Interesting take on Big XII

[Ikus]

Have you ever heard an alum of any school say "sure, you beat us in football, but we're 6 spots higher in the Directors' Cup standings"?

Neither have I.

[mtrout]

Well we haven't finished higher than 5th in any of the 9 years of AAC existence so honestly not a whole lot to brag about in football either except stuff on social media.

Our nebulous definitions of success frustrate me to no end.

[leopold]

However, the Big 12 and Pac 12 contracts are going to be about the same, so nobody is going to really be jealous of the others, and Colorado has made tens of millions extra since leaving the Big 12 because it was a tiered payment until a few years ago in the Big 12.

Not to be petty, but SI has it at about a $9M difference, and that was before USC and UCLA left:
https://www.si.com/college/oklahoma/foo ... .%E2%80%9D

The SF Newspaper has it at an even larger difference, about $15M due to the pandemic:
https://www.mercurynews.com/?returnUrl= ... ate%3Dtrue

All I'm saying is that culture is nice and all but USC and UCLA didn't sign up for football games in Minnesota for culture. It's money and football, period.

[EastStang]

Think of it this way. With the money Nebraska is making the B1G, they didn't blink at spending an extra $7.5 Million to fire Frost.

[leopold]

That's certainly one way to look at it, and not a horrible one. Of course, that money is most likely going to come straight from disappointed boosters, not the department, so that's a different matter.

Another way to look at it is the amount of the difference is in the ballpark of the entire AAC TV payout per year, maybe more.

Again, not trying to be argumentative, just saying the Pac10 has got to really think about what they want to be as a conference because the model they went with watched two founding, bedrock members walk out the door. Phil Knight, for one, isn't going to stick around because of 'culture.'

[AusTxPony]

I agree that PAC must decide they want good football and add members instead of being so snooty. The BIG 12 moved to some top P6/G5 teams when their "bedrock" two left. The PAC must follow suit. SDSU and SMU seem like no-brainers. Could they pull Houston and TCU from BIG 12 next year? Would they reach as far as Tulane and Memphis? Or just stay West with Boise and UNLV?

[ponyboy]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why in Hades a Houston or a TCU would consider a PAC invite. Why does this keep getting mentioned here?

[crispy_taco]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why in Hades a Houston or a TCU would consider a PAC invite. Why does this keep getting mentioned here?

It’s a sort of cognitive dissonance. I’ve noticed it here too with that poll asking which conference you’d choose. People want to believe that the big 12 is some trash conference now simply because they passed us up. Which by the way pisses me off too but I’m not gonna act like it’s a bad conference full of leftovers.

Hell, I know they aren’t in big 12 at the moment but BYU could make a run for the CFP this year. Oke state is consistently competitive as well. Fertitta just paid god knows what to get into the conference he wants UH to be in. The Big 12 is MUCH more stable than a pac 12 with Oregon Utah and UW looking to jump ship

[JasonB]

Have you ever heard an alum of any school say "sure, you beat us in football, but we're 6 spots higher in the Directors' Cup standings"?

Neither have I.

Neither have I. But the PAC 12 wants competition across the board. And they want athletics. Their commissioner stated it prior to the CFP expansion, and the CFP expansion allows them to double down without risk.

For those of you talking about the size of the TV contract, you have to realize that the Big 12 has to compete with the top media markets in their region with the Big 10 and SEC. They are adding Houston, Cincy, and Orlando, which is great, but the PAC has PAC 12 after dark, and although that time zone monopoly will get somewhat disrupted with the BIG 10 move, losing USC and UCLA won't have as much as an impact as losing UT+OU.

[PonyTime]

It’s a sort of cognitive dissonance. I’ve noticed it here too with that poll asking which conference you’d choose. People want to believe that the big 12 is some trash conference now simply because they passed us up. Which by the way pisses me off too but I’m not gonna act like it’s a bad conference full of leftovers.

I think that there may be a crowd on here that compares current B12 to the SWC from 30 years ago when it was still intact and in all of its glory. This crowd has always wanted SMU to return to the old SWC.

But when you take the top third of teams out of that old SWC group (Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas) what is left is indeed the leftovers to this crowd. And replacing those teams with Iowa State, K-State, Okie State and Kansas does not really register.

What that crowd does not get is that this B12 "leftovers" group is still so far and above what we currently have (The American) and what we will have in the future if we stay put (The new American).

[ponyboy]

And a better option than the PAC because of culture, stability, and distance.

[SoCal_Pony]

And a better option than the PAC because of culture, stability, and distance.

At the core, these are educational institutions.

I would much rather be associated with Stanford, Washington & Cal-Berkeley than UWV, Kansas, K-St, Tech, UCF, Coog High, etc. We’d be the top academic school in the B12. I don’t like that, we’re not that good. It’s like having the nicest home in Mesquite.

And as for the payout differences between the PAC & B12, while the B12 is far more vocal about their prospects, (they are motivated by agenda btw), I’ve read in many places the the difference will be immaterial.

We shall see.

[ponyboy]

No, I’m with you. I was talking primarily about Houston.

[EastStang]

If they want the Houston market in the package, they can always add Rice which is superior to any school academically in the PAC except Stanford. Rice is making a commitment to step things up athletically. They would add a baseball program which is great. Not my first choice, but still an option.

[Dukie]

I think that there may be a crowd on here that compares current B12 to the SWC from 30 years ago when it was still intact and in all of its glory. This crowd has always wanted SMU to return to the old SWC.

But when you take the top third of teams out of that old SWC group (Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas) what is left is indeed the leftovers to this crowd. And replacing those teams with Iowa State, K-State, Okie State and Kansas does not really register.

What that crowd does not get is that this B12 "leftovers" group is still so far and above what we currently have (The American) and what we will have in the future if we stay put (The new American).

I think each of your paragraphs is progressively less true. I want the SWC from 1982, and I want Duke to be in the 9-team ACC from 1992 (with FSU). And sure, playing K State is not playing Texas, though it still registers and certainly more than the vast majority of SMU's conference mates since 1995. But the last paragraph? Not at all. Everyone knows the new American is garbage.