Who will be left in the Big 12?

by **Topper** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:16 pm

Kirk Bohls is usually way off base. But there is smoke in Norman. Is there also a fire?

http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhor ... 09134.html

by **ponyscott** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:29 pm

No ONE!!! The Big 2---- maybe......

by **Hoop Fan** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:03 am

OU is gone, comments like that assure it. i've never liked the Big 12 because we got left out of it but its really sad that Texas/Southwest football is being punked, kicked around and picked apart. Joining the Pac 12, seriously OU and Texas? Pathetic. Show some sack and lead your own conference. Its great that the city of dallas is finally waking up and realizing the cultural and economic benefits of having big time football in the city. Texas really stands to lose when the Big East, SEC and Pac completely takeover and run texas football. UT will really enjoy their conference office being in Lala land. Its sort of sad but maybe things have to go 180 degrees before they can come back again. Someday maybe a texas centered college football league will ride again.

by **Topper** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:33 am

I always wondered if UT was, or is, serious about the PAC 12. If they go independent, they would play 9 or 10 games a year at home. Not have to play in a championship game (one reason they were glad to see Nebraska and Colorado leave the Big 12). Not get their butts handed to them by some pretty decent west coast teams. Plus, most of the PAC 12 is 2 time zones away and play a lot of night games that start at 9:30 or 10:00 pm cst. They have all the money they could want. They just want a competitive advantage on the road to the BCS championship. I don't see the PAC 12 benefitting them. OU, Tech, and A&M will still want to play them every year as would any other team in Texas. They can play OU in Dallas every year, Rice in Houston every other year, and anybody they want in Austin any time they like.

by **One Trick Pony** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:27 am

When UAB gets an invite you no its real

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:38 am

looking more and more like the Big XII is about to become history.

If Texas, TT, OU and OSU bolt for the PAC, then Baylor, KU, KSU, Missou & Iowa St are scrambling to retain AQ status and it doesn't look good for them.

I would expect Missou to be attractive for the Big 10 but wonder about the Kansas schools and Iowa St. I expect the Big 10 to try raid the Big East and ACC to do the same.

The more I think about this, that CUSA-MWC alliance that had been discussed in the past might need to be revisited. Baylor to CUSA? KU & KSU to the MWC?

Bottom line with all this talk of SMU to the Big XII is that the Big XII is nothing without Texas and OU and those schools don't see SMU bringing anything to the table. It's all about TV ratings and contracts and Texas and OU will be looking to expand their national appeal. Going west can help accomplish that.

by **Statler** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:51 am

Charleston Pony wrote:looking more and more like the Big XII is about to become history.

If Texas, TT, OU and OSU bolt for the PAC, then Baylor, KU, KSU, Missou & Iowa St are scrambling to retain AQ status and it doesn't look good for them.

I would expect Missou to be attractive for the Big 10 but wonder about the Kansas schools and Iowa St. I expect the Big 10 to try raid the Big East and ACC to do the same.

The more I think about this, that CUSA-MWC alliance that had been discussed in the past might need to be revisited. Baylor to CUSA? KU & KSU to the MWC?

Bottom line with all this talk of SMU to the Big XII is that the Big XII is nothing without Texas and OU and those schools don't see SMU bringing anything to the table. It's all about TV ratings and contracts and Texas and OU will be looking to expand their national appeal. Going west can help accomplish that.

Valid points, but I just don't see the left coast kids wanting what they perceive as country bumpkins from Stillwater and Lubbock in their conference. Furthermore, PAC 12 doesn't want the LHN. I can see the stupid cows going independent and being the 63 and 64 teams (along with ND) when the 4 superconferences are made.

by **davish75** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:42 am

What happens to the payout penalties? Wouldn't Mo., Kansas, Kansas St. and Iowa St. have an incentive to retain the Big 12 rather than go to the Big East because so much money would be coming their way with five teams leaving? I would assume SMU would be one of the invites to this new Big 12.

by **goldenstang** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:03 am

I read last year that as long as the big 12 did not disband, that the remaining teams would get the exit penalties. The exit fee amount is not public knowledge but people have speculated that it is near 30 million dollars. I feel like it won't be the MWC or CUSA that is picking off the remaining big 12 teams but it will be the big 12 taking the best of CUSA and the MWC.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:40 am

at least as far as an "auto bid" to March Madness, I think a conference has to have at least 6 members who have played together either 3 or 5 years. If 4 more leave, I wonder if the 5 remaining members will even constitute a legitimate conference?

by **goldenstang** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:36 am

The WAC got a waiver allow them to keep getting an auto bid to the NCAA tournament. I think there are a few future contingencies that they have to meet like adding another team.

by **Mexmustang** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:26 pm

Arrogant Whorns! What makes them think OU would want them as conference mates any longer? Arkansas fled Texas,
Nebraska fled Texas,
Colorado fled Texas,
A&M fled Texas...
Why do they believe the PAC 10 would put up with their spoiled nonsense? Why add a highly distruptive partner that spells partnership "M" "E"?
Does DeLoss really think UT's brand value and reputation have been enhanced by his greed? What until they have serveral 3-5 loss seasons in a row--everything cycles.

by **NavyCrimson** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:08 pm

The screwy thing - & definitely not fair but it is what it is - about this whole conference re-alignment is what a school brings to the table now - in the present tense. Do they actually look at what an (SMU) will become once the team begins to benefit from all the positives that result from the re-alignment - more $$$, prime recruiting, tv coverage, etc?

Perhaps TU is looking at us that way but I don't think anyone else has the vision & intellect to see what an SMU can grow into. How shortsighted!

But then again, it's a cartel & we can't forget that!

by **NavyCrimson** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:11 pm

Mex: "... until they have serveral 3-5 loss seasons in a row--everything cycles."

Especially in a PAC-16 or SEC. Texas is far better off keeping the lil12 together or going independent playing 5 or 6 cream puffs annually.

by **Dutch** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:34 pm

Charleston Pony wrote:at least as far as an "auto bid" to March Madness, I think a conference has to have at least 6 members who have played together either 3 or 5 years. If 4 more leave, I wonder if the 5 remaining members will even constitute a legitimate conference?

if Kansas is one of those 5, the NCAA will figure out some sort of waiver.