Big 12 to interview 17 schools about expansion, sources say

[RGV Pony]

And thus the genesis of your username

[PonyTime]

Because we dallasites have been oppressors for far too long and it's time to stop living as conquerors and occupiers. We need to be more transformative and assume our place alongside cities such as Memphis and Cinci rather than assuming we are a shining city on a hill overlooking them, entitled to more simply because of our existence.

Yes - we should just send the $1.2 Billion in capital Campaign funds to the University of Memphis because they need it more. We could build them a new stadium, indoor practice facility, upgrade the FedEx Forum, and add a hell of a lot of fountains to spruce up their campus.

[smupony94]

Rice added to list

[RGV Pony]

To Gundys point Rice would be a safer bet than SMU

[Pony Boss]

Throw in Texas State and UTSA in the mix now that they're at it in this clown show

[Pony^]

Looks like SMU is garnering more support from Texas Legislators regarding its Big12 bid.

State Rep. Ron Simmons was one of 13 legislators who voiced their support for the addition of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in any expansion of the Big 12 Conference.

Along with Simmons, representatives Roberto Alonzo, Linda Koop, Rafael Anchia, Morgan Meyer, Angie Chen Button, Toni Rose, Myra Crownover, Matt Shaheen, Dan Flynn, Kenneth Sheets, Helen Giddings and Eric Johnson suported SMU joining the Big 12.

Apparently, Mr. Simmons thinks SMU plays in Conference USA, but we appreciate his support anyway.

He also stated:

the Big 12 is expected to make an announcement on possible expansion in 2017 or after the 2016 season.

http://starlocalmedia.com/carrolltonleader/news/state-rep-voices-support-for-smu-to-joing-big/article_2ca7cfb4-64a6-11e6-8b92-db4d4136ad2c.html

[smusic 00]

Can't hurt...

[ericdickerson4life]

As someone stated before. If you're a politician in Texas you better be behind SMU to the B12 or be run out of office. The economic benefits for the state and specifically Dallas should outweigh all other factors. Too bad there is more to it than Texas politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Water Pony]

Article which explores that no expansion might be the outcome. Bitterness might be high.

By Stewart Mandel, FoxSports - Aug 17, 2016 at 9:47a ET

At this point I’ve written every possible angle I can think of when it comes to Big 12 realignment (though I may have to redo Monday’s Big 12 Expansion Bracket now that we’ve got two more contenders.) What if, after all this, it turns out the conference doesn’t add anybody?

Stewart: I live in Houston and have a few contacts who are very close with UH athletics. They believe Big 12 expansion talk is in fact a cover-up designed to take media attention off the Baylor scandal. They are convinced as soon as the season gets here and either Texas beats Notre Dame, or TCU beats Arkansas, or Oklahoma beats Ohio State, they’ll announce they've found it best to stick with 10.
-- Mark in Houston

I don’t know about the conspiracy theory (though anything’s possible in realignment), but there does remain a very real possibility – about 40 percent, if not higher – that the conference will eventually make that very announcement. There are several reasons why.

First of all, nearly a month after the initial announcement about entertaining expansion candidates, I’ve still yet to hear any real enthusiasm or tangible reasoning from within the conference as to why they would do this. The Big 12 presidents, in their July 19 meeting, clearly heard something from their consultants to convince them they could no longer sit put, but with distance they may start realizing the negatives outweigh the positives.

Speaking of which, it’s no secret the league’s television partners want nothing to do with expansion. They’re obligated to pay whomever the conference adds, but they’d rather not. I could see a scenario where this whole thing ends with the Big 12 squeezing a little more out of ESPN and FOX in exchange for staying at 10 teams.

And finally, whether they realized it or not, this public bakeoff the presidents touched off among the various contenders is not healthy for anyone. Schools lobbying politicians and engaging in social media campaigns – all the while still competing in their current conferences – is creating tremendous pressure on all involved. If, in fact, this ends with the Big 12 presidents picking, say, BYU and Cincinnati, there will be incredible anger and bitterness from Houston, Memphis and the like. People may lose their jobs over it.

Of course, there will be unified anger and bitterness if it turns out this whole thing was a charade and the league isn’t expanding at all. But of course hurt feelings are inevitable when it comes to conference realignment.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

I agree with Water Pony. I'm skeptical of this whole Big-12 expansion thing, and one big reason is because the Big-12 members themselves don't seem very enthusiastic about it.

the other thing I find interesting here is the number of Texas politicians who are weighing in on this. Now back in the early 1990's, when the future of a conference made up entirely of Texas schools (by that point) was being decided, Texas politicians, as we know, had a lot of say in how things ended up. But the Big-12 is not the SWC. Four of its schools, including its 800-lb gorilla, are in Texas, but the other 6 schools are not. And I can't imagine that the 6 non-Texas schools are particularly interested in having the Lt. Governor of Texas tell them who they can and cannot consider for expansion. So when Texas politician X makes a statement like "If UH isn't taken, then no deal", to me that makes it more likely that expansion won't happen at all. OU, OSU, et. al will say "F Texas politician X. . . he can't tell us what to do." Then UT, Tech, et al will reply "But we can't agree to anything unless it makes Texas politician X happy." After going back and forth on this a few times, I could see them all saying, "Well look, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Why don't we just kick this can down the road and not expand at all right now."

I'm so not holding my breath.

[PonyTime]

This is interesting - from AAC BBS Board:

Mark Blaudschun has a new story up, behind a pay wall, on this subject.

I can't see it, bit somebody posted this recap (and opinion on Blaudschun's source) on another board:

If UCONN gets turned down by the Big 12, they will not maintain the status quo with the AAC according to his source (probably Mike Tranghese - his old friend, former BE Commissioner, UCONN Consultant). They will look to move all sports to BE and try for football only in the AAC, if not they will look to join another conference for football only. From a financial perspective they could make more money and save more money being part of the BE.

[PonyKai]

Yeah I'm sure the AAC is thrilled about letting UCONN take their valuable sport somewhere else and ask to keep a worthless sport in the AAC.

[smupony94]

Will suck but let them walk

[RGV Pony]

No one in the AAC loves the trip to Storrs /Hartford. Yeah it will suck to lose the tournament $ though

[RI Stang]

I question that report - yes, the BE makes more sense for them in basketball, but if they truly want to go P5, then why would they move their football to a lesser G5 conference when football obviously rules all realignment talk?