Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

by **StallionsModelT** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:08 am

Very interesting to come out and say this. So if Aggy leaves you'll need 3 teams to get to 12. Maybe SMU sneaks in this way.

by **leopold** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:47 am

That should be obvious. There are no good schools as candidates right now to fix the problems the Big XII is facing.

by **RednBlue11** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:49 am

we'll they're at 10 right now, so what's the plan to expand?

by **RednBlue11** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:50 am

the big 12 needs a conf champ game, and they dont need top tier schools to make that happen...the champ game matters a lot more

by **Stallion** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:57 am

I think they should but the administrators at OU and UT clearly think otherwise. 9 Teams is really an ideal number if no Championship. 4 games home and away and allows and extra powder puff non conference home game. 8 game Home Season.

by **RednBlue11** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:05 am

just reported on First Take that Beebe is taking A&M's desire to go to the SEC very seriously...folks we may have a defector after all, doesn't seem to be posturing this time.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:14 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the B12 said after Nebraska and CU defected that any future expansion would be targeted towards expanding their footprint, i.e., not in Texas. Not sure if A&M leaving would change that mindset, but if they were to add 3, then I think teams like BYU and Air Force would get serious consideration, possibly Memphis for bball (probably not though, their football program is atrocious on all levels), and then the Texas schools: us, TCU, and UH.

Now I think we can all agree that TCU is the consensus #1 pick of those three. Between SMU and Houston, I would think the B12 would give the nod to UH for this reason: assuming A&M leaves, they already have Texas, Tech, and OU for their DFW marketshare. For Houston, they have Texas, Tech (not sure how many people from Houston matriculate to Tech) and that's about it. Adding UH would obviously give them a larger marketshare in Houston. And remember, Houston is closer than DFW to SEC territory already, so the B12 may feel more threatened by the SEC there than in Dallas.

SMU's only hope at a Big 12 w/o A&M might be the Big 12 expanding with three Texas teams, which I really don't see happening.

by **StallionsModelT** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:20 am

If Big 12 expands with Houston and TCU and not SMU then that is the nightmare scenario for us. Truly the worst possible outcome.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:24 am

StallionsModelT wrote:If Big 12 expands with Houston and TCU and not SMU then that is the nightmare scenario for us. Truly the worst possible outcome.

Right, but I don't see Texas wanting to let the likes of TCU and Houston back into the yard.

If A&M goes to the SEC and Texas independent, does the now Big 8 add four teams? And who would they be? Not sure Beebe could keep Mizzou, OU, and Kansas in the mix with no Texas cash cow.

by **StallionsModelT** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:29 am

Also, why would TCU turn down going to the Big East for the Big 12 and Texas who has destroyed two conferences in the last 15 years? The Big East is extremely tenuous, but I think they have something secure at least in the BE with an automatic BCS bid and teams that are not nearly as difficult to navigate through in conference play like Rutgers, Pitt, Louisville instead of Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. I think they'd stay in the Big East personally.

Houston is the wild card IMO. I don't think Texas wants anything to do w/ Houston, but they may not have a choice if they don't want to go independent. Could the Big 12 make a push to go with maybe Boise State for the North and SMU for the South?

by **NickSMU17** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:30 am

Boise is under serious investigation right now...Not sure any major conference will touch them....

by **StallionsModelT** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:33 am

I think an under-rated angle to all of this is the complete disbanding of the Big 12. Could we see something like this?

OU, OSU, Tech, and Mizzou to PAC 16
Texas independent or the ND-BYU-Texas "alliance" thing
Kansas and Kansas State to Big East
Iowa State and Baylor to CUSA

I think this is a very real possibility.

by **Stallion** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:34 am

Why would Texas be interested in adding more dead weight when they would have to play more Road games that are not controlled by their TV Contract. Texas would more likely go independent

by **StallionsModelT** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:36 am

I agree Stallion, but they may not have a choice if they don't want to go independent. If they decide to go independent then all bets are off. But I think Texas doesn't want to do that b/c of the impact it will have on their other sports. I think Texas is going to try like hell to keep the Big 12 alive but if Aggy leaves then its every man for himself. They may have to accept a team or two they are not thrilled about in order to keep the thing alive.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:41 am

StallionsModelT wrote:I think an under-rated angle to all of this is the complete disbanding of the Big 12. Could we see something like this?

OU, OSU, Tech, and Mizzou to PAC 16
Texas independent or the ND-BYU-Texas "alliance" thing
Kansas and Kansas State to Big East
Iowa State and Baylor to CUSA

I think this is a very real possibility.

Pac-12 won't play ball with the likes of OU, OSU, and Tech from an institutional standpoint. Only way they're getting in is w/ Texas. Mizzou is a much better fit for Big Ten expansion IMO

KU and KSU to the BE could make sense, but remember that the current BE could be plundered by the Big Ten and/or ACC. It could prove to be no more stable than the current Big 12. Is the grass always greener on the other side?

Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Who is online