BigXII Rumours

[GoRedGoBlue]

-Rumor has Iowa State leaving the Big-12 and joining the “Big-10”, and Colorado State replacing them. The Big-10 would have a conference championship game as a result.

-Look for the Pac-10 to expand to twelve teams as well.


I have also heard CU going to PAC10, which would negate CSU being 'sponsored' by CU to the Big12.

Mainly I have heard CU to Pac10, Missou to Big10, and TCU and another to the Big12...the 'another' I suppose could be CSU, but why replace CU with a lesser CSU and gain no market share? ARK would be a favorite, but they prob not leave SEC anytime soon, though they would be WISE to do so...

ARK FB hasn't done anything save Clint Stoerner fumble vs. TENN since leaving SWC, and their BB hasn't done much since they started recruiting as a member of the SEC...

[Water Pony]

Message from the Heartland.

Trust me, Iowa State will not be invited to the Big Ten. For them, it is ND or no one. If forced, they would prefer Missouri with the St. Louis and KC markets or Pitt (also unlikely) to lock-up Pennslyvania.

Big Ten picks schools on academics and Iowa State adds nothing/ plus they have the State of Iowa, a small market, already covered.

[gostangs]

Sorry - but no conference really picks schools on academics - its all TV market - the real reason Iowa State will not have a shot at Big 10. Big 10 likes to talk up the academic B.S. plus Big 12 is now the second biggest payout is it not? - they would not want to leave unless for more money.

[EastStang]

Academics are important in the Big 10, just ask Mr. Clarett. (I will now remove the tongue from my cheek).

[bhop]

About 99% of the rumors reported on this and other boards are completely absurd, including the one that started this link.

1. Why the hell would the Big 10 want Iowa State? Iowa State adds next to nothing to the conference. If the Big 10 were to expand (and I have not heard one credible source say that Big 10 expansion is imminent), I would think the obvious choice would be Missouri, Notre Dame (already rejected the Big 10 once), or maybe even Pitt. Although I think Pitt would be the last on that list. Iowa State has absolutely no history with the Big 10, doesn't have a great football program, is in the middle of BFE Iowa, and adds nothing to the academic reputation of the conference (which, to disagree with an earlier poster is something that the Big 10 likes to claim is a priority, Mr. Clarret aside).

2. I have also not heard a single credible source say that the PAC 10 is exploring expansion right now. On the contrary, my understanding is that the PAC 10 is not interested in expansion. I suppose IF the PAC 10 were to expand, Colorado would be a possibility. It seems odd, however, that the PAC 10 would add a school that is seperated by three states from its nearest PAC 10 neighbor, has absolutely no history with the PAC 10, and happens to currently be a member of a fantastically profitable 12 team conference that includes a championship game and all its historical rivals.

3. Let's just assume for a minute that any of these fantastic scenarios actually happened and the Big 12 needed to add one or two members. Why, oh why would the Big 12 ever even consider adding TCU. I mean, come on! TCU is a 5,000 undergrad private school that averages 25,000 home attendance for football, loses money on athletics, has zero fan base outside the DFW metroplex, and is about as interesting to the national TV networks as I am. I'm sure the Big 12 members think its bad enough that they have to share profits with Baylor. Why would they want to add another member that wouldn't bring anything to the table and would be dependant on conference hand-outs to keep its athletic programs afloat. TCU just wouldn't fit in a conference made up of colossal state schools with athletic budgets that are 2-3 times larger than their own. I would guess (and this is pure speculation) that if the Big 12 needed a new member, it would go after Arkansas. TCU, five bowl games and all, is absolutely out of the question. If those purple guys really think they could end up in the Big 12, then I truly pity them.


[This message has been edited by bhop (edited 07-14-2003).]

[Nacho]

If the ACC gets its way with an exemption then some conferences are going to be wondering what they are doing with those extra teams. What value does Baylor add, except a sure conference win? What value does Vanderbilt add? Until the ACC issue is resolved I doubt we will see much in the way of movement of conferences to go over 10 teams. If the request is denied then there will be an incentive to go to 12.

The only way for SMU and TCU to ever be considered for a BCS conference is for the Big 12 to explode. An SEC school would have to go to the ACC and then as I have outlined before 4 teams would leave the Big 12. 4 new teams would have to be added to the Big 12. The candidates would be very limited. Only in that kind of scenario would we have a chance. Until then our best hope is for the Tulane president to destroy the BCS.

[This message has been edited by Nacho (edited 07-14-2003).]

[gostangs]

I didn't say that the Big 10 doesn't CLAIM academics is important - its just that at the end of the day its just posturing - who they add or don't add will have nothing to do with academics - money only. They can rationalize whatever money driven decision they make regarding academics later.

[OldPony]

Are you sure. Don't you think Big 12 wants SMu & TCU so Baylor could have company at the bottom. I beleive that is what is happening and soon the Easter Bunny is going to bring the invitations. The Iowa St invite to the Big 10 will be delivered by Tinkerbell.

[GoRedGoBlue]

"3. Let's just assume for a minute that any of these fantastic scenarios actually happened and the Big 12 needed to add one or two members. Why, oh why would the Big 12 ever even consider adding TCU. I mean, come on! TCU is a 5,000 undergrad private school that averages 25,000 home attendance for football, loses money on athletics, has zero fan base outside the DFW metroplex, and is about as interesting to the national TV networks as I am."

You mean, just like U Miami was in the 80s...

[Charleston Pony]

I really don't see the Big XII messing with it's southern division. Worst case scenario for the Big XII is that PAC 10 gets Colorado and Big 10 gets Missou. Before they go for TCU and someone else in Texas, they look to recoup the Mountain time zone loss. If Colorado goes to PAC 10, most likely BYU goes with them. I would think the Big XII would look at CSU & Utah to retain mountain time zone interest.

That would actually be a nice solution to a lot of this. MWC's remaining 6 could join forces with WWAC and USU for a 12 member group. SMU and EWAC group would look to CUSA or a new SWC, depending on whether the Big east group decides 8 is enough or wants to go larger and really cut into CUSA.

This realignment stuff sure has made for an interesting summer.

[NavyCrimson]

i agree cp about the big12 expanding...there is NO INCENTIVE for them to add a smu/tcu - ever!!!!!!!

there are just too many teams from oklahoma to the gulf which would make the conference too bottom heavy geographically...the only way we have a chance is a 'mass defection' of big (little) 12 schools - like maybe 3-4 teams leaving at once - even a tx & a$m or ok leaving to the sec/pac 10 (what a joke)...

& then the original big 8 teams needing someone to the south to play with....face it...we just have to build our on conference & fight the bcs-bs in the meantime!

tx & a$m just don't want to play the rest of us & their cooperation or lack of in scheduling us simply proves it...its a miracle that rice is on the tx schedule anyways but then again - its rice & i don't mean that negatively either against them ... after all, hatfield is definitely capable of surprises!!!!!



[This message has been edited by Navy&Crimson (edited 07-14-2003).]

[GoRedGoBlue]

These schools have HUGE amounts of alumni in the Dallas area.

Texas is good for recruiting to the BigXII North schools, and DFW sends more people to the Div-1A FB than any other area of the country.

[bhop]

With all due respect to GoRedGoBlue, I don't think TCU today is equivelant to Miami in the 1980s. Small private schools like Miami and SMU that made the "commitment" to football in the late 1970s, early 1980s were in a much different and better situation than a small private school that got around to making the commitment in 1997. I like to think of Miami today as what SMU could have become were it not for certain problems which we don't need to go into here.

In the 1970s and 1980s Miami and SMU were able to quickly build national-power programs and get into the thick of things, playing in top-tier bowls and for the national championship. Both schools (in SMU's case, at least when we weren't on probation) received a lot of national attention and were able to recruit blue chip talent, despite not really drawing well.

For a small private school today, the situation is very different. Schools like TCU, SMU, etc. are all but locked out of the top bowls, top conferences, and top recruits. Furthermore, the game is far more focused on money than it used to be. Miami and SMU were able to garner a lot of national attention despite playing in front of small crowds, not necessarily being the best TV draw, and running defecits in their athletic programs Today, the big conferences, which hold all the cards, are not interested in adding those kinds of schools. Nor are the networks interested in showing them (except maybe ESPN) I just think the environment today makes it way harder for a small private school to succeed than used to be the case.

Plus, when Miami made its commitment, it was independant. SMU was already in a major conference and didn't have to "play its way" into the big time. By the time Miami joined a conference, they were already a serious national power. I think that's different than a school today that is trying to break into the big time by succeeding in a non-BCS conference.

Let us also not forget that when the state schools left the SWC they did so specifically to jetison the SMUs, TCUs, Rices, etc. and get into a conference with other big state schools. The economics haven't changed, regardless of how many minor bowl wins TCU has. I find it hard to believe that Texas, A&M, etc. would go through all the trouble of dumping TCU, abjectly refuse to play them in football for years, and then one day turn around and invite them back.

[This message has been edited by bhop (edited 07-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by bhop (edited 07-15-2003).]

[roddog]

the big 12 wont be doing anything till 2008

[bhop]

I guess my point before (which was rambling) can be illustrated by one simple fact.

SMU and Miami both made the commitment to build big time football programs around 1977. Within five years (by 1982) Miami had won a national championship, SMU had challanged for one, and both schools were at the top of the college football heap.

TCU made their commitment in about 1997. Five years and five bowl appearences later, they are still toiling in a mid-major conference, playing in mid-major bowls, and most importantly, losing money.

Its just a different world today.