I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but from those tweets I'm curious as to why a couple schools only want 2 rather than 4. I get not wanting Texas schools to have half the voting block for things, so why not add UC, UH, BYU, and one other non-Texas school? that would be 5 Texas schools in a league of 12. I guess there just isn't a good 12th school? Boise would suck footprint wise. USF/UCF kinda suck in general. Not sure there is an obvious choice, but I'm curious.
I don't give a shit what happens to WVU, makes a ton more sense for them to be in the SEC. But you trying to claim the SEC getting a program that's basically in the midwest and has no major TV market to itself is going to open up the SEC in major east coast markets is asinine. The SEC has plenty of pull in all of those markets as is it stands today.
it comes down to there really being no no brainer candidates, BYU is the only national brand but they have baggage. Cincy is like C+ to B- in every category and Houston is seen mostly as a flash in the pan in a market that is already saturated with B12 footprint.
Is WVU really that much worse than Louisville? I used to think the same way but then they let them in.
I honestly don't know. I'm just stereotyping because the words "West Virginia" are usually right up there with Mississippi and South Carolina with being associated with dumb people
I'm fine with Houston (I used to think it was a horrible idea, but I've come around on them). I doubt they add much financially, but its been a pretty decent program for the past decade or so and they seem like a good fit. BYU and Houston would make the Big 12 a better football conference. Cincy does nothing for me, even though I'm sure its a better add than Houston financially. They do not seem like a good fit in the Big 12. The only thing that will really piss me off is if the Big 12 goes to 12 or 14 teams and sticks Oklahoma in the North and we don't get to play TCU, Baylor, Tech...etc every year. The only thing I really enjoy about this conference is that OU plays so many schools that 1) Are relatively close to Dallas and 2) I have friends that went to.
The optics of passing on Houston as they're ranked 10 spots higher than any Big 12 team would be horrifically bad.
1. The ACC wasn't in the position that the Big 12 is now. 2. Even taking Tom Herman out of the equation, Houston's accomplishments with Art Briles, Kevin Sumlin, Andre Ware, David Klingler and even back to Bill Yeoman would put them in the middle tier of the Big 12 historically.
I don't think we even want Houston. I think we are just gumming up the works. I also think at this point in time we couldn't go somewhere without Tech tagging along. Would require political capital that I don't think people are willing to use. Tech has a significant amount of influence, Baylor does as well. Totally different situation from A&M. That's the only way TCU got an invite in the first place, high placed political influence in the form of donors. U of H is underrated in this area as well. Guys like Fertitta that are willing to shell out dough to get what they want have major influence over state matters.
I think it would be pretty easy to leave Baylor behind right now. If Tech has to come with you, then a 4 team package of Texas, Tech, OU, & OSU to the PAC would probably be the only way that happens. I don't know if the PAC has the financial promise to make that move worth leaving in the first place.
I think our strategy is to quietly steer the conference in a direction that gives us "no option" but to go to a new conference at the end of the gor. We will say we have a fiduciary duty to leave but we are unable to force other conferences to invite these other in state schools. If the Big 10 gives us an invite and that results in money we simply couldn't get by just expanding the conference at the end of the gor, we will have our out. But I don't think that scenario works if we are proactive about finding another conference while we are under the gor. So we will do stuff that buys us time and prevents expansion, like bizarrely insist that Houston be invited even though everyone knows we strongly don't care for their institution.
if this nonsense doesn't stop, I get the feeling ksu will have to take one of our many offers and leave this conference behind.
Do you think the desire to get a UT-Houston campus is legitimately a significant factor or is that just being used as window dressing for UH when it's a given that OU/Boren don't want them in the conference?
We aren't going to the PAC. The time zone difference and increased cost for olympic sports is too much to overcome. Combine that with their poor outlook numbers wise and the cultural apathy our donors have towards the programs out there, and it will never happen.
its a legit concern, UH people are freaking out over it. its also something Texas wants, its McRaven's pet project.
I don't have a clue. I do know that U of H has enough political firepower to put a wrench in that engine. Whether thats really a factor in our sudden promotion for their entry into the conference? No clue. We clearly sat down and realized there was a compelling reason to throw a lot of visible paper support behind their entry. I could see us being fine with their entry into the Big 12 as long as we receive good political capital for it. Whats TCU going to say when we decide to leave? We are literally the only reason they're in the Big 12 to begin with. All we have to do is show them the numbers our conference suitors provide us and say sorry but we aren't even allowed to turn this down. I think we decided expansion had to be addressed in some way, and half heartedly supporting U of H's entry would at least give us the same out with them once the gor is up, and we probably knew it would gum up the works bc the other conference members cant afford to have the houston recruiting base completely shut off for them.
You think the rest of the conference doesn't want to add UH because it would hurt their (other B12 members) recruiting? Just making sure I read that last part correctly. Assuming what a lot of writers (and twitter reporters) are saying is true, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Texas and OU are at least somewhat on the same side in all of this and just throwing out options that the other can easily shoot down publicly. It doesn't seem like either school is all that invested in keeping the conference alive, but I guess that's also been the case for several years.
Yea, I think Ok State, Tech, Baylor, and to some extent TCU don't want U of H in the Big 12 for recruiting reasons. Those schools lost a lot of ground to TCU when they were invited and it would be similar with U of H. All I've been told is we are very friendly with OU's administration. That was a while back though. A lot has changed since then. I do think OU was rightfully frustrated that we didn't take Louisville. I still think we enjoy a close relationship with them through our rivalry and history, and I don't think we are on different sides of the aisle.
I was going to disagree with you on the recruiting part, but I'm not sure how adding UH would significantly increase the rest of the Big 12's current presence in Houston so I guess there's no where to go but down.
Baylor's best period in their history has been post TCU addition. Oklahoma State hasn't exactly fallen off. The recruiting argument by the middle tier B12 schools against Houston is so short sighted.
We're 2-2 against them? They were good before they joined and are still good, Tech was mediocre before they joined and is still mediocre. Seems like a wash to me. This whole talking point that Gundy, Dimel and others are making that Houston would completely decimate recruiting for schools not named Texas and OU is asinine. The impact of a UH Big 12 class when divided across the entire conference is minuscule.
Some helpful info- if a program enters your conference already better than you, and then goes on to surpass your program's entire history in a short period, its a net negative for your program in almost every conceivable way. Inviting Houston into the conference would just add another program you can place your own behind. Why would you want that?
Thank you for the helpful information. You're equivalating TCU's success, even though they'd just won a couple of BCS games in the years prior to joining the conference, to joining the conference. As with most things in college football, that can be attributed to who the coach is (TCU has a really good one). As can our level of success over that time period. Recruiting matters, and the concerns of competition are easily justified, I just don't think the effect is great enough to impact whatever recruiting hierarchy exists.