Ominous Signs for Big 12

[True Colors]

Littl' ole TCU has the highest ranked Class AND most 3 and 4+ star recruits in the Big 12-ranked only No. 23 nationally. Now several schools have better average per recruit-but essentially the perception of the Big 12 is really suffering where it matters most-RECRUITING.

3 star players are not a big deal. All of the Big 12 schools will end up with a bunch of those.

Recruiting wars are based on how many 4 and 5 star players you can get.

At this moment, TCU has what, one four star recruit and zero five star recruits?

Here are the big 12 schools that currently have more than that

baylor
oklahoma
oklahoma state
texas
texas tech
west virginia

TC

[Stallion]

what matters is that there are 9 SEC schools rated above the first Big 12 school- 10 if you don't want to include TCU

[White Helmet]

But it looks like 10 of their commitments have no other BCS offers. I thought that was most important not the stars.

[Stallion]

Geez the point of this thread has very little to do with TCU-it has to do with the failure of the Big 12 in recruiting-hard not compare conferences if you don't mention their No. 1 ranked team. And I posted the average per recruit anomaly with regard to TCU in the very first post so don't try to pretend that I overlooked that. What I'm saying is that if the Big 12 recruits like this for 3-4 years they maybe headed to Big East extinction. Look for poor recruiting and count to 3-4 and it will show in the national rankings. This has the appearance of SWC recruiting in its final years.

[AusTxPony]

I think Stallion's point is well taken. I have two questions. One, why do they seem to be headed downward? And two, do you think that UT and OU will ultimately leave for PAC 14/16? Probably our only chance of entry into Big 12, for whatever that will be worth when the two giants leave.

[leopold]

I can only speculate, but constant in-fighting can't be good for the league. Recruits have to see Iowas State, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, and OSU being left behind if they could be. Furthermore A&M moving to the SEC was expected to open the door for the SEC for Texas recruits directly. Lastly, however stated that trading Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and A&M for TCU and West Virginia was a bust of a deal was dead-on.

[East Coast Mustang]

Analyzing team recruiting rankings in July is a pretty worthless exercise. OU and Tech have seven commits. Oklahoma State has eight.

But the idea that the Big 12 is falling behind is becoming more true by the day in my opinion- because of A&M's move to the SEC, it's now open season on recruits in the state of Texas for SEC teams. And the state of Texas has obviously been the bread and butter of Big 12 recruiting.

Check out the top TX recruits for 2015, as listed by Rivals:
https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecrui ... qll6hGPZB4

7 of the top 10 have committed, with five going to SEC schools- three to A&M, one to LSU, and one to Bama. OSU and Tech have the other two.

I believe Malik Jefferson, the #1 player in the state, is an A&M lean, as is Kendall Sheffield, the #3 player in the state. So on NSD you could have seven of the top ten players in Texas committing to SEC schools, with five of them going to A&M. Conceivably, Texas might not sign of the top ten players in the state this year, as ranked by rivals. That would have to be unprecedented IMO. To contrast that, five years ago in 2010, Texas signed six of the top ten players in the state.

IMO this trend will speed up Texas' departure from the Big 12 for the Pac-12/16, bringing OU, Tech, and Okie State with them.

[feelthehorsepower]

Analyzing team recruiting rankings in July is a pretty worthless exercise. OU and Tech have seven commits. Oklahoma State has eight.

But the idea that the Big 12 is falling behind is becoming more true by the day in my opinion- because of A&M's move to the SEC, it's now open season on recruits in the state of Texas for SEC teams. And the state of Texas has obviously been the bread and butter of Big 12 recruiting.

Check out the top TX recruits for 2015, as listed by Rivals:
https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecrui ... qll6hGPZB4

7 of the top 10 have committed, with five going to SEC schools- three to A&M, one to LSU, and one to Bama. OSU and Tech have the other two.

I believe Malik Jefferson, the #1 player in the state, is an A&M lean, as is Kendall Sheffield, the #3 player in the state. So on NSD you could have seven of the top ten players in Texas committing to SEC schools, with five of them going to A&M. Conceivably, Texas might not sign of the top ten players in the state this year, as ranked by rivals. That would have to be unprecedented IMO. To contrast that, five years ago in 2010, Texas signed six of the top ten players in the state.

IMO this trend will speed up Texas' departure from the Big 12 for the Pac-12/16, bringing OU, Tech, and Okie State with them.

Thus opening SMU's, UCF's, UConn's and Cincy's ticket into the Big 12 lite which would be an upgrade from the AAC.

[East Coast Mustang]

Analyzing team recruiting rankings in July is a pretty worthless exercise. OU and Tech have seven commits. Oklahoma State has eight.

But the idea that the Big 12 is falling behind is becoming more true by the day in my opinion- because of A&M's move to the SEC, it's now open season on recruits in the state of Texas for SEC teams. And the state of Texas has obviously been the bread and butter of Big 12 recruiting.

Check out the top TX recruits for 2015, as listed by Rivals:
https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecrui ... qll6hGPZB4

7 of the top 10 have committed, with five going to SEC schools- three to A&M, one to LSU, and one to Bama. OSU and Tech have the other two.

I believe Malik Jefferson, the #1 player in the state, is an A&M lean, as is Kendall Sheffield, the #3 player in the state. So on NSD you could have seven of the top ten players in Texas committing to SEC schools, with five of them going to A&M. Conceivably, Texas might not sign of the top ten players in the state this year, as ranked by rivals. That would have to be unprecedented IMO. To contrast that, five years ago in 2010, Texas signed six of the top ten players in the state.

IMO this trend will speed up Texas' departure from the Big 12 for the Pac-12/16, bringing OU, Tech, and Okie State with them.

Thus opening SMU's, UCF's, UConn's and Cincy's ticket into the Big 12 lite which would be an upgrade from the AAC.

Shut up moron

[feelthehorsepower]

Analyzing team recruiting rankings in July is a pretty worthless exercise. OU and Tech have seven commits. Oklahoma State has eight.

But the idea that the Big 12 is falling behind is becoming more true by the day in my opinion- because of A&M's move to the SEC, it's now open season on recruits in the state of Texas for SEC teams. And the state of Texas has obviously been the bread and butter of Big 12 recruiting.

Check out the top TX recruits for 2015, as listed by Rivals:
https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecrui ... qll6hGPZB4

7 of the top 10 have committed, with five going to SEC schools- three to A&M, one to LSU, and one to Bama. OSU and Tech have the other two.

I believe Malik Jefferson, the #1 player in the state, is an A&M lean, as is Kendall Sheffield, the #3 player in the state. So on NSD you could have seven of the top ten players in Texas committing to SEC schools, with five of them going to A&M. Conceivably, Texas might not sign of the top ten players in the state this year, as ranked by rivals. That would have to be unprecedented IMO. To contrast that, five years ago in 2010, Texas signed six of the top ten players in the state.

IMO this trend will speed up Texas' departure from the Big 12 for the Pac-12/16, bringing OU, Tech, and Okie State with them.

Thus opening SMU's, UCF's, UConn's and Cincy's ticket into the Big 12 lite which would be an upgrade from the AAC.

Shut up moron

Shouldn't you be put in timeout for attacking another board member? Get real brother.

[WordUpBU]

Analyzing team recruiting rankings in July is a pretty worthless exercise. OU and Tech have seven commits. Oklahoma State has eight.

But the idea that the Big 12 is falling behind is becoming more true by the day in my opinion- because of A&M's move to the SEC, it's now open season on recruits in the state of Texas for SEC teams. And the state of Texas has obviously been the bread and butter of Big 12 recruiting.

Check out the top TX recruits for 2015, as listed by Rivals:
https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecrui ... qll6hGPZB4

7 of the top 10 have committed, with five going to SEC schools- three to A&M, one to LSU, and one to Bama. OSU and Tech have the other two.

All that has happened compared to previous years is that UT has fallen on their butts and A&M has taken a lot of momentum. It happened in the late 80's and early 90's and will reverse again.

OU has focused less on TX in recent years and the percentage of their roster from Texas has dropped accordingly. Where they used to get 60-75% of their roster from Texas it's now around 46%. They have 13 kids from the western states (likely due to Mike Stoops and his ties from his Arizona days)

KU & KSU are focusing on JUCOs (its the only way a consistent winner was built in that state) and never were major players in TX recruiting. ISU and WVU really don't do the bulk of their recruiting here and focus on Florida as much or more than Texas. So that leaves the following...

Baylor
Tech
TCU
OkSt

All of whom historically have been behind A&M in the recruiting pecking order historically, even when Tech and Leach were kicking their butts on the field for a decade straight. All of these are recruiting better than they typically have done.

As for Bama & LSU? Look at just about any year in the past 15 and 1-3 top ten guys will go off to whichever teams are the team du jour. USC pulled Michael Morgan out of Texas 2 months after UT beat them for the national title and UGA pulled Stafford out of HP on signing day 2006 with UT fresh of winning two Rose Bowls in a row and a national title. To act like this is something new is simply not being aware of history.

2007? No different. Michigan plucked Ryan Mallett.

It's not surprising that with UT coming off a 2 year period where the only teams in the Big 12 that didn't beat them are ISU, KU, and Tech that things are slumping for them.

Also they have the additional disruption of a coaching switch. Last time they had that it was 1998 and even "Coach February" couldn't stop 9 of the top 20 in the state from going to non-Big 12 teams like FSU, ND, or others.

IMO this trend will speed up Texas' departure from the Big 12 for the Pac-12/16, bringing OU, Tech, and Okie State with them.

So much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

a- The Big 12's grant of rights holds each member in the league as the tv rights for home games would stay with the league. The difference here vs an exit fee is the "posssession is 9/10ths of the law" thing applies and possession goes to the league until at least 2023 if it isn't extended beyond that.

b- There were interviews with Dodds at UT where he indicated that the department was looking East if it left.

c- UT seems to love the exposure from the LHN which is on all but one major carrier in the state. The PAC won't allow it.

d- UT is making more money than ANYONE and will do so for the forseeable future. Why pay exit fees to potentially take a pay cut?

There are more issues with it but that's enough for now.

To be fair should they continue in mediocrity for a decade they will make changes but a 2 year sample isn't going to do that.

[East Coast Mustang]

So much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

a- The Big 12's grant of rights holds each member in the league as the tv rights for home games would stay with the league. The difference here vs an exit fee is the "posssession is 9/10ths of the law" thing applies and possession goes to the league until at least 2023 if it isn't extended beyond that.

b- There were interviews with Dodds at UT where he indicated that the department was looking East if it left.

c- UT seems to love the exposure from the LHN which is on all but one major carrier in the state. The PAC won't allow it.

d- UT is making more money than ANYONE and will do so for the forseeable future. Why pay exit fees to potentially take a pay cut?

There are more issues with it but that's enough for now.

To be fair should they continue in mediocrity for a decade they will make changes but a 2 year sample isn't going to do that.

a- Do we even know if the GOR are enforceable? I think Clay Travis is oftentimes a clown but he makes an interesting point here: http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footba ... sty-032514
b- Dodds isn't the AD at Texas anymore. What conference did the current AD come from?
c- Pac wouldn't allow it in 2010- but that was four years ago. The Pac's own network hasn't been as successful as they'd projected- bringing in the Texas TV markets would be huge for them
d- Long term, Texas can make more $ on TV deals (and get better exposure for the program and the university) in a conference with USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, etc than it can with Iowa State, TCU, Baylor, KState, WVU.

I agree that a two year sample won't effect a move, but if the trend continues where the SEC is dominating in-state recruiting in Texas and the Horns struggle on the field, you're kidding yourself if you don't think they will be looking for greener pastures to bolster their brand. And Ann Richards won't be able to bail ya'll out this time around.

[WordUpBU]

So much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

a- The Big 12's grant of rights holds each member in the league as the tv rights for home games would stay with the league. The difference here vs an exit fee is the "posssession is 9/10ths of the law" thing applies and possession goes to the league until at least 2023 if it isn't extended beyond that.

b- There were interviews with Dodds at UT where he indicated that the department was looking East if it left.

c- UT seems to love the exposure from the LHN which is on all but one major carrier in the state. The PAC won't allow it.

d- UT is making more money than ANYONE and will do so for the forseeable future. Why pay exit fees to potentially take a pay cut?

There are more issues with it but that's enough for now.

To be fair should they continue in mediocrity for a decade they will make changes but a 2 year sample isn't going to do that.

a- Do we even know if the GOR are enforceable? I think Clay Travis is oftentimes a clown but he makes an interesting point here: http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footba ... sty-032514

That GOR document doesn't sit with the lawyers for several months only to allow something like that to blow it apart.

b- Dodds isn't the AD at Texas anymore. What conference did the current AD come from?

You are at best trying to speculate with the "what conference does the current ad come from" crap. Dodds comments were to me implying more than just himself and to the UT athletic department feeling that East was where the tv sets were and the easier travel burden on students.

c- Pac wouldn't allow it in 2010- but that was four years ago. The Pac's own network hasn't been as successful as they'd projected- bringing in the Texas TV markets would be huge for them

Nothing has changed. Scott's comments at the time centered around how it would go over with member schools and not the profitability on the T1&T2 contracts. Also the LHN would be a competitor to any network efforts they'd have in Texas via Tech.

d- Long term, Texas can make more $ on TV deals (and get better exposure for the program and the university) in a conference with USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, etc than it can with Iowa State, TCU, Baylor, KState, WVU.

Not true if doing so cuts that additional tier 3 money by more than the tier 1 and 2 deals increase. Right now the Big 12 gets more revenue to start with, significantly fewer travel costs, and UT gets 15 million that it would be sharing out west.

I agree that a two year sample won't effect a move, but if the trend continues where the SEC is dominating in-state recruiting in Texas and the Horns struggle on the field, you're kidding yourself if you don't think they will be looking for greener pastures to bolster their brand.

Which is essentially what I already said.

And Ann Richards won't be able to bail ya'll out this time around.

Ann Richards did nothing. Bob Bullock pulled the strings for both BU and Tech along with several alumni of each to crash what would have been a 10 team league according to the Tech AD at the time. Every credible report backs this up.

[East Coast Mustang]

That GOR document doesn't sit with the lawyers for several months only to allow something like that to blow it apart.

We'll see how the ACC/MD lawsuit shakes out. I assume they will settle, and it will be for a LOT less than the $50M+ the ACC initially demanded.

You are at best trying to speculate with the "what conference does the current ad come from" crap. Dodds comments were to me implying more than just himself and to the UT athletic department feeling that East was where the tv sets were and the easier travel burden on students.

Uhh, I'm not speculating. He came from Arizona State. Before there he was an exec in the Portland Trail Blazers organization. More TV sets in the East but also more competition with ACC & SEC (if you're implying Big Ten). Travel burden is about #1,000 on the list of things these people care about. Also, the Big Ten folks would puke up their breakfast over adding a school like Tech along with Texas- they have other attractive potential options: UVa, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, etc

Nothing has changed. Scott's comments at the time centered around how it would go over with member schools and not the profitability on the T1&T2 contracts. Also the LHN would be a competitor to any network efforts they'd have in Texas via Tech.

What's changed is the PAc-12 Network hasn't been as profitable as expected: http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootba ... _mayb.html And if the Pac ever expands, they don't have many other options besides Texas and the three dwarfs. Realistically, no one else makes sense for them- BYU? Nevada? New Mexico? No, no, and no. The Pac may not want to accomodate LHN but they may have to- if other conferences are going to 16/18, what other viable options do they have that don't include Texas?

Not true if doing so cuts that additional tier 3 money by more than the tier 1 and 2 deals increase. Right now the Big 12 gets more revenue to start with, significantly fewer travel costs, and UT gets 15 million that it would be sharing out west.

Long term, which subset of TV markets would you rather be aligned with for negotiation purposes:
Subset 1: LA, SF, Denver, Seattle, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix
Subset 2: Kansas City, Des Moines, Charleston WV

Ann Richards did nothing. Bob Bullock pulled the strings for both BU and Tech along with several alumni of each to crash what would have been a 10 team league according to the Tech AD at the time. Every credible report backs this up

Ha, I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, But don't fool yourself- Texas will drop ya'll off on the side of the road the minute a better opportunity presents itself for them.

[WordUpBU]

That GOR document doesn't sit with the lawyers for several months only to allow something like that to blow it apart.

We'll see how the ACC/MD lawsuit shakes out. I assume they will settle, and it will be for a LOT less than the $50M+ the ACC initially demanded.

That's an exit fee fight. The Grant of Rights is a second deal entirely that the Big 12 struck with the current 10 teams and the ACC struck once UL joined.

You are at best trying to speculate with the "what conference does the current ad come from" crap. Dodds comments were to me implying more than just himself and to the UT athletic department feeling that East was where the tv sets were and the easier travel burden on students.

Uhh, I'm not speculating. He came from Arizona State.

Implying his prior employer makes him likely to take UT west is speculation at best.

Nothing has changed. Scott's comments at the time centered around how it would go over with member schools and not the profitability on the T1&T2 contracts. Also the LHN would be a competitor to any network efforts they'd have in Texas via Tech.

What's changed is the PAc-12 Network hasn't been as profitable as expected:

And their struggles to get their network up are going to make UT want to forego a guaranteed revenue stream from it's own network with more exposure? Come on

And if the Pac ever expands, they don't have many other options besides Texas and the three dwarfs. Realistically, no one else makes sense for them- BYU? Nevada? New Mexico? No, no, and no. The Pac may not want to accomodate LHN but they may have to- if other conferences are going to 16/18, what other viable options do they have that don't include Texas?

People run with this irrational idea that leagues will go to 14, 16, 18 because somebody else did. It depends more on the league itself.

Not true if doing so cuts that additional tier 3 money by more than the tier 1 and 2 deals increase. Right now the Big 12 gets more revenue to start with, significantly fewer travel costs, and UT gets 15 million that it would be sharing out west.

Long term, which subset of TV markets would you rather be aligned with for negotiation purposes:
Subset 1: LA, SF, Denver, Seattle, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix
Subset 2: Kansas City, Des Moines, Charleston WV

That assumes that tv markets are what determines payout. Ratings are more important than market or else the AAC would make more than the Big 12 or SEC. The Big 12 does fine in apples to apples comparisons on ratings vs the PAC or ACC. Now the grand total of the tv contract might be higher out west but once you divide it by 16 it might not be higher when the network revenue cut & startup cost is factored in as well as other issues.

Ann Richards did nothing. Bob Bullock pulled the strings for both BU and Tech along with several alumni of each to crash what would have been a 10 team league according to the Tech AD at the time. Every credible report backs this up

Ha, I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, But don't fool yourself- Texas will drop ya'll off on the side of the road the minute a better opportunity presents itself for them.

Well aware of that, same way both our schools dropped Rice at the side of the road. Everyone looks out for #1.