt. and TCU imo. Those would all be major TV draws in an area they sorely need exposure in. I guess we'll see.

DFWJC

10-06-2011, 04:15 PM

Where are you getting these numbers? They aren't all matching stuff I'm finding listing this type info on Google.
The standard

Division 1 All Sports "Director's Cup" 2010-2011
US News & World Report National College ratings 2011

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2010-11/misc_non_event/finald12011.pdf

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 04:20 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here but TAMU did not have the chance to jump to the SEC last year. SEC wanted Texas and OU as part of the deal. They stayed in the Big 12 because they did not have an exclusive invite to the SEC. So long as Texas an OU stay in the Big 12, the Big 12 is viable. Missouri doesn't have any reason to fear because the Big 12 is not losing either of those two Marquee teams but either way, it doesn't matter. They can leave if they want. The Big 10 has already said that they have no interest so they aren't going there. SEC has not made any formal offer so I don't see them headed there. If they are not careful, they are going to find themselves with no chair left when the music stops.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Texas A&M had an opportunity to join the SEC, but opted not to. And it's not like Missouri is going to get kicked out the Big XII, so they only way they get left w/o a seat is if the conference folds.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 04:37 PM

Not sure if serious...

I'm having trouble finding it, but awhile ago, espn did a poll and Notre Dame was bar far the most popular team in every age group 25+, with the percentage increasing with each demographic. If I can find it, I'll post it.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 04:47 PM

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Texas A&M had an opportunity to join the SEC, but opted not to. And it's not like Missouri is going to get kicked out the Big XII, so they only way they get left w/o a seat is if the conference folds.

I don't believe that is correct. I believe that the deal was, TAMU bring OU and Texas. That didn't happen.

As for Missouri, I don't think so. Missouri, IMO, would have to be willing to accept a long term affiliation. If they don't do that, there is nothing that says the Big 12 has to do anything for Missouri. There is a place for them if they want to commit to the Big 12 but if they simply want to kill time until a prettier girl comes along, I think they could find themselves out in the cold.

Manwiththeplan

10-06-2011, 05:01 PM

I don't believe that is correct. I believe that the deal was, TAMU bring OU and Texas. That didn't happen.

so what happened between june and now? The sec suddenly changed their minds? possible. jmo, the sec wanted a Texas team and texas a&m were the disgruntled ones, so they targeted them.

As for Missouri, I don't think so. Missouri, IMO, would have to be willing to accept a long term affiliation. If they don't do that, there is nothing that says the Big 12 has to do anything for Missouri. There is a place for them if they want to commit to the Big 12 but if they simply want to kill time until a prettier girl comes along, I think they could find themselves out in the cold.

It's a bold move to vote out Missouri, which may make the Big 12 schools feel better, but may not be in the best intrest of the conference. Doubt it happens.

ABQCOWBOY

10-06-2011, 05:20 PM

so what happened between june and now? The sec suddenly changed their minds? possible. jmo, the sec wanted a Texas team and texas a&m were the disgruntled ones, so they targeted them.

Possibly. However, I think what happened is that the landscape changed. At the time, the thought was that Texas and OU were going to be brought into the PAC 10 by Colorado. Texas could not jump to the PAC 10 without TAMU. TAMU wanted to go to the SEC so they cut a deal that said if they could bring Texas and OU, the SEC would take them all. Texas never wanted to go to the SEC because their AD wants to create an academic situation in which the conference qualifies for Federal Funding/Grant Money, much like the Big 10 now enjoys. The Big 10 makes more money of off their scientific grant funding then they do all of the athletics combined. Texas AD is interested in the same kind of thing for the Big 12, which is why they do not want to go to the SEC. This is essentially what I recall from that whole deal.

Now, there is no possibility that Texas or OU are going to the PAC12 and neither of them seem eager to join the SEC so TAMU offers one thing that the SEC covets. The ability to actively recruit into Texas. There are probably other dynamics involved but I suspect that this is the jest of it.

It's a bold move to vote out Missouri, which may make the Big 12 schools feel better, but may not be in the best intrest of the conference. Doubt it happens.

On the contrary. It would be more dangerous to allow them to stay only to see them jump to another conference in a year. That would basically establish a track record in which the Big 12 would lose members for 3 straight years. That would serve to undermind the Big 12 more then anything else IMO. The Big 12, assuming they acquire 3 or 4 more solid teams, needs to show stability for a period of time. In order to get a lucrative TV contract renewal, they have to be solid. Missouri jumping ship next year would hurt the Big 12 much more then if they did it this year IMO.

MC KAos

10-06-2011, 05:30 PM

i think its pretty clear that missouri wants out and thats why they dont want to make the commitment the rest of the schools have made. i hope they get an invite to the SEC, not because i want them to leave or because i think its best for the conference, but because i really dont want to have a school in the conference that doesnt want to be here and could make it chaotic in the future. so hopefully they leave, we bring in byu and whomever else and move on.

The30YardSlant

10-06-2011, 05:36 PM

OU/ nebraska did and they aren't going through hard times with their programs, A&M just ditched UT.

Correction, we ditched UT's conference. Texas is the one unwilling to continue the rivalry.

The30YardSlant

10-06-2011, 05:39 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here but TAMU did not have the chance to jump to the SEC last year. SEC wanted Texas and OU as part of the deal. They stayed in the Big 12 because they did not have an exclusive invite to the SEC. So long as Texas an OU stay in the Big 12, the Big 12 is viable. Missouri doesn't have any reason to fear because the Big 12 is not losing either of those two Marquee teams but either way, it doesn't matter. They can leave if they want. The Big 10 has already said that they have no interest so they aren't going there. SEC has not made any formal offer so I don't see them headed there. If they are not careful, they are going to find themselves with no chair left when the music stops.

A&M had an offer to join last summer, all we had to do was submit our notice that we were leaving the Big XII and the SEC would have voted us in in the exact same process that occured this year. A&M agreed to stay with the Big XII on the premise that Texas would not try and show high school or conference games on the network they were planning (among other terms). When Texas went back on the gentleman's agreement, the ball started rolling again

DFWJC

10-06-2011, 05:46 PM

A&M had an offer to join last summer, all we had to do was submit our notice that we were leaving the Big XII and the SEC would have voted us in in the exact same process that occured this year. A&M agreed to stay with the Big XII on the premise that Texas would not try and show high school or conference games on the network they were planning (among other terms). When Texas went back on the gentleman's agreement, the ball started rolling again
I think all is correct except the bolded statement. There is no evidence that Texas gave a gentleman's agreement to not show HS games, etc.
Of course, now he sounds like they have come to a formal agreement to not do so.

The whole TV thing is odd anyway, seeing that Texas offered A&M a fair shot form the very beginning to partner with them and A&M turned them down. Then when it looked lucrative, everyone started crying foul.

A&M came out of this just fine, nevertheless. The SEC is a definite upgrade.

The30YardSlant

10-06-2011, 06:08 PM

I think all is correct except the bolded statement. There is no evidence that Texas gave a gentleman's agreement to not show HS games, etc.
Of course, now he sounds like they have come to a formal agreement to not do so.

The whole TV thing is odd anyway, seeing that Texas offered A&M a fair shot form the very beginning to partner with them and A&M turned them down. Then when it looked lucrative, everyone started crying foul.

A&M came out of this just fine, nevertheless. The SEC is a definite upgrade.

Had Texas come to that "formal agreement" sooner, A&M may still be in the Big XII.

Also, Texas going back on their agreement was stated specifically by the A&M president and board of regents as one of the several major reasons why we sought membership in the SEC, along with a perceived lack of quality leadership with regards to Dan Beebe and a lack of conference stability due to many factors. It's no coincidence that the first stories of us looking back into the SEC deal came out less than a week after it came out Texas was trying to show UIL events on their network.

Chocolate Lab

10-06-2011, 06:25 PM

Would be a good argument if all sports made money. They don't so really what we are talking about are major TV draws. That's Football, Baseball and Basketball. All the rest drain money. If you break it down that way, review these programs again and see how they stack up.

You can make it just football. Football is really the only one that matters because it's by far the biggest, and in some cases the only, money maker.

DFWJC

10-06-2011, 06:36 PM

You can make it just football. Football is really the only one that matters because it's by far the biggest, and in some cases the only, money maker.
Football is the primary money maker, but major all-sport conferences do not add teams based on that alone. The TV contracts are in place for the most part. Also, the selction is absolutelya two-tiered thing that includes the school President and the AD.

Just some of the entry topics: How the school fares in Football,
then the other revenue sports (only a couple),
followed by the remaining sport
...all combined with the school's academic reputation, national appeal, tv market, alumni base, and overall long-term reputation.

There are a ton of factors that go into adding a school into an all-sports conference.

BrAinPaiNt

10-06-2011, 07:51 PM

What's the odds of WVU, Missouri and FSU joining the SEC to make it a 16 team conference?

Hmmm

Robbieac

10-06-2011, 08:33 PM

Aikbach

10-06-2011, 10:41 PM

Before I say anything, let it be known that I do not have an affiliation or allegiance with any of the college teams. I usually just like to see any of the Texas teams play well since I'm from Texas.

I'm excited about TCU being added to the Big12. They essentially replace A&M in terms of importance and competition without A&M's cocky, self-important attitude. The only people who have given a rat's *** about A&M for the last 10-15 years are people who have some sort of A&M connection. I think that their jealousy finally got the better of them. A&M is to the Washington Redsk*ns as UT and OU are to the Dallas Cowboys. They are only important in their own eyes.

After the initial hype of the conference switch wears off, A&M's recruiting of Texas athletes will wilt to only scrap heap players. A whole lot of Texas' great athletes either want to play for Texas, Oklahoma, or teams who play Texas or Oklahoma. Those athletes won't want to only play teams who have no local connections or local bragging rights. That's why A&M still wants to keep playing Texas. They know that if they don't play the local big boys a large stream of their recruits will come to a screeching halt.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that A&M will come crawling back to the local big boys in the next 10-15 years. If you're going to get an annual ***-kicking, you might as well get it from the locals instead of having to go across the country to get it.

Welcome TCU! I will be rooting for you! :)You're not kidding pal, A&M has contacted Baylor's men and women's basketball programs about future scheduling and been declined. They are being snubbed by the rest of the state of Texas.

Sam I Am

10-06-2011, 10:47 PM

Goodbye Texas A&M. Hope you prefer longer travel times to accept inevitable losses.

Air Force One

10-06-2011, 11:28 PM

My hope is that we(Texas) kick the crap out of A&M this year, and then never agree to play them again. I want to leave them with the eternal taste of losing to the Longhorns as a going away present and them never having a way to avenge it. Then they can go to the SEC where they will spend the next decade in the gutter.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 09:57 AM

A&M had an offer to join last summer, all we had to do was submit our notice that we were leaving the Big XII and the SEC would have voted us in in the exact same process that occured this year. A&M agreed to stay with the Big XII on the premise that Texas would not try and show high school or conference games on the network they were planning (among other terms). When Texas went back on the gentleman's agreement, the ball started rolling again

I'm sorry Slant but I have read nothing that confirms this. I don't follow TAMU Football religiously so it is possible that I have missed certain aspects but if proof of this is out there, I would certainly like see it.

As to the HS football thing, as I understand it, that's an ESPN thing and not a Texas thing.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 10:00 AM

Had Texas come to that "formal agreement" sooner, A&M may still be in the Big XII.

Also, Texas going back on their agreement was stated specifically by the A&M president and board of regents as one of the several major reasons why we sought membership in the SEC, along with a perceived lack of quality leadership with regards to Dan Beebe and a lack of conference stability due to many factors. It's no coincidence that the first stories of us looking back into the SEC deal came out less than a week after it came out Texas was trying to show UIL events on their network.

It's a convenient out but as has been said in this thread before, it's a known fact that A&M was interested in jumping to the SEC long before the idea of a LHN was ever conceived. I think the fact that Texas did offer equal share to TAMU in that deal is also proof of the fact that this was not about the LHN. This was about TAMU wanting to jump to the SEC.

DFWJC

10-07-2011, 10:06 AM

It's a convenient out but as has been said in this thread before, it's a known fact that A&M was interested in jumping to the SEC long before the idea of a LHN was ever conceived. I think the fact that Texas did offer equal share to TAMU in that deal is also proof of the fact that this was not about the LHN. This was about TAMU wanting to jump to the SEC.
Totally agree with this.

Cythim

10-07-2011, 11:10 AM

I don't believe that is correct. I believe that the deal was, TAMU bring OU and Texas. That didn't happen.

As for Missouri, I don't think so. Missouri, IMO, would have to be willing to accept a long term affiliation. If they don't do that, there is nothing that says the Big 12 has to do anything for Missouri. There is a place for them if they want to commit to the Big 12 but if they simply want to kill time until a prettier girl comes along, I think they could find themselves out in the cold.

As far as I know Texas was never part of the deal with the SEC. They wanted OU and TAMU and either or both were fine with them. Once OU backed away TAMU did as well, though they obviously did not want to.

==========================
"Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in the Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option.
“There was a time when A&M thought they were going to the SEC, and they very much wanted us to go with them,” Boren said.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/big_12/article/OU-SEC-courted-Aggies-Sooners-785743.php#ixzz1a73qzmBC

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 11:22 AM

As far as I know Texas was never part of the deal with the SEC. They wanted OU and TAMU and either or both were fine with them. Once OU backed away TAMU did as well, though they obviously did not want to.

==========================
"Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in the Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option.
“There was a time when A&M thought they were going to the SEC, and they very much wanted us to go with them,” Boren said.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/big_12/article/OU-SEC-courted-Aggies-Sooners-785743.php#ixzz1a73qzmBC

As I recall, at the time, the PAC 10 wanted Texas to come over. TAMU wanted the SEC and the SEC wanted TAMU and OU. Everybody thought that Texas to the PAC 10 was a done deal. OU said they would not leave without Texas so it had to be a deal for OU, Texas if it were any deal at all.

This is how I recall all of that shaking out last summer.

As to why TAMU wanted to join the SEC, I think that's a whole other story. When it comes right down to it, I just think A&M wants to be in the SEC. I think it's as simple as that.

Cythim

10-07-2011, 11:24 AM

Would be a good argument if all sports made money. They don't so really what we are talking about are major TV draws. That's Football, Baseball and Basketball. All the rest drain money. If you break it down that way, review these programs again and see how they stack up.

I do not know how the other programs have done but TAMU has been in the basketball tournament the last 6 years, the baseball tournament the last 5 years (with one CWS appearance), and has been bowl eligible in 10 of the last 15 years.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 11:27 AM

Texas / OU is one of the biggest and best rivalries in all of college football. (personally, I think it *IS* the best rivalries in college football bar none) It would be absolutely ignorant to break them up by switching to different conferences.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 11:45 AM

Chocolate Lab

10-07-2011, 11:48 AM

Before I say anything, let it be known that I do not have an affiliation or allegiance with any of the college teams. I usually just like to see any of the Texas teams play well since I'm from Texas.

I'm excited about TCU being added to the Big12. They essentially replace A&M in terms of importance and competition without A&M's cocky, self-important attitude. The only people who have given a rat's *** about A&M for the last 10-15 years are people who have some sort of A&M connection. I think that their jealousy finally got the better of them. A&M is to the Washington Redsk*ns as UT and OU are to the Dallas Cowboys. They are only important in their own eyes.

After the initial hype of the conference switch wears off, A&M's recruiting of Texas athletes will wilt to only scrap heap players. A whole lot of Texas' great athletes either want to play for Texas, Oklahoma, or teams who play Texas or Oklahoma. Those athletes won't want to only play teams who have no local connections or local bragging rights. That's why A&M still wants to keep playing Texas. They know that if they don't play the local big boys a large stream of their recruits will come to a screeching halt.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that A&M will come crawling back to the local big boys in the next 10-15 years. If you're going to get an annual ***-kicking, you might as well get it from the locals instead of having to go across the country to get it.

Welcome TCU! I will be rooting for you! :)
Totally disagree. I'm mostly in the same boat you are, having graduated from a small school with no football program to speak of. But I like A&M and have always hoped they'd get things on track because that program really is a sleeping giant with unsurpassed fan support. I like TCU -- I was born not too far from their campus -- but they can't begin to compare to A&M. That's why they weren't even in an AQ conference until now.

And A&M won't be crawling back to the "big boys" because they're going right now to the "big boys". I go back to the SWC days so I root for teams from this area, but there's no doubt that the SEC is the biggest dog on the block and it's not even close.

Finally, people seem to forget for some reason that Oklahoma wasn't in the same conference as Texas for decades, and they still played each other. OU didn't have any problem recruiting Texas players, either.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 11:48 AM

I do not know how the other programs have done but TAMU has been in the basketball tournament the last 6 years, the baseball tournament the last 5 years (with one CWS appearance), and has been bowl eligible in 10 of the last 15 years.

I don't think that 10 years is a good measuring stick. For example, TCU and Boise have not had top shelf football programs for 10 years so that measurement hurts the comparison. However, they have had pretty good programs for a good 5 years. As example, BYU has been in the NCAA tournament 8 out of the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, they have gone to 7 Bowl games. However, I also think that when you are talking about Bowls, you really should be making a distinction between BCS Bowls and just Bowl eligible. The payoff for the BCS is much more lucrative. As far as baseball tournament, are you talking about the CWS?

I think if you compare TAMU to BYU, they match up pretty favorably.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 11:50 AM

The first 85 games of the rivalry were played while the teams were in different conferences

Your point is? As you know that now teams generally only play conference teams every year. Yeah; exceptions can be made, but it isn't likely.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 11:53 AM

Finally, people seem to forget for some reason that Oklahoma wasn't in the same conference as Texas for decades, and they still played each other. OU didn't have any problem recruiting Texas players, either.

Nobody has forgotten. It's just that times change. If OU left for the SEC, the Texas / OU rivalry would have probably died off.

As Texas A&M's will probably now die off. I think Texas already said it won't schedule Texas A&M anymore. /rivalry_dead

trickblue

10-07-2011, 11:59 AM

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:01 PM

Your point is? As you know that now teams generally only play conference teams every year. Yeah; exceptions can be made, but it isn't likely.

What are you talking about? Most teams play just as many OOC games now (3-4 depending on conference) as they did back when OU and Texas were in different conferences. Additionally, look at all of the big OOC rivalry matchups: SC and Clemson, Florida and FSU, Notre Dame and numerous teams, Georgia and Georgia Tech, Missouri and Illinois, etc.

The rivalry won't stop regardless of where either team ends up.

Chocolate Lab

10-07-2011, 12:01 PM

Nobody has forgotten. It's just that times change. If OU left for the SEC, the Texas / OU rivalry would have probably died off.

As Texas A&M's will probably now die off. I think Texas already said it won't schedule Texas A&M anymore. /rivalry_dead

If it does, it's because UT refuses to. Several state rivalry games still happen every year even with teams in different conferences, just like Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, Utah-BYU, etc.

trickblue

10-07-2011, 12:07 PM

I don't think that 10 years is a good measuring stick. For example, TCU and Boise have not had top shelf football programs for 10 years so that measurement hurts the comparison. .

Oh but Boise State has... they have ALWAYS been good. 369–144–2 (.718) all time record and 10+ wins in the last 10 of 12 years in D1 (1999) including 10 out of 11 conference championships and 7-4 Bowl record...

They are the model program for how to move up from DII to DI...

Kolemmitt

10-07-2011, 12:12 PM

I don't think that 10 years is a good measuring stick. For example, TCU and Boise have not had top shelf football programs for 10 years so that measurement hurts the comparison. However, they have had pretty good programs for a good 5 years. As example, BYU has been in the NCAA tournament 8 out of the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, they have gone to 7 Bowl games. However, I also think that when you are talking about Bowls, you really should be making a distinction between BCS Bowls and just Bowl eligible. The payoff for the BCS is much more lucrative. As far as baseball tournament, are you talking about the CWS?

I think if you compare TAMU to BYU, they match up pretty favorably.

I agree with your sentiment, but I am pretty sure that Boise St. had the top winning percentage of the whole 2000's. 2000: 10-2 only losses were 7 points losses to Arkansas and Washington State, 2001: 8-4, 2002:12-1, 2003: 13-1, only loss a two-pointer to Oregon State, 2004: 11-1, 2005: 9-4, 2006: 13-0, 2007:10-3, 2008:12-1, 2009: 14-0, 2010: 12-1.

There is a general feeling that Boise will fade after Kellen Moore graduates, but they seem to have been very good for well over a decade. I also read that Peterson was offered the head coaching jobs in Florida and Stanford last year, but wasn't interested - I am not sure if that is fact or rumor.

Boise may blow in basketball, but they may just be the safest bet in football for the Big XII.

Kolemmitt

10-07-2011, 12:13 PM

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:14 PM

If it does, it's because UT refuses to. Several state rivalry games still happen every year even with teams in different conferences, just like Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, Utah-BYU, etc.

I think this is true. However, I don't think it's a given that Texas does continue to schedule TAMU. Lets face it, TAMU is not doing Texas or the Big 12 any favors by bailing on them. It would not be a reach to see the Big 12 conference elect not to schedule TAMU. Heck, I'm pretty sure that Kansas has already said that they will not be scheduling Missouri in Basketball if Missouri leaves the Big 12. They have been playing one another since 1907 and Self basically said that he would not be inclined to continue that rivalry. His opinion is that Missouri is hurting the members of the Big 12 by leaving and their is no reason to help them with their Basketball program when they are turning their backs on the rest of the Big 12.

These things can run deep. It's not out of the question to see the Texas - TAMU rivalry go away.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:19 PM

Oh but Boise State has... they have ALWAYS been good. 369–144–2 (.718) all time record and 10+ wins in the last 10 of 12 years in D1 (1999) including 10 out of 11 conference championships and 7-4 Bowl record...

They are the model program for how to move up from DII to DI...

In my opinion, you can never compare a mid-major program to a major conference program regardless of the circumstances. Mid-major programs don't go through the same week in and week out rigor of a major conference schedule. Boise State has built up a very good program, but they play one or two games every year they have any real chance of losing, they can play horribly and still beat most of the teams on their schedule every season because the San Jose State's and New Mexico's of the world just have no talent to speak of most years. Compare that to Big XII or SEC or Big 10 schools who can legimately lose the majority of the games on their schedule if they don't play well because of the increased level of talent across the board.

When Boise State or TCU play a legitimate conference schedule and perform at that level, then they get credit. Until then, they're just beating up on crap schools and allowed to gameplan and prepare all year for the one or two big games on their schedule. TCU for example, while Wisconsin was getting beat up by a Big 10 schedule TCU got to go through an easy schedule that included one team that finished ranked (and it was fellow mid-major program Utah). How the hell can anyone say that TCU even gets there with a toug schedule, let alone gets there and is healthy. Wisconsin was missing six starters because of the long, tough road they took to get there. TCU got to sit their starters for half the season.

Aikbach

10-07-2011, 12:20 PM

I think this is true. However, I don't think it's a given that Texas does continue to schedule TAMU. Lets face it, TAMU is not doing Texas or the Big 12 any favors by bailing on them. It would not be a reach to see the Big 12 conference elect not to schedule TAMU. Heck, I'm pretty sure that Kansas has already said that they will not be scheduling Missouri in Basketball if Missouri leaves the Big 12. They have been playing one another since 1907 and Self basically said that he would not be inclined to continue that rivalry. His opinion is that Missouri is hurting the members of the Big 12 by leaving and their is no reason to help them with their Basketball program when they are turning their backs on the rest of the Big 12.

These things can run deep. It's not out of the question to see the Texas - TAMU rivalry go away.Baylor has already decline Aggie requests for basketbal scheduling in the coming years, both men and women's. They are shutting themselves out of Texas sports with their move.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:20 PM

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:23 PM

I agree with your sentiment, but I am pretty sure that Boise St. had the top winning percentage of the whole 2000's. 2000: 10-2 only losses were 7 points losses to Arkansas and Washington State, 2001: 8-4, 2002:12-1, 2003: 13-1, only loss a two-pointer to Oregon State, 2004: 11-1, 2005: 9-4, 2006: 13-0, 2007:10-3, 2008:12-1, 2009: 14-0, 2010: 12-1.

There is a general feeling that Boise will fade after Kellen Moore graduates, but they seem to have been very good for well over a decade. I also read that Peterson was offered the head coaching jobs in Florida and Stanford last year, but wasn't interested - I am not sure if that is fact or rumor.

Boise may blow in basketball, but they may just be the safest bet in football for the Big XII.

To be fair, I do not believe that Boise State has actually received an invitation to join the Big 12. Two things limit them IMO. 1) a very small stadium and 2) they are being investigated by the NCAA for possible violations.

Aikbach

10-07-2011, 12:23 PM

I agree Trick but what we are really talking about here is money. While Boise State has been good for a long time, I don't think that the BCS has considered them as elite for that entire period of time. Many years where they were good and got zero consideration from the BCS. What I am talking about is their ability to make money for the Conference. They may have been regarded in higher standing for a longer period of time then just 5 years but I simply used the 5 year criteria to explain the point. It may not be an accurate period.I thought Boise State's academics could be a hang up.

DFWJC

10-07-2011, 12:24 PM

I thought Boise State's academics could be a hang up.
Absolutely.

They are not even in the top 200.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:26 PM

In my opinion, you can never compare a mid-major program to a major conference program regardless of the circumstances. Mid-major programs don't go through the same week in and week out rigor of a major conference schedule. Boise State has built up a very good program, but they play one or two games every year they have any real chance of losing, they can play horribly and still beat most of the teams on their schedule every season because the San Jose State's and New Mexico's of the world just have no talent to speak of most years. Compare that to Big XII or SEC or Big 10 schools who can legimately lose the majority of the games on their schedule if they don't play well because of the increased level of talent across the board.

When Boise State or TCU play a legitimate conference schedule and perform at that level, then they get credit. Until then, they're just beating up on crap schools and allowed to gameplan and prepare all year for the one or two big games on their schedule. TCU for example, while Wisconsin was getting beat up by a Big 10 schedule TCU got to go through an easy schedule that included one team that finished ranked (and it was fellow mid-major program Utah). How the hell can anyone say that TCU even gets there with a toug schedule, let alone gets there and is healthy. Wisconsin was missing six starters because of the long, tough road they took to get there. TCU got to sit their starters for half the season.

Perhaps but this has no real merit if what you are talking about is money. If Boise State can get to a BCS Bowl game regularly, then they are going to make more money for the Conference then will a program that does not.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is what it is and what it is is money.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:28 PM

Perhaps but this has no real merit if what you are talking about is money. If Boise State can get to a BCS Bowl game regularly, then they are going to make more money for the Conference then will a program that does not.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is what it is and what it is is money.

The point is that Boise State may not get to BCS games regularly if they werent in mid-major conferences. In fact, if they are in the same conference as Texas and OU, I can gurantee you that they won't. Sure, they'll compete and finish ahead of the crap schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor and Kansas State most years, but they won't live up to their mid-major accomplishments.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:32 PM

To be fair, I do not believe that Boise State has actually received an invitation to join the Big 12. Two things limit them IMO. 1) a very small stadium and 2) they are being investigated by the NCAA for possible violations.

I think a big reason TCU was even considered was because of the recent renovations to their facilities. (primarily expanding the stadium to seat 50k fans)

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:32 PM

I thought Boise State's academics could be a hang up.

Very possible. If I recall, Dan Beebe and Dodds, were hot on the whole academic thing. They wanted to compete with the Big 10 for a lot of those Federal Grants and the funding that goes with them. The Big 10 makes a lot more money on those kinds of things then they do Athletics. This is why there was such a premium set on academics in the past. Now that Beebe is gone, I don't know if that continues. It may but it may also be that the Big 12 focuses on putting together a strong core in order to provide some stability for the next few years. Right now, the Big 12 has to be concerned with getting their TV contract renewed. They will need a good 3 or 4 years of stability to get that done IMO.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:34 PM

I think a big reason TCU was even considered was because of the recent renovations to their facilities. (primarily expanding the stadium to seat 50k fans)

That decision was perplexing, why expand a stadium to 50k when you couldnt sell it out before? They were averging something like 33k fans per game over the last 5 years.

DFWJC

10-07-2011, 12:34 PM

Perhaps but this has no real merit if what you are talking about is money. If Boise State can get to a BCS Bowl game regularly, then they are going to make more money for the Conference then will a program that does not.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is what it is and what it is is money.
In all fairness, I'm not so sure conferences are banking on the current BCS system remaining in place beyond 5 years or so. I really don't think they are making choices with that as a big priority. For that matter, putting BSU in the Big 12 reduces their chance of getting in to BCS game going forward anyway.....imo only.

As I've already said a few times; unless this is a football-only arrangement (which it is not) then many, many other things are under consideration.

BrAinPaiNt

10-07-2011, 12:37 PM

That decision was perplexing, why expand a stadium to 50k when you couldnt sell it out before? They were averging something like 33k fans per game over the last 5 years.

In order to get into some football conferences...teams/schools have to meet certain criteria which sometimes includes upgrading stadiums (more seating) and other things.

DFWJC

10-07-2011, 12:39 PM

That decision was perplexing, why expand a stadium to 50k when you couldnt sell it out before? They were averging something like 33k fans per game over the last 5 years.
I guess they are assuming an upgrade in competition and entry into a BCS conf. will do the trick. That may have been a prerequisite of them getting into the Big East in the first place.

TCU's relatively small fan base and their attendence track record have to be red flags, imo. I can't believe I read earlier in this thread that someone was trying to compare A&M's program to TCU's. It is not at all comparable.

I'm happy for TCU, but I try to keep it in perspective.

As an ECU undergrad, I know how tough it is for non Q schools to get into a BCS conference. ECU has a much, much larger fan base and routinely sells out a 50k stadium and is near a strong TV market, but they can't seem to get a sniff from the Big East.
They have no shot at the ACC b/c there are too many NC schools there already and my other school (UNC) does not want them....plus they are not good enough academically.

BrAinPaiNt

10-07-2011, 12:40 PM

TV market probably hurts boise state as well.

I think it is sad that a team can go out and put up an impressive record, do all they can do to win the games. But because they have a smaller TV market, because they might be in area that has a smaller base of fans so a smaller stadium...that another conference would look down on them or not let them in.

College football is too much about money and not enough about playing football.

Which makes it even worse when they put in so many rules about kids not getting money or gifts.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:41 PM

In order to get into some football conferences...teams/schools have to meet certain criteria which sometimes includes upgrading stadiums (more seating) and other things.

I would hope that major confences would consider attendence before automatically handing out invites based on facilities. A massive stadium doesnt mean much if it's half full. The only time Amon Carter is going to sell out is when OU or Texas come to town, and only then because those fanbases will bring 20k+ of their own fans. It's very comparable to the situations at Baylor and Kansas, decent sized stadiums that are only close to full once or twice a year because of opposing fans buying half the tickets.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:42 PM

That decision was perplexing, why expand a stadium to 50k when you couldnt sell it out before? They were averging something like 33k fans per game over the last 5 years.

Not perplexing at all. They did it because they wanted to join an AQ conference. What should be incredibly perplexing is the fact that TCU only has 8k students and yet the pull in 33k fans per game.

This is only going to rise with them joining the Big 12 for several reasons. First being that now Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, and all the other Big 12 schools will be coming to Fort Worth to play. Those teams will draw big crouds too. Especially because now you will get fans of the other team here.

Remember, TCU was mostly playing against schools that were located a long way from Fort Worth. That will now change. More opposing fans are closer TCU and the fact that TCU will plan more teams that are closer to Ft Worth, they too will garner more fans at opponents games. That will raise TCU's fan base even larger throughout Texas.

Without question, it was the right thing to do.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:42 PM

TCU's relatively small fan base and their attendence track record have to be red flags, imo. I can't believe I read earlier in this thread that someone was trying to compare A&M's program to TCU's. It is not at all comparable.

I'm happy for TCU, but I try to keep it in perspective.

It's just ESPN grinding their LHN axe again, nothing more.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:43 PM

Not perplexing at all. They did it because they wanted to join an AQ conference. What should be incredibly perplexing is the fact that TCU only has 8k students and yet the pull in 33k fans per game.

This is only going to rise with them joining the Big 12 for several reasons. First being that now Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, and all the other Big 12 schools will be coming to Fort Worth to play. Those teams will draw big crouds too. Especially because now you will get fans of the other team here.

Remember, TCU was mostly playing against schools that were located a long way from Fort Worth. That will now change. More opposing fans are closer TCU and the fact that TCU will plan more teams that are closer to Ft Worth, they too will garner more fans at opponents games. That will raise TCU's fan base even larger throughout Texas.

Without question, it was the right thing to do.

Again, having a big stadium means nothing if there are 15k empty seats

Chocolate Lab

10-07-2011, 12:44 PM

I think this is true. However, I don't think it's a given that Texas does continue to schedule TAMU. Lets face it, TAMU is not doing Texas or the Big 12 any favors by bailing on them. You're one of my favorites, ABQ, but it's too ironic and funny to think of the University of Texas punishing someone else for doing what's best for themselves and not the group as a whole.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:45 PM

As an ECU undergrad, I know how tough it is for non Q schools to get into a BCS conference. ECU has a much, much larger fan base and routinely sells out a 50k stadium and is near a strong TV market, but they can't seem to get a sniff from the Big East.

What year? My nephew played for ECU Pirates. Though he transferred to South Florida with Slip Holtz due to the incoming coach's offensive philosophies. (ie, the spread offense)

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:46 PM

The point is that Boise State may not get to BCS games regularly if they werent in mid-major conferences. In fact, if they are in the same conference as Texas and OU, I can gurantee you that they won't. Sure, they'll compete and finish ahead of the crap schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor and Kansas State most years, but they won't live up to their mid-major accomplishments.

Perhaps, but they might. I think that we can absolutely say that they have a better chance of winning the Big 12 North and getting a bid, even if they may not win the Big 12 title then does TAMU winning the Western Conference of the SEC and getting a BCS bid. I just don't see how Boise State could not be a better option for the Big 12 at this point. The schools that you are referring to as crap schools are not in a very different situation then is TAMU in the SEC IMO. If indeed you are going to the Western Division, you have Bama, Auburn and LSU to contend with every year. TAMU is going to have to up their game considerably if they have any hope of winning this division, much less the SEC outright.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:47 PM

Again, having a big stadium means nothing if there are 15k empty seats

Did you not read the post and just respond? :confused:

I gave you several reason why it makes perfect sense.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:48 PM

Perhaps, but they might. I think that we can absolutely say that they have a better chance of winning the Big 12 North and getting a bid, even if they may not win the Big 12 title then does TAMU winning the Western Conference of the SEC and getting a BCS bid. I just don't see how Boise State could not be a better option for the Big 12 at this point. The schools that you are referring to as crap schools are not in a very different situation then is TAMU in the SEC IMO. If indeed you are going to the Western Division, you have Bama, Auburn and LSU to contend with every year. TAMU is going to have to up their game considerably if they have any hope of winning this division, much less the SEC outright.

But they won't, its best if we stop trying to act like this is even a remote possibility. They do not have one single advantage over schools like Missouri and Tech, let alone Texas and OU. They cannot compete with those two programs anymore than TCU will on a consistent basis.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 12:50 PM

In all fairness, I'm not so sure conferences are banking on the current BCS system remaining in place beyond 5 years or so. I really don't think they are making choices with that as a big priority. For that matter, putting BSU in the Big 12 reduces their chance of getting in to BCS game going forward anyway.....imo only.

As I've already said a few times; unless this is a football-only arrangement (which it is not) then many, many other things are under consideration.

You may be right on the BCS thing. It may not be here in 5 years but we have no other alternative at this point so I think you move forward based on what you know and not what there is no plan for.

With regards to hurting their chances more by going to the Big 12, that I do not agree with. The Big 12 is a BCS conference and if you believe that you are one of the top programs in the country, then you want to be in a BCS affiliated conference. Right now, BSU is in the Mountain West and that is not a BCS conference. That's a problem for them.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:52 PM

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:52 PM

Did you not read the post and just respond? :confused:

I gave you several reason why it makes perfect sense.

Baylor has a larger student body, larger alumni base, been in a major conference for most of their existence, plays schools relatively close to them week in and week out and over the last 15 years they have had two sell outs and average 40k a game. Your reasons don't hold up when compared to similar situations in college football. TCU's attendence is not going to skyrocket because they go to the Big XII, they'll get a nice attendence figure every eyar because of OU or Texas, but they won't get more than their usual 30-40k for ISU, KU, KSU, etc.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 12:54 PM

You say you "got what you wanted" in going to the SEC, yet you are angry at everyone else. Bash the Big 12, say they are going to fail. Other teams looking to join suck and are unworthy. Why are you so worried about it?

Who's said I'm angry? I'm pointing out a relatively obvious issue, that Boise State and TCU can't compete with OU and Texas.

And the Big XII's future is independent of the mid-major teams they have, it is entirely dependent on Texas and their relationship with OU.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:55 PM

btw, TCU and BSU both average the same attendance as Cincinnati and Cincinnati doesn't seem to sell out there stadium either. (which is smaller than TCU's even BEFORE the upgrade.

Miami doesn't sellout either. Though they do get 45k fans per game. Of course, 45k won't sellout TCU stadium. Does Miami suck and should they be kicked to the curb? Say sent to the Mountain West were nobody sells out? :muttley:

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 12:56 PM

Who's said I'm angry? I'm pointing out a relatively obvious issue, that Boise State and TCU can't compete with OU and Texas.

And the Big XII's future is independent of the mid-major teams they have, it is entirely dependent on Texas and their relationship with OU.

No, you are straight up hating in this thread.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 01:00 PM

btw, TCU and BSU both average the same attendance as Cincinnati and Cincinnati doesn't seem to sell out there stadium either. (which is smaller than TCU's even BEFORE the upgrade.

What does that have to do with anything? Congrats on adding a program with identical fan support to that seen at Cincinnatti?

Miami doesn't sellout either. Though they do get 45k fans per game. Of course, 45k won't sellout TCU stadium. Does Miami suck and should they be kicked to the curb? Say sent to the Mountain West were nobody sells out? :muttley:

Miami is a very special exception, they have a unique situation among college football programs. They are a small private school (in a prime location though, unlike TCU) who had all the cards fall right in the 80s, won BIG in a major conference and play all their games in a 70k plus seat professional stadium where they couldnt sell out if every living alumni came to every game. Comparing them to TCU or Boise in a vacuum is ludicrous to put it politely.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 01:07 PM

They are a small private school (in a prime location though, unlike TCU)

What? Dallas / Fort Worth area in not a prime location? Let me guess. College Station is right? :lmao2:

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 01:14 PM

What? Dallas / Fort Worth area in not a prime location? Let me guess. College Station is right? :lmao2:

The private school is the issue, and no, Fort Worth is not Miami beach.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 01:17 PM

You're one of my favorites, ABQ, but it's too ironic and funny to think of the University of Texas punishing someone else for doing what's best for themselves and not the group as a whole.

I can understand how you might see the irony in this. However, I think that it's more accurate to say that the Big 12 might consider punishing TAMU rather then just Texas.

Remember, there was a time when Texas had ideas of joining the SEC. They were prevented by the politics of the whole thing because they were not allowed to part ways with TAMU. That has been a consistent piece of the equation for some time. Same thing with PAC 10 discussions more recently.

Now that the Big 12 has agreed to share revenue and the pay out will be (reportedly) 20 million per team, it's even more of a bitter pill to swallow because TAMU is leaving for the SEC for a smaller pay out, 18.5 (reportedly).

There are some interesting dynamics at work here, to be sure.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 01:22 PM

But they won't, its best if we stop trying to act like this is even a remote possibility. They do not have one single advantage over schools like Missouri and Tech, let alone Texas and OU. They cannot compete with those two programs anymore than TCU will on a consistent basis.

You don't know this Slant. Time may prove you correct here but it could also go the other way. I have had good opportunity to watch Boise State closely and I am telling you that this team is on par with any program in the Big 12. I am not saying that they can beat OU or Texas this year but rather that they are a good program and that they have built it to be able to compete with any of the top programs. They don't have all the advantages of the Floridas or Bamas of the world but they are very, very good and they do more with less. Imagine if they get to a position where they have the same kinds of resources available to them?

Of course, all of this assumes that they actually get an offer to join a major conference.

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 01:27 PM

You don't know this Slant. Time may prove you correct here but it could also go the other way. I have had good opportunity to watch Boise State closely and I am telling you that this team is on par with any program in the Big 12. I am not saying that they can beat OU or Texas this year but rather that they are a good program and that they have built it to be able to compete with any of the top programs. They don't have all the advantages of the Floridas or Bamas of the world but they are very, very good and they do more with less. Imagine if they get to a position where they have the same kinds of resources available to them?

Of course, all of this assumes that they actually get an offer to join a major conference.

Again, Boise State looks great against the teams they are playing and because they get to play subpar teams every single week. Try playing Tech, followed by Texas, followed by OU, followed by Missouri and then let's see how they look. Not exactly the same as the Nevada, San Jose State, Idaho and Utah State gauntlet.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 01:30 PM

Again, Boise State looks great against the teams they are playing and because they get to play subpar teams every single week. Try playing Tech, followed by Texas, followed by OU, followed by Missouri and then let's see how they look. Not exactly the same as the Nevada, San Jose State, Idaho and Utah State gauntlet.

I don't get this comparison. TCU walked into the Rose Bowl and thumped Wisconsin. Everyone and their grandmother said they couldn't do it, but they did.

I am not a betting man, but I WOULD HAVE bet if they had played Texas A&M, Texas, and OU last year, they would have beaten all three of them too. TCU was THAT good last year.

I wouldn't doubt that BSU could walk into Austin and beat Texas this year. Texas A&M, yes. Them too.

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 01:39 PM

The30YardSlant

10-07-2011, 01:46 PM

I don't get this comparison. TCU walked into the Rose Bowl and thumped Wisconsin. Everyone and their grandmother said they couldn't do it, but they did.

With a much healthier team because their starters sat ut the second half of most games. The road is the issue here, not the destination. Any good team can get up for and win one game, but Wisconsin had to do that every week. TCU didnt.

I am not a betting man, but I WOULD HAVE bet if they had played Texas A&M, Texas, and OU last year, they would have beaten all three of them too. TCU was THAT good last year.

Any one of them maybe, but play all three in the same year and they don't go 3-0. That's the point.

I wouldn't doubt that BSU could walk into Austin and beat Texas this year. Texas A&M, yes. Them too.

Could they beat both teams? Yes, but play them back to back and I promise they'll lose to at least one of them, and again that's the point.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 01:56 PM

That's right. I forgot. TCU is the only team that only plays one game a year.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 01:57 PM

Could they beat both teams? Yes, but play them back to back and I promise they'll lose to at least one of them, and again that's the point.

Why is it the point? Say, Texas has to play OU and THEN TCU. No way Texas can win both......right? :facepalm:

I've heard this argument 50 times and it's only said by teams in conferences that are afraid to play these schools. ...but never proven that it's true.

Kolemmitt

10-07-2011, 02:03 PM

ABQCOWBOY

10-07-2011, 02:08 PM

With a much healthier team because their starters sat ut the second half of most games. The road is the issue here, not the destination. Any good team can get up for and win one game, but Wisconsin had to do that every week. TCU didnt.

Any one of them maybe, but play all three in the same year and they don't go 3-0. That's the point.

Could they beat both teams? Yes, but play them back to back and I promise they'll lose to at least one of them, and again that's the point.

I think I pointed this out earlier but lets just make sure that we are all talking about the same thing here. "IF" BSU is invited to join the Big 12, they will not be playing a schedule of Texas, TECH, OU, OKSt. all in a row IMO.

They will probably be playing in the North, which means that all they have to do, in order to qualify for a Bowl Bid is to win the North. Those teams currently consist of KState, Iowa State, Kansas, Mizzu, probably BYU and then probably 3 or 4 games against the South. Those games can be anybody in the South, it does not have to be Texas, OU, OKSt or TCU every year.

Again, if Boise State gets offered, I see their chances of getting a Bowl Bid in the Big 12 much better then TAMUs chances are of winning the SEC West which consists of Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Bama, Miss St., Ole Miss and the three or four East teams which consist of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Vandy.

Kolemmitt

10-07-2011, 02:08 PM

I am a big Boise fan and I think that they would be competetive in the BIG XII, but I think for now their best play is to stay in the MWC as their programs continue to grow. They have stadium expansion plans in place and will be starting this spring. Their stadium is almost always sold out, despite not having a competive game in Boise for five years, including visits from Oregon and Oregon St.

Their basketball team would be dead meat in the BIG XII, but they are getting better and they need to add baseball. Their academics have been improving, but they are still a relatively young university.

Eventually, I think both the BIG XII and the PAC -12 will expand to 16 and then Boise may be ready.

Kolemmitt

10-07-2011, 02:10 PM

I think I pointed this out earlier but lets just make sure that we are all talking about the same thing here. "IF" BSU is invited to join the Big 12, they will not be playing a schedule of Texas, TECH, OU, OKSt. all in a row IMO.

I think you are right on. I also don't see the invite coming this year, but maybe the time expansion talk heats up.

Sam I Am

10-07-2011, 02:14 PM

I am a big Boise fan and I think that they would be competetive in the BIG XII, but I think for now their best play is to stay in the MWC as their programs continue to grow. They have stadium expansion plans in place and will be starting this spring. Their stadium is almost always sold out, despite not having a competive game in Boise for five years, including visits from Oregon and Oregon St.

Tell them to change the color of that damn turf! :laugh2:

I bet any conference that invites them, the first demand will be that they change that color!

trickblue

10-07-2011, 02:56 PM

Again, Boise State looks great against the teams they are playing and because they get to play subpar teams every single week. Try playing Tech, followed by Texas, followed by OU, followed by Missouri and then let's see how they look. Not exactly the same as the Nevada, San Jose State, Idaho and Utah State gauntlet.

It's really hard to gauge as big schools won't schedule them...

The Boise State coach called out programs by name that refused to schedule them a couple of years ago. You can't blame those schools. Most all of them schedule also-rans and DII schools in order to go into conference play undefeated. Scheduling Boise State would be very risky.