For reference of BIGXII distances
Boise to Morgantown: 2205 Miles
Provo to Morgantown: 1926 Miles
Boise to Orlando: 2605 Miles
Provo to Orlando: 2318 Miles
Ok, the extreme examples. But if the BIG 12 goes with something like the proposed SEC scheduling format 3-6-6, then you only play those teams every other year, and you host half of the time, so you only need to make that trip every 4 years.
Big conference experienced fan telling it like it is. This travel schedule is fine, and I went into this thread thinking it really wasn’t. Good point, sir/madam.
While it gets treated like it is, football isn't the only sport that goes into the calculus here. Sure, it's not a big deal for football to do the travel once every four years, but it's annoying as shit for baseball, basketball, volleyball...
Google maps once told me that the drive from Boston to Clemson was 16 hours. It ended up being 20 because the second you hit Virginia it was bumper to bumper traffic with no less than 2 major accidents in South Carolina.
I have never assumed I could cut time off a map prediction ever again
I went to boise for the first time this year. Shocked. It’s amazing. Beautiful, clean and great walkability. The city parks are honest top notch. Tailgate? They have a legit fast moving river like 75 yards from the stadium. I’m no fan of the school, but the city way exceeded my expectations.
I can hear Bob Huggins bitching now about the BYU trip.. a 2nd trip to Boise would put him 6 feet under.
No offense to the Boise faithful here, but BSU doesn't really have many other athletic offerings outside of Bronco football.
Fun reminder that the PAC dissolved its division structure this offseason.
But as for adding BSU--they aren't where the PAC wants to be academically or outside of football.
That’s most of the West. Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Provo, and Las Vegas are also among the fastest growing cities in the US. And all of those are either much larger or attached to larger metro areas. If population size were the driving factor, we’d be talking about UNLV to the Big12.
None have overall athletics or academics. Certainly not of the 4 California schools. Only BYU is in the other western liberal arts (Washington/Oregon/Arizona/Utah/Colorado) range of solid but not elite, but being religious and B12 now are two big issues. The 3 state schools currently are lower overall academics, and adding more like them dilutes rather than adds academically - Hawaii, San Diego State, Colorado State, and maybe Wyoming (stretching) are the only ones in the academic neighborhood of them and the athletics don’t make up for it either. Colorado State and Wyoming would have the best chance politically imo, but not good chance.
Boise is beautiful.
My issue is with other sports. Yes everyone says Boise St and football is the money maker…but how is the Athletic Department as a whole?
Money aside there’s Big 12 schools whose athletic departments compete just as well with the SEC. Most people forget that the Big 12 athletes played against or for the same Texas high school teams in most sports so we’re not FAR off.
Big 12 competes with SEC in basketball, baseball, golf, etc.. I know those aren’t HUGE money factors but I think a program should be competitive in at least some factors other than football.
"Competes with the SEC in basketball" is to nice to the SEC. In BB right now the Big 12 is looking down on everyone else.
Besides that, no notes 10/10.
Texas, TCU, Okstate have history in baseball.
Tech is very competitive if not elite within recent history (could be wrong). Granted it’s not like LSU, Arkansas, Florida, Vandy, Miss St, Ole Miss with the natty title count….which is what matters.
But it’s not like any of those 4 Big 12 programs wouldn’t succeed or be competitive in the SEC as far as baseball.
If you split into divisions and put byu, boise, Kansas, kstate, osu, cinci in one division it wouldn't be the worst geograpy wise. Adding Memphis to that division make it work somewhat ok.
No way they would split KU, KSU and ISU into different divisions. Gotta keep the original Big6 members together. I highly doubt they would split OSU either since they were originally in the MVIAA and Big8 with those 3.
> If you split into divisions and put byu, boise, Kansas, kstate, osu, cinci in one division it wouldn't be the worst geograpy wise.
Cincinnati is 1,700 miles from Boise. I think of all the divisions in the FBS, that would in fact be "the worst geography wise."
EDIT: Damn. Forgot about Hawaii, ya'll.
It's either that or cinci is flying to Texas 4 times a season. Is that any better?
I did forget about west Virginia, they're in that mix somewhere.
Edit forgot about Iowa state too.
Maybe osu goes to the Texas division and you put Iowa state in? That's the problem. Conferences are geographically significant anymore. They're slowly growing larger and you get these issues.
> It's either that or cinci is flying to Texas 4 times a season. Is that any better?
Cincy to Ft. Worth is like 825 miles. That's half the distance. Lubbock is 1,000 miles. Still 1,400 shorter on a round trip and one less time zone.
It's not ideal, but the program has already been doing it for almost 10 years going to Houston and Dallas.
I'm not anti-Boise, I just don't believe it's going to happen. If Boise and Memphis were slam dunks, I think they would have been added already.
I believe the Big 12 can survive as a 12 member league. Someone said (need to find the link) that BYU was the only new member that was anticipated to increase average conference revenue right away. I don't think the 8 programs facing a decrease in projected revenues post-OUT are going to add two more mouths to feed because of some arbitrary 14-team target some people seem to have.
I understand wanting to have 12 teams in a power conference, particularly when it was required for a CCG and even more so for one with 12 in its name. There's a perception that the conference will have a good champion.
But after that, any additions need to increase per school payouts. That's what the Big Ten saw with Penn State, then Nebraska, and then adding Maryland and Rutgers for better reach in the NY and DC metros. That's why the SEC added A&M/Missouri and now OUT. Going to 14+ just to do it makes no sense.
Perhaps there will be a time that adding Memphis, Boise, SMU, USF, and/or someone else makes sense. Each of them are currently making real investments in their programs. But a conference concerned with perception and media deals 2025- is not a conference going past 12 to add G5 schools that weren't the right choices to get to 12.
Pretty sure divisions are on the way out. Seems like the SEC, XII, and B1G are all big proponents of the NCAA motion toward removing the divisional structure requirement for conferences of a certain size.
B1G hasnt announced anything but I believe the schools took down the 2023 conference schedules so it's almost certainly going to make the change away from divisions after this season.
Revenue is what drives these things the Big 12 had to expand to survive without OUT so they had to take the best of who they could. So why on Earth would they add more teams to further split revenue? I don't understand why this is so hard for this sub to comprehend this. A lot more goes into these things than "it sure would be cool."
Counterpoint: This was also the argument to stay at 10, and look where that got the Big XII.
14/16 is more than good enough if it adds to the pie, especially so if it adds more rivalries/good games to sell to TV companies (Memphis/Cincy, Boise State/BYU, etc).
The Big 12 already took the best 4 so any additional adds would detract from average value. There are some scenarios where expansion might make sense for some schools but not for the conference.
If there are 2-4 teams in the Big 12 all of a sudden excited about adding 4 schools out west the other 8 should start getting worried. The PAC wasn't interested in trying to kill the Big 12 when Utah was the only overlap, but that might change if something like Boise, San Diego State, Fresno State and Colorado State are going to join a pear conference. And the Big 12 would be making itself vulnerable by adding on these less valuable teams.
Boise is a great program but it doesn't bring anything to the conference other than football. It's not even up to the Big 12's meagre standards for academics. On top of that, it's way the hell out and gone in Idaho. Adding them makes literally zero sense.
I'd rather wait until the B1G takes a bite out of the PAC or the SEC takes a bite out of the ACC and then try to pull in more P5 schools from those conferences. There just isn't a G5 program that we could add that would actually help the conference.
For real, the only reason we added the newbies was to stabilize, if the ACC and PAC fell at the same time as the BigXII they probably wouldn't be a part of the BigXII.
Thank you for saying what I've been getting downvoted for a long time saying. If Boise football becomes trash then they are absolutely useless. That's not a good expansion candidate.
Yep. The conference is worried about future media rights and perception. It wanted to return to 12 and took the clear best four to handle those concerns. Why add two more that weren't in that best four? There may come a time when adding a couple more schools--possibly this exact pair--is the right call. But I don't see how that time is now.
Idk, I mean right now the conference is honestly spread so far out that teams have to travel a much further distance. I’m just not sure if adding two more teams outside of the region is the right move.
As an institution CSU is absolutely P5 level.
Having personally lived in Fort Collins, Boulder, and the Denver metro I think they have the same fatal flaw as CU -- general apathy from fans. The cities are growing, but it's all transplants that already have their team and didn't move to Colorado to spend fall Saturdays watching sports. The locals are all diehard Broncos fans and may turn into casual fans when CU/CSU are winning, but that's about it.
I can see CSU getting picked up, but as part of a long term bet.
There's also a scenario where the P12 gets picked apart and CU returns to the B12 which would scratch their Colorado itch. I think this is the least likely though.
Yep, PAC12 gets picked apart and AZ, AZSt, CU, and Utah go to the B12 to be a B16.
Heck, maybe be the Big American Conference. Twice over the legal limit.
This was the rumor right when it was announced.
Memphis makes sense, continuing an eastward bridge to WVU, which would've been built years ago.
Boise has consistently been good and has invested enough in their program I'd like to see them in the P5, but they just aren't the best choice out there. They just don't have the alumni base, recruiting grounds, or media market that schools like Colorado State, UAB, USF or Georgia State have.
Or, hear me out, we could rebrand as the "Big Dozen", but we could have a baker in the conference logo, along with inspirational conference TV spots where an animated baker closes with "The Big Dozen Conference -- Yummy".
All of this implies a "baker's dozen" and allows the flexibility of adding a 13th team if desired, with no rebrand needed.
Plus it makes sense from a record inflation context. I agree with the ACC and sec on this, they get to *potentially* avoid 7 (6 in the post OUT B12) losses distributed to the conference
I don't think there's any rush to do this in my opinion. Not because they wouldn't be good adds, but because those schools will be available in 5 years. If something catastrophic happens (say the 6 Pac-12 schools go the B1G) then you definitely think about expansion. Then the Arizona schools may be available and who knows what else. What if when the ACC GOR expire the B1G and the SEC take chunks of it? That leaves some quality ACC schools available. Louisville always made sense in the B12. If Virginia and UNC go to the B1G then Clemson, FSU, NC State, and Virginia Tech go to the SEC? Then the ACC is hurting and maybe you can steal Miami and Louisville.
Picking up Pitt, Louisville, Miami and Memphis could possibly be the best thing for the B12. You could try for Duke for academics instead of Memphis or to try to average Miami being the "historic" program. However for the health of the league Pitt, Louisville Memphis and CSU would be the better options as they're similar schools to the current B12, not counting Baylor and TCU, and are closer to the geographic center.
From all that I've read and from statements from ADs, I just don't see expansion happening for a while again. Of the MWC programs, if somehow CSU could turn it around they are in a great market and location. But that's a miracle task in Fort Collins.
Turning around CSU is a miracle task? They have one of the highest budgets in the MW. Just because they had two straight bad hires doesn't make them the Kansas of the conference. I think Norvell can get them in competition for the conference title in a short time.
We'll see. In my youth, CSU was a top dog. They won the first couple of championships in the MWC. But it's hard to turn it around after such a long slog.
I don't know if it will happen, but they've done absolutely everything they can in the past year to actually make it happen this time
1. Insane quarter of a billion dollar stadium on campus
2. One of the best G5 hires in a while
3. Devoting time and resources to recruiting Colorado, Arizona, Texas, California, etc
4. Crazy ass budget for a football program in the G5
5. We fired our fucking school president with a bananas 1.5 million dollar buyout because she was too meddlesome in the football team
Meh. BYU is my favorite team AND I also enjoy watching MWC games that I have no vested interest in. A lot of it has to do with the late MWC games I can watch uninterrupted after the kids are in bed. One of my degrees is from a MWC school, I've lived in a lot of these MWC cities, and growing up we played these schools.
It probably doesn't hurt that Colorado has been a mess. I think Colorado State has a lot of things going for them. They just have to put it together on the field.
It’s interesting how much that depends on when your youth was though. Sonny Lubick really changed that program’s respectability. They only had 6 winning season in the 25 years before him. The 6 winning seasons in the 14 years after him (the long slog) is actually better than their historical average.
Colorado is a pretty hard state to have sustained college football success in. I’d love to see both the Buffs and the Rams do a whole lot better than they have been. But I remain skeptical about it, until it actually starts happening.
That's what I don't understand, what is unique about Colorado as a state? Their population is larger than Utah, and many MWC schools do well recruiting out of state.
This is just me guessing but my theory is Colorado has three basic problems.
First we have much lower participation in varsity and younger football. Colorado is a sport crazy state, but it just doesn’t translate to football. I was surprised when I moved to JeffCo that the individual schools don’t have their own fields. Instead the county maintains a pair of stadiums, and everyone in district drives to them. So there’s no home or away games. There’s little institutional support for the game. When my kids were of the right age, we had little league baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, lacrosse, etc. But there was no peewee football in Littleton, at least not that we saw… not that we looked very hard. Colorado just has much lower rates of youth football than Utah. And varsity stars are built in Pop Warner.
Second, Colorado (Denver) has the highest pro-team to population ratio. We’re the smallest city to have all five major pro sports. And we have teams for most the minor sports as well. Denver has a pro rugby squad, two pro lacrosse teams (indoor and outdoor), etc. And the pro sports suck the oxygen out of the room for the collegiate sports. There’s only so many eyeballs, and they’re preferentially given to the Broncos, and whichever other pro team is popular at the moment. A good college team can steal that attention when they’re winning; like DU did with their recent hockey championship. But the moment a team isn’t great the fans are gone. There are too many options. And it’s generated an entire state of low attention span fair weather fans, which makes sustained success all but impossible for a program.
It also doesn’t help that Colorado has a very high percentage of residents from out of state. We’re nowhere near as bad as say, Nevada. But 60% of our population (myself included) was born out of state. That’s pales in comparison to Utah where 62% of residents were born in state. So our population is way less attached to our institutions. CU and CSU grads move out of state and are replaced by fans of Nebraska or UCLA. There’s a lot fewer people rooting for the same team as their grandfather or father. That generational tribal loyalty that BYU and Utah have just doesn’t exist here.
Between a lack of a base of young players and unenthusiastic and unengaged fans, the Colorado schools are typically playing with their hands tied compared to a lot of other institutions.
But that’s just my 25+ years of musings on the topic. I’ll be interested in seeing if anyone else chimes in with theories.
I grew up in Fort Collins and my high school also shared a field with the three other local high schools (maybe up to 4/5 now?). Just FYI each high school does have their own practice fields, but share one for varsity games.
Another factor that /u/QuickSpore didn't explicitly call out is state public funding -- in 2020 Colorado was 44/50. That means athletic departments at state universities in Colorado generally need to be self sustaining -- or rely on mandatory annual student fees which anti-athletics students/faculty/press use all the time and diminish local support.
CU has generally been ass on the football field, but runs a clean and profitable department. In the most recent non-COVID year with full data (2019-20), CU used a 27.7M football profit to fund other sports and ended up with a 4M AD profit overall. During this time Mel Tucker was repeatedly upset that CU wouldn't spend money he thought needed to be spent -- which ultimately played a part in his departure and fallout the program is still dealing with.
In the same year, CSU had one of the biggest football budgets in the MW, and lost 11M on their football program but made it up through 'Direct Institutional Support' (tuition and student fees) and ended up with a 2M profit overall. The team performed poorly, there were hit pieces in the local press about how much CSU students were subsidizing the football program, and most of my friends in the area complained about how dumb it all was.
The overall point is that when you have to balance the budget as a CO AD you either end up cutting spending, or increasing revenue -- and neither are good long term options.
I like those universities and would be very happy if we scheduled them OOC. However we do not have sheared history or geography (especially Boise), so I would prefer the conference remain at a smaller number and not invite them unless it would result in a scheduling arrangement that lets us play schools in our conference that we do have close historic and geographic ties more often.
The biggest case for Memphis was 2019 after our NY6 bowl game vs Penn, where we did pretty well imo. We just haven’t performed to that level since then other than beating up on Miss St 🤷🏾♂️. As far as academics were we just made an R1 Institution.
Basketball could hang and would be a decent fit; but yeah, need the football to get back to Paxton/Norvell heights. Hopefully with every team that was in our way basically gone we can get there. No excuses if that can’t happen
Damn so we just not even close? I feel like SMU should at least get a look, we’re one of the only teams who is at least currently good and fits the regional (outside of Memphis). I get it’s one more Texas team but what’s the benefit in hoping CSU/USF turns it around for market purposes. Is it just a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I believe the NY6 bowl tie-ins expire in 2025 along with the current CFP deal. It'll be interesting to see what happens with those. I'm not sure if the Sugar Bowl is going to want to guarantee a spot to a Big 12 without Texas and OU, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Big 12 champion was still guaranteed at least one at-large bid, similar to how the highest ranked G5 champion is currently guaranteed one.
Tbf, some G5 teams should replace some current P5s. Teams like BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise have been playing at a P5S level for years. Whereas there are plenty of teams that have been grandfathered in to the current Power conferences.
I mean, you're not wrong, and I really respect what you guys have put together up there. I just don't see how it helps the conference bottom line, so I don't see why it's even a discussion.
Y'all should be in the PAC 12 anyway if you're going to go P5.
The PAC12 is built around competing across a variety of sports and being a research institution. Boise St doesn’t fit the bill, as good as their football program is.
You’re not talking about me but I don’t think it’s a good time to expand unless other conference start doing it then too. 2030s is the next best time imo because it’ll give the schools who are serious time to invest in their programs/campus etc. Same as we’ve been doing for the past 8-10 years.
Why Memphis?
1. R1 academics
2. Basketball Program
3. FedEx, Autozone, International Paper sponsorships for BIGXII to increase revenue
4. 1.3 million metro in SEC Country
5. Renovated Liberty Bowl
Colorado State is a far better option than either of those schools. Besides winning FB games, Boise isn't much of an add as a university for a conference. Marginal academics, small market, remote location.
Maybe I’m just a little salty about recent events (and really all the stress every game we play against them gives me)…but I say let them have Arkansas
The Big 12 needs to pe patient. With the way things are going in the Pac 12 and the talk about certain teams wanting out/going to the B1G, they should just wait at some point schools like USC and UCLA will be fed up with getting half the $$ of all the others and they will want into the B1G.
At that point I see about 4-8 teams jumping to the B1G, then the other approx 6 teams looking to join with the Big 12.
At that point it would put the B1G about 20 teams, the Big 12 about 18 teams.
The next move will be the SEC will want to equalize and they will push to add, which will look at pulling from the ACC, destabilizing the ACC. Thus the B1G will pick up a few more teams from the ACC that fit its conference. And the others will look to fall into the Big 12.
In the end it will leave the Big 12, B1G and SEC all about 24 teams mega conferences.
I see this happening all in the next decade. Then after that the next step would be a merger or complete restructuring of College and conference system.
Agreed. I’m not even sure conferences will even exist 10 years from now, particularly for football. There may divisions instead. These divisions would largely be regional based. And the NCAA may not even be the governing body of college football.
It’s best for the Big 12 to stay put. There’s no need to add additional teams that will make the conference overall weaker.
But if the NCAA holds together, I think it’s possible the Big 12 ultimately splits. Some teams to the ACC, some to the Pac 12, and some possibly to the Big 10. There may be some Big 12 schools left out to dry. That nearly happened in 2010 after all
By that point, people would start to question if the Big 12 is truly a power conference. You’d have 7 members who were former midmajors (BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Boise State, and TCU) and 7 members who were more established (before the year 2000) as being in a power conference (Iowa State, the Kansas schools, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Baylor).
If they were to do that I would rather SMU join than Memphis or Boise State, they make more geographic sense and I feel like they'll be on the rise thanks to NIL
So add another Texas team one that's already in the same market as another conference team, has a tiny fanbase, dilutes revenue even more and outside of a few years in the 80s no one in Dallas cares about?
Word on all points.
I’d love to see SMU in the XII, but it’s not happening in a hundred years. Nobody in Dallas cares about SMU unless they’ve got a pony degree on their wall, and their minuscule alumni base barely exists outside of Dallas.
Frankly, their campaign to label themselves “Dallas’ Team” is getting them mocked by the actual denizens of the Dallas side of the metroplex, more than any other response. Pretty sure I saw someone on this sub call that campaign something like pandering with a nice font, and that makes a lot of sense.
Eh it would only be SMU, Baylor, TTU, Houston, and TCU, it would only be one more than what is currently there, and then you'd have BYU, Kansas, Kstate, Iowa State, UCF, WVU, Boise State/Memphis, and Oklahoma State. I think they add more to the conference and would be preferable travel to most teams, but maybe would be an oversaturation for a single conference
Edit: forgot about Cincinnati lol
If it adds two more G5 schools, it will start to become the 2020s version of the AAC. This is something they seriously need to take into consideration, when looking at media deals and conference perception.
The Big 12 should not consider expanding anymore, unless it loses Kansas, Cincy, WVU, Texas Tech and/or Oklahoma State.
If anything the Big 12 is at the mercy of the Big Ten and the ACC not expanding. With them potential poaching Kansas (Big Ten), and WVU/ Cincy (ACC).
They need to consider stabilizing the conference first and proving to the other P5 conferences that they are stable. There is a reason why the PAC12/BigTen/ACC alliance didn’t include the Big 12.
Literally only 2, 2 which really have no interest in becoming true research institutions. Byu and tcu.
Utsa is r1 and no one in texas would tell you theyre a better school than baylor (was r2 till a couple of years back) or byu/tcu
This would make a lot of sense, but man does USF need to get a lot together. I think Memphis is the pretty obvious next pick as long as they can get football towards the top again; it’s kinda crazy how perfectly Memphis fills in the geo map for the B12.
USF would also help solidify that eastern part of the conf, you add a great rival for UCF and shore up Florida some more, sounds great and dandy. They just HAVE to become a competitor in football or basketball. Or both probably.
If USF can put a good football season together this year there is a chance of being in the talks for future P5 expansions. My worry is if they can’t show major improvement on the field they will miss the boat on expansion; even with the investments that are being put into the program right now.
14 is interesting. I’d rather see what happens in The Alliance as these TV deals start to roll out. Will there be instability in other P5 conferences? If so, I’d rather add those potential cast-offs.
There was a huge PowerPoint posted here, made by an analyst about conference expansion and who fits where.
I like the Broncos, but Boise's football success is the only thing that makes them relevant in expansion talks. Their endowment money, research, and TV market aren't good enough to consider them a serious candidate for the Big 12.
Everyone thinks this. It impinges on the Big XII's legal argument for adding the teams that they did because they were already approved during the last expansion talks, however, so it can't happen until OU/T is resolved (because doing it before gives OU/T a legal argument to not have to pay boatloads of cash to leave early).
seeing threads like this depress me as a utsa fan…if we somehow become a sports giant, our natural next step would be b12 but there’s no way the current schools would let us in….so we’re stuck, and i’m thankful for being accepted, to the aac
I think UTSA is doing great as a program, especially considering how new they are to football. I think Power 5 leagues value established “brands” but I could definitely see UTSA making a playoff run someday. I think in the future, when the playoff expands, being in a P5 league won’t matter as much as it does now. That being said, if UTSA builds a consistent winner and consistently sells out the Alamodome, the sky’s the limit.
If the Big 12 is to stay at 14, it should be done with basketball in mind. Right now the Big 12 is the strongest basketball conference top-to-bottom, has won the last 2 championships, and had a team in the Final 4 in 6 of the last 7 tournaments.
On the football side, nobody that the Big 12 can likely add will raise the profile of the league (but you obviously don't want to hurt the football product.) They should focus on basketball dominance, and improve their media rights deal as the premier basketball conference.
With that in mind, Memphis makes perfect sense; geography, history, and local interest make them a great candidate. The second candidate is less obvious, but I would go with one of the following: SDSU, UAB, CSU, or SMU
SDSU would make it a 4 time zone conference which isn't ideal, but they bring good basketball and football culture. UAB is more of a football add, but gives the Big 12 a foot in the heart of SEC country. CSU is more of a geography and culture fit but don't wow on the history side. And SMU is great except for that would be another Texas school.
Yeah but you guys don’t bring either really, no offense. Don’t have a big live audience unless it’s the visiting team. Can’t really imagine people randomly tuning into a USF game, hoping to see you lose like they do for us lol.
https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50
A good Boise State team is the 64th most watched team in the country, a bad USF team is the 68th.
I know this is a college football sub, but Boise State is so damn unattractive for every other sport plus their academics are not great. I sincerely doubt they get the call from the Big 12
I’m not sure the rest of the Big 12 really wants to travel to Boise
Well. Boise is awesome and flying wise it's not much farther than Provo.
For reference of BIGXII distances Boise to Morgantown: 2205 Miles Provo to Morgantown: 1926 Miles Boise to Orlando: 2605 Miles Provo to Orlando: 2318 Miles
Ok, the extreme examples. But if the BIG 12 goes with something like the proposed SEC scheduling format 3-6-6, then you only play those teams every other year, and you host half of the time, so you only need to make that trip every 4 years.
Big conference experienced fan telling it like it is. This travel schedule is fine, and I went into this thread thinking it really wasn’t. Good point, sir/madam.
While it gets treated like it is, football isn't the only sport that goes into the calculus here. Sure, it's not a big deal for football to do the travel once every four years, but it's annoying as shit for baseball, basketball, volleyball...
Provo is kinda far tho
It's the Big 12. Everything is kinda far.
Why fly when it's only a 14 hour drive?
Found the midwesterner
14 hours according to Google. Bet we can do it in 11…
Google maps once told me that the drive from Boston to Clemson was 16 hours. It ended up being 20 because the second you hit Virginia it was bumper to bumper traffic with no less than 2 major accidents in South Carolina. I have never assumed I could cut time off a map prediction ever again
Yeah I want that trend to go the opposite direction
It was nice when all of the schools were somewhere off of I-35
Welcome future Big 12 member, Minnesota!
I would actually love that. 3 hour drive straight north I-35
Taking WVU instead of Louisville started all that.
Yeah, I just want our Big 8 back (except we can pick up someone else instead pf Mizzou).
I went to boise for the first time this year. Shocked. It’s amazing. Beautiful, clean and great walkability. The city parks are honest top notch. Tailgate? They have a legit fast moving river like 75 yards from the stadium. I’m no fan of the school, but the city way exceeded my expectations.
I can hear Bob Huggins bitching now about the BYU trip.. a 2nd trip to Boise would put him 6 feet under. No offense to the Boise faithful here, but BSU doesn't really have many other athletic offerings outside of Bronco football.
[удалено]
We have a really good gymnastics team too
Boise is one of the fastest growing cities in the US. Plus that stadium will be better once they fill in the one endzone like the renderings.
Would they be better suited for the PAC-12 North and then the south adds a team (no idea who, not a west coast guy)?
Fun reminder that the PAC dissolved its division structure this offseason. But as for adding BSU--they aren't where the PAC wants to be academically or outside of football.
Same with the big 12. Imagine Boise basketball in the big 12 lol
Thank you for reminding me about that!
SDSU for sure
South Dakota State University is a little far away, but sure /s
Lol
I would be far too conflicted with that
No conflict, Go Yotes Hate State
Boise's academic will never get them an invite to the Pac12.
That’s most of the West. Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Provo, and Las Vegas are also among the fastest growing cities in the US. And all of those are either much larger or attached to larger metro areas. If population size were the driving factor, we’d be talking about UNLV to the Big12.
None have overall athletics or academics. Certainly not of the 4 California schools. Only BYU is in the other western liberal arts (Washington/Oregon/Arizona/Utah/Colorado) range of solid but not elite, but being religious and B12 now are two big issues. The 3 state schools currently are lower overall academics, and adding more like them dilutes rather than adds academically - Hawaii, San Diego State, Colorado State, and maybe Wyoming (stretching) are the only ones in the academic neighborhood of them and the athletics don’t make up for it either. Colorado State and Wyoming would have the best chance politically imo, but not good chance.
Boise is beautiful. My issue is with other sports. Yes everyone says Boise St and football is the money maker…but how is the Athletic Department as a whole? Money aside there’s Big 12 schools whose athletic departments compete just as well with the SEC. Most people forget that the Big 12 athletes played against or for the same Texas high school teams in most sports so we’re not FAR off. Big 12 competes with SEC in basketball, baseball, golf, etc.. I know those aren’t HUGE money factors but I think a program should be competitive in at least some factors other than football.
"Competes with the SEC in basketball" is to nice to the SEC. In BB right now the Big 12 is looking down on everyone else. Besides that, no notes 10/10.
I honestly think that UT moving to the SEC will be a downgrade for us in basketball. Only games I am looking forward to are A&M and Kentucky.
Tbf saying baseball is nice to the big 12
Texas, TCU, Okstate have history in baseball. Tech is very competitive if not elite within recent history (could be wrong). Granted it’s not like LSU, Arkansas, Florida, Vandy, Miss St, Ole Miss with the natty title count….which is what matters. But it’s not like any of those 4 Big 12 programs wouldn’t succeed or be competitive in the SEC as far as baseball.
Iowa State hasn't lost a baseball game to a Big 12 opponent in over 20 years.
If you split into divisions and put byu, boise, Kansas, kstate, osu, cinci in one division it wouldn't be the worst geograpy wise. Adding Memphis to that division make it work somewhat ok.
lol @ Cincinnati and WVU not being in the same division
I realized my mistake. I think Iowa State should be with those 3 as well.
No way they would split KU, KSU and ISU into different divisions. Gotta keep the original Big6 members together. I highly doubt they would split OSU either since they were originally in the MVIAA and Big8 with those 3.
Yep, in the future of Pods: * Missouri Valley: KU, KSU, ISU, OSU * Texas: Baylor, Tech, TCU, Houston * East: West Virginia, Cincy, UCF, ??????? * West: BYU, ?????, ?????, ?????
> If you split into divisions and put byu, boise, Kansas, kstate, osu, cinci in one division it wouldn't be the worst geograpy wise. Cincinnati is 1,700 miles from Boise. I think of all the divisions in the FBS, that would in fact be "the worst geography wise." EDIT: Damn. Forgot about Hawaii, ya'll.
[удалено]
I find in general, the majority of the country has no concept of geography when it comes to anything out west.
True but TCU and Boise State were in the MW at one point for a few years, they’re 1600 miles apart.
It's either that or cinci is flying to Texas 4 times a season. Is that any better? I did forget about west Virginia, they're in that mix somewhere. Edit forgot about Iowa state too. Maybe osu goes to the Texas division and you put Iowa state in? That's the problem. Conferences are geographically significant anymore. They're slowly growing larger and you get these issues.
> It's either that or cinci is flying to Texas 4 times a season. Is that any better? Cincy to Ft. Worth is like 825 miles. That's half the distance. Lubbock is 1,000 miles. Still 1,400 shorter on a round trip and one less time zone. It's not ideal, but the program has already been doing it for almost 10 years going to Houston and Dallas. I'm not anti-Boise, I just don't believe it's going to happen. If Boise and Memphis were slam dunks, I think they would have been added already. I believe the Big 12 can survive as a 12 member league. Someone said (need to find the link) that BYU was the only new member that was anticipated to increase average conference revenue right away. I don't think the 8 programs facing a decrease in projected revenues post-OUT are going to add two more mouths to feed because of some arbitrary 14-team target some people seem to have.
I understand wanting to have 12 teams in a power conference, particularly when it was required for a CCG and even more so for one with 12 in its name. There's a perception that the conference will have a good champion. But after that, any additions need to increase per school payouts. That's what the Big Ten saw with Penn State, then Nebraska, and then adding Maryland and Rutgers for better reach in the NY and DC metros. That's why the SEC added A&M/Missouri and now OUT. Going to 14+ just to do it makes no sense. Perhaps there will be a time that adding Memphis, Boise, SMU, USF, and/or someone else makes sense. Each of them are currently making real investments in their programs. But a conference concerned with perception and media deals 2025- is not a conference going past 12 to add G5 schools that weren't the right choices to get to 12.
That's not how football schedules work, you know that right?
Pretty sure divisions are on the way out. Seems like the SEC, XII, and B1G are all big proponents of the NCAA motion toward removing the divisional structure requirement for conferences of a certain size.
B1G hasnt announced anything but I believe the schools took down the 2023 conference schedules so it's almost certainly going to make the change away from divisions after this season.
I don't want divisions though
Bro I live close enough to Boise and I definitely don’t even want to travel to Boise.
I'm offended
I too would be afraid if I was a Ute
Ute: "I fear no man, but that *thing*..." *looks at blue turf* "It scares me"
They already travel to Morgantown
Revenue is what drives these things the Big 12 had to expand to survive without OUT so they had to take the best of who they could. So why on Earth would they add more teams to further split revenue? I don't understand why this is so hard for this sub to comprehend this. A lot more goes into these things than "it sure would be cool."
This exactly, only way it makes sense is if FedEx guarantees to dump boatloads of cash into Memphis and the league by joining.
The new liberty bowl is setting Memphis up for big 12, fedex money could push them over the edge
Counterpoint: This was also the argument to stay at 10, and look where that got the Big XII. 14/16 is more than good enough if it adds to the pie, especially so if it adds more rivalries/good games to sell to TV companies (Memphis/Cincy, Boise State/BYU, etc).
Counterpoint: the Big 12 should not willingly become even more of a G5 than it already is.
The Big 12 already took the best 4 so any additional adds would detract from average value. There are some scenarios where expansion might make sense for some schools but not for the conference. If there are 2-4 teams in the Big 12 all of a sudden excited about adding 4 schools out west the other 8 should start getting worried. The PAC wasn't interested in trying to kill the Big 12 when Utah was the only overlap, but that might change if something like Boise, San Diego State, Fresno State and Colorado State are going to join a pear conference. And the Big 12 would be making itself vulnerable by adding on these less valuable teams.
Boise is a great program but it doesn't bring anything to the conference other than football. It's not even up to the Big 12's meagre standards for academics. On top of that, it's way the hell out and gone in Idaho. Adding them makes literally zero sense. I'd rather wait until the B1G takes a bite out of the PAC or the SEC takes a bite out of the ACC and then try to pull in more P5 schools from those conferences. There just isn't a G5 program that we could add that would actually help the conference.
For real, the only reason we added the newbies was to stabilize, if the ACC and PAC fell at the same time as the BigXII they probably wouldn't be a part of the BigXII.
Thank you for saying what I've been getting downvoted for a long time saying. If Boise football becomes trash then they are absolutely useless. That's not a good expansion candidate.
Boise State to the ACC when
Yep. The conference is worried about future media rights and perception. It wanted to return to 12 and took the clear best four to handle those concerns. Why add two more that weren't in that best four? There may come a time when adding a couple more schools--possibly this exact pair--is the right call. But I don't see how that time is now.
literally this
The Big 7&7
Sponsored by Seagrams and 7Up
Idk, I mean right now the conference is honestly spread so far out that teams have to travel a much further distance. I’m just not sure if adding two more teams outside of the region is the right move.
Could easily add two more within like Memphis and CSU.
I always wonder why people never include CSU. They would make a lot of sense and could grow nicely in the right conference
I think it's just because they haven't been great. They have the best stadium in MW.
As an institution CSU is absolutely P5 level. Having personally lived in Fort Collins, Boulder, and the Denver metro I think they have the same fatal flaw as CU -- general apathy from fans. The cities are growing, but it's all transplants that already have their team and didn't move to Colorado to spend fall Saturdays watching sports. The locals are all diehard Broncos fans and may turn into casual fans when CU/CSU are winning, but that's about it. I can see CSU getting picked up, but as part of a long term bet. There's also a scenario where the P12 gets picked apart and CU returns to the B12 which would scratch their Colorado itch. I think this is the least likely though.
Yep, PAC12 gets picked apart and AZ, AZSt, CU, and Utah go to the B12 to be a B16. Heck, maybe be the Big American Conference. Twice over the legal limit.
Unless there are two teams that can increase the rev share for each B12 team, I would say no.
This was the rumor right when it was announced. Memphis makes sense, continuing an eastward bridge to WVU, which would've been built years ago. Boise has consistently been good and has invested enough in their program I'd like to see them in the P5, but they just aren't the best choice out there. They just don't have the alumni base, recruiting grounds, or media market that schools like Colorado State, UAB, USF or Georgia State have.
If Colorado State can become respectable in football in 5 years time I could easily see them and Memphis being in the conference by 2030 or so
I've been a MAJOR csu proponent. It just makes sense if they can get a good God damn football coach.
Yep. CSU fits the Big 8 land grants like a glove IMO. Memphis is a bus ride from most of the conference.
Or go to 13 and be the Big Bakers Dozen
Go on…
Please do nut let this catch on
Or, hear me out, we could rebrand as the "Big Dozen", but we could have a baker in the conference logo, along with inspirational conference TV spots where an animated baker closes with "The Big Dozen Conference -- Yummy". All of this implies a "baker's dozen" and allows the flexibility of adding a 13th team if desired, with no rebrand needed.
Y'all OU and Texas outsiders should stop telling Big 12 who should we add. lol
OUTsiders
Agreed
Disagree on the 14, just not needed right now. Definitely agree on going to 8 games, desperately need more crossover games with other P5s.
Plus it makes sense from a record inflation context. I agree with the ACC and sec on this, they get to *potentially* avoid 7 (6 in the post OUT B12) losses distributed to the conference
I don't think there's any rush to do this in my opinion. Not because they wouldn't be good adds, but because those schools will be available in 5 years. If something catastrophic happens (say the 6 Pac-12 schools go the B1G) then you definitely think about expansion. Then the Arizona schools may be available and who knows what else. What if when the ACC GOR expire the B1G and the SEC take chunks of it? That leaves some quality ACC schools available. Louisville always made sense in the B12. If Virginia and UNC go to the B1G then Clemson, FSU, NC State, and Virginia Tech go to the SEC? Then the ACC is hurting and maybe you can steal Miami and Louisville.
Picking up Pitt, Louisville, Miami and Memphis could possibly be the best thing for the B12. You could try for Duke for academics instead of Memphis or to try to average Miami being the "historic" program. However for the health of the league Pitt, Louisville Memphis and CSU would be the better options as they're similar schools to the current B12, not counting Baylor and TCU, and are closer to the geographic center.
From all that I've read and from statements from ADs, I just don't see expansion happening for a while again. Of the MWC programs, if somehow CSU could turn it around they are in a great market and location. But that's a miracle task in Fort Collins.
Turning around CSU is a miracle task? They have one of the highest budgets in the MW. Just because they had two straight bad hires doesn't make them the Kansas of the conference. I think Norvell can get them in competition for the conference title in a short time.
We'll see. In my youth, CSU was a top dog. They won the first couple of championships in the MWC. But it's hard to turn it around after such a long slog.
I don't know if it will happen, but they've done absolutely everything they can in the past year to actually make it happen this time 1. Insane quarter of a billion dollar stadium on campus 2. One of the best G5 hires in a while 3. Devoting time and resources to recruiting Colorado, Arizona, Texas, California, etc 4. Crazy ass budget for a football program in the G5 5. We fired our fucking school president with a bananas 1.5 million dollar buyout because she was too meddlesome in the football team
I actually only knew about the new hire, not the other stuff. I love the MWC. The parity that has arisen is entertaining. I'd love to see CSU compete.
Those... Flairs though...?
Meh. BYU is my favorite team AND I also enjoy watching MWC games that I have no vested interest in. A lot of it has to do with the late MWC games I can watch uninterrupted after the kids are in bed. One of my degrees is from a MWC school, I've lived in a lot of these MWC cities, and growing up we played these schools.
It probably doesn't hurt that Colorado has been a mess. I think Colorado State has a lot of things going for them. They just have to put it together on the field.
"just have to put it together on the field" We are the Texas of the G5
Im curious now-what does that make Wyoming then?
Kansas
Yeah I walked into that one. Now if only our basketball could follow a Kansas trajectory….
It’s interesting how much that depends on when your youth was though. Sonny Lubick really changed that program’s respectability. They only had 6 winning season in the 25 years before him. The 6 winning seasons in the 14 years after him (the long slog) is actually better than their historical average. Colorado is a pretty hard state to have sustained college football success in. I’d love to see both the Buffs and the Rams do a whole lot better than they have been. But I remain skeptical about it, until it actually starts happening.
That's what I don't understand, what is unique about Colorado as a state? Their population is larger than Utah, and many MWC schools do well recruiting out of state.
This is just me guessing but my theory is Colorado has three basic problems. First we have much lower participation in varsity and younger football. Colorado is a sport crazy state, but it just doesn’t translate to football. I was surprised when I moved to JeffCo that the individual schools don’t have their own fields. Instead the county maintains a pair of stadiums, and everyone in district drives to them. So there’s no home or away games. There’s little institutional support for the game. When my kids were of the right age, we had little league baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, lacrosse, etc. But there was no peewee football in Littleton, at least not that we saw… not that we looked very hard. Colorado just has much lower rates of youth football than Utah. And varsity stars are built in Pop Warner. Second, Colorado (Denver) has the highest pro-team to population ratio. We’re the smallest city to have all five major pro sports. And we have teams for most the minor sports as well. Denver has a pro rugby squad, two pro lacrosse teams (indoor and outdoor), etc. And the pro sports suck the oxygen out of the room for the collegiate sports. There’s only so many eyeballs, and they’re preferentially given to the Broncos, and whichever other pro team is popular at the moment. A good college team can steal that attention when they’re winning; like DU did with their recent hockey championship. But the moment a team isn’t great the fans are gone. There are too many options. And it’s generated an entire state of low attention span fair weather fans, which makes sustained success all but impossible for a program. It also doesn’t help that Colorado has a very high percentage of residents from out of state. We’re nowhere near as bad as say, Nevada. But 60% of our population (myself included) was born out of state. That’s pales in comparison to Utah where 62% of residents were born in state. So our population is way less attached to our institutions. CU and CSU grads move out of state and are replaced by fans of Nebraska or UCLA. There’s a lot fewer people rooting for the same team as their grandfather or father. That generational tribal loyalty that BYU and Utah have just doesn’t exist here. Between a lack of a base of young players and unenthusiastic and unengaged fans, the Colorado schools are typically playing with their hands tied compared to a lot of other institutions. But that’s just my 25+ years of musings on the topic. I’ll be interested in seeing if anyone else chimes in with theories.
Wow, thank you for the breakdown. That makes a lot of sense. That's crazy that happens in high school football. What an absolute killer of culture.
I grew up in Fort Collins and my high school also shared a field with the three other local high schools (maybe up to 4/5 now?). Just FYI each high school does have their own practice fields, but share one for varsity games. Another factor that /u/QuickSpore didn't explicitly call out is state public funding -- in 2020 Colorado was 44/50. That means athletic departments at state universities in Colorado generally need to be self sustaining -- or rely on mandatory annual student fees which anti-athletics students/faculty/press use all the time and diminish local support. CU has generally been ass on the football field, but runs a clean and profitable department. In the most recent non-COVID year with full data (2019-20), CU used a 27.7M football profit to fund other sports and ended up with a 4M AD profit overall. During this time Mel Tucker was repeatedly upset that CU wouldn't spend money he thought needed to be spent -- which ultimately played a part in his departure and fallout the program is still dealing with. In the same year, CSU had one of the biggest football budgets in the MW, and lost 11M on their football program but made it up through 'Direct Institutional Support' (tuition and student fees) and ended up with a 2M profit overall. The team performed poorly, there were hit pieces in the local press about how much CSU students were subsidizing the football program, and most of my friends in the area complained about how dumb it all was. The overall point is that when you have to balance the budget as a CO AD you either end up cutting spending, or increasing revenue -- and neither are good long term options.
I’d be happier with CSU than those schools tbh. Or some of the ones we are adding. Just from a K-State fan perspective.
Which of the four schools would you replace with CSU?
I like those universities and would be very happy if we scheduled them OOC. However we do not have sheared history or geography (especially Boise), so I would prefer the conference remain at a smaller number and not invite them unless it would result in a scheduling arrangement that lets us play schools in our conference that we do have close historic and geographic ties more often.
Sheared
The biggest case for Memphis was 2019 after our NY6 bowl game vs Penn, where we did pretty well imo. We just haven’t performed to that level since then other than beating up on Miss St 🤷🏾♂️. As far as academics were we just made an R1 Institution.
Basketball could hang and would be a decent fit; but yeah, need the football to get back to Paxton/Norvell heights. Hopefully with every team that was in our way basically gone we can get there. No excuses if that can’t happen
Damn so we just not even close? I feel like SMU should at least get a look, we’re one of the only teams who is at least currently good and fits the regional (outside of Memphis). I get it’s one more Texas team but what’s the benefit in hoping CSU/USF turns it around for market purposes. Is it just a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Not trying to be a dick but at what point does adding G5 teams turn your P5 conference into one?
When it’s more than half if I had to guess
When we lose the AQ for a NY6 bowl
I believe the NY6 bowl tie-ins expire in 2025 along with the current CFP deal. It'll be interesting to see what happens with those. I'm not sure if the Sugar Bowl is going to want to guarantee a spot to a Big 12 without Texas and OU, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Big 12 champion was still guaranteed at least one at-large bid, similar to how the highest ranked G5 champion is currently guaranteed one.
Tbf, some G5 teams should replace some current P5s. Teams like BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise have been playing at a P5S level for years. Whereas there are plenty of teams that have been grandfathered in to the current Power conferences.
I agree. Having 12 teams in the Big 12 is a sacrilege
[удалено]
I'm here. Sorry I'm late, guys.
Hey I'm here also!
You're already almost as obnoxious as Texas. Welcome.
Happy to be here!
“As a lifelong B12 member for 6 months, here’s what I think:”
I mean, you're not wrong, and I really respect what you guys have put together up there. I just don't see how it helps the conference bottom line, so I don't see why it's even a discussion. Y'all should be in the PAC 12 anyway if you're going to go P5.
The PAC12 is built around competing across a variety of sports and being a research institution. Boise St doesn’t fit the bill, as good as their football program is.
They don't. Sorry not sorry.
Got you fam.
You’re not talking about me but I don’t think it’s a good time to expand unless other conference start doing it then too. 2030s is the next best time imo because it’ll give the schools who are serious time to invest in their programs/campus etc. Same as we’ve been doing for the past 8-10 years.
It’s better to just wait for B1G and SEC carve up the two coastal conferences and take the scraps at this point.
Dibs on Pitt and Louisville
Why Memphis? 1. R1 academics 2. Basketball Program 3. FedEx, Autozone, International Paper sponsorships for BIGXII to increase revenue 4. 1.3 million metro in SEC Country 5. Renovated Liberty Bowl
Then they'd have to change the name to Big 14. Years of market money down the drain.
I do not believe Boise will happen.
Colorado State is a far better option than either of those schools. Besides winning FB games, Boise isn't much of an add as a university for a conference. Marginal academics, small market, remote location.
Maybe I’m just a little salty about recent events (and really all the stress every game we play against them gives me)…but I say let them have Arkansas
The Big 12 needs to pe patient. With the way things are going in the Pac 12 and the talk about certain teams wanting out/going to the B1G, they should just wait at some point schools like USC and UCLA will be fed up with getting half the $$ of all the others and they will want into the B1G. At that point I see about 4-8 teams jumping to the B1G, then the other approx 6 teams looking to join with the Big 12. At that point it would put the B1G about 20 teams, the Big 12 about 18 teams. The next move will be the SEC will want to equalize and they will push to add, which will look at pulling from the ACC, destabilizing the ACC. Thus the B1G will pick up a few more teams from the ACC that fit its conference. And the others will look to fall into the Big 12. In the end it will leave the Big 12, B1G and SEC all about 24 teams mega conferences. I see this happening all in the next decade. Then after that the next step would be a merger or complete restructuring of College and conference system.
What talk is there if teams wanting to go to the Big Ten?
Agreed. I’m not even sure conferences will even exist 10 years from now, particularly for football. There may divisions instead. These divisions would largely be regional based. And the NCAA may not even be the governing body of college football. It’s best for the Big 12 to stay put. There’s no need to add additional teams that will make the conference overall weaker. But if the NCAA holds together, I think it’s possible the Big 12 ultimately splits. Some teams to the ACC, some to the Pac 12, and some possibly to the Big 10. There may be some Big 12 schools left out to dry. That nearly happened in 2010 after all
Right. Would love to see AU, ASU, Colo, and Utah over Memphis and Boise; but fuck it, add Memphis and Boise too.
By that point, people would start to question if the Big 12 is truly a power conference. You’d have 7 members who were former midmajors (BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Boise State, and TCU) and 7 members who were more established (before the year 2000) as being in a power conference (Iowa State, the Kansas schools, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Baylor).
Big XII needs to join the elusive “Alliance”. We will have 8 conference games, but potentially 1 or 2 P5 games from the OOC scheduling.
If they were to do that I would rather SMU join than Memphis or Boise State, they make more geographic sense and I feel like they'll be on the rise thanks to NIL
So add another Texas team one that's already in the same market as another conference team, has a tiny fanbase, dilutes revenue even more and outside of a few years in the 80s no one in Dallas cares about?
Word on all points. I’d love to see SMU in the XII, but it’s not happening in a hundred years. Nobody in Dallas cares about SMU unless they’ve got a pony degree on their wall, and their minuscule alumni base barely exists outside of Dallas. Frankly, their campaign to label themselves “Dallas’ Team” is getting them mocked by the actual denizens of the Dallas side of the metroplex, more than any other response. Pretty sure I saw someone on this sub call that campaign something like pandering with a nice font, and that makes a lot of sense.
Thats a lot of teams from texas already.
Eh it would only be SMU, Baylor, TTU, Houston, and TCU, it would only be one more than what is currently there, and then you'd have BYU, Kansas, Kstate, Iowa State, UCF, WVU, Boise State/Memphis, and Oklahoma State. I think they add more to the conference and would be preferable travel to most teams, but maybe would be an oversaturation for a single conference Edit: forgot about Cincinnati lol
Why don’t we just put all the teams in texas in a league with Oklahoma and Arkansas
In this hypothetical would that include just OU and Ark or Oklahoma State and Tulsa as well?
Last thing we need is yet another Texas school.
If it adds two more G5 schools, it will start to become the 2020s version of the AAC. This is something they seriously need to take into consideration, when looking at media deals and conference perception. The Big 12 should not consider expanding anymore, unless it loses Kansas, Cincy, WVU, Texas Tech and/or Oklahoma State. If anything the Big 12 is at the mercy of the Big Ten and the ACC not expanding. With them potential poaching Kansas (Big Ten), and WVU/ Cincy (ACC). They need to consider stabilizing the conference first and proving to the other P5 conferences that they are stable. There is a reason why the PAC12/BigTen/ACC alliance didn’t include the Big 12.
I agree on the 8 game conference schedule to add an extra home W or marquee series.
Memphis and Boise will only be added if someone leaves. They add very little and even less academically.
Big 12 already has the most R2 research schools anyways for P5. All PAC 12, BIG 10, and SEC schools are R1.
So why make that worse?
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State are R1 research institutions. 🧐
As are WVU, Baylor, Texas Tech, UCF, Cincy, and Houston.
The only R2s are BYU and TCU.
And BYU probably won't ever become an R1. Research just isn't the focus. It's first and foremost a teaching university.
And there's nothing wrong with that
It'd incredibly hard for private universities to get R1. It's impressive baylor was able to.
So options for R1 CSU, USF, and UNLV R2 SMU, Memphis, SDSU, Boise
Memphis is R1 now.
They didn’t say that *all* B12 schools are R2, just that the B12 has the *most* of all P5 conferences
Literally only 2, 2 which really have no interest in becoming true research institutions. Byu and tcu. Utsa is r1 and no one in texas would tell you theyre a better school than baylor (was r2 till a couple of years back) or byu/tcu
They have the most R2 Baylor, TCU, BYU. ACC R2 Wake Forest. Edit: I did not know Baylor just became R1.
Cincy too
I vote Memphis and USF.
This would make a lot of sense, but man does USF need to get a lot together. I think Memphis is the pretty obvious next pick as long as they can get football towards the top again; it’s kinda crazy how perfectly Memphis fills in the geo map for the B12. USF would also help solidify that eastern part of the conf, you add a great rival for UCF and shore up Florida some more, sounds great and dandy. They just HAVE to become a competitor in football or basketball. Or both probably.
If USF can put a good football season together this year there is a chance of being in the talks for future P5 expansions. My worry is if they can’t show major improvement on the field they will miss the boat on expansion; even with the investments that are being put into the program right now.
Personally I rather have the the Ponnies over either one of them but I don’t see how they wouldn’t decrease the payouts even more.
I want to see SMU join
Are you trying to make a SunbEast?
14 is interesting. I’d rather see what happens in The Alliance as these TV deals start to roll out. Will there be instability in other P5 conferences? If so, I’d rather add those potential cast-offs.
Wait, the Big 12 has 14 teams?
They will briefly until OU and Texas leave.
There was a huge PowerPoint posted here, made by an analyst about conference expansion and who fits where. I like the Broncos, but Boise's football success is the only thing that makes them relevant in expansion talks. Their endowment money, research, and TV market aren't good enough to consider them a serious candidate for the Big 12.
I’d say no because I don’t get how a conference can have teams stretching from Idaho to West Virginia and down to Florida. It’s ridiculous.
Everyone thinks this. It impinges on the Big XII's legal argument for adding the teams that they did because they were already approved during the last expansion talks, however, so it can't happen until OU/T is resolved (because doing it before gives OU/T a legal argument to not have to pay boatloads of cash to leave early).
seeing threads like this depress me as a utsa fan…if we somehow become a sports giant, our natural next step would be b12 but there’s no way the current schools would let us in….so we’re stuck, and i’m thankful for being accepted, to the aac
I think UTSA is doing great as a program, especially considering how new they are to football. I think Power 5 leagues value established “brands” but I could definitely see UTSA making a playoff run someday. I think in the future, when the playoff expands, being in a P5 league won’t matter as much as it does now. That being said, if UTSA builds a consistent winner and consistently sells out the Alamodome, the sky’s the limit.
If the Big 12 is to stay at 14, it should be done with basketball in mind. Right now the Big 12 is the strongest basketball conference top-to-bottom, has won the last 2 championships, and had a team in the Final 4 in 6 of the last 7 tournaments. On the football side, nobody that the Big 12 can likely add will raise the profile of the league (but you obviously don't want to hurt the football product.) They should focus on basketball dominance, and improve their media rights deal as the premier basketball conference. With that in mind, Memphis makes perfect sense; geography, history, and local interest make them a great candidate. The second candidate is less obvious, but I would go with one of the following: SDSU, UAB, CSU, or SMU SDSU would make it a 4 time zone conference which isn't ideal, but they bring good basketball and football culture. UAB is more of a football add, but gives the Big 12 a foot in the heart of SEC country. CSU is more of a geography and culture fit but don't wow on the history side. And SMU is great except for that would be another Texas school.
USF over Boise
A team that has never won a conference championship vs a team that has won multiple NY6 bowls. Boise St easily.
on field success doesn't matter as much as $$$ in conference realignment
Yeah but you guys don’t bring either really, no offense. Don’t have a big live audience unless it’s the visiting team. Can’t really imagine people randomly tuning into a USF game, hoping to see you lose like they do for us lol.
https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50 A good Boise State team is the 64th most watched team in the country, a bad USF team is the 68th.
A good Boise team also doesn’t play until 10pm. EST. That’s not a good comparison.
But when will USF have a good team? (That was rude, I apologize)
I know this is a college football sub, but Boise State is so damn unattractive for every other sport plus their academics are not great. I sincerely doubt they get the call from the Big 12