Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

I think we do agree. Boise is last on my list. I was only comparing them to the other schools and showing the disparity of how bad their market is compared to the others.

Edit: I see you were disagreeing about markets. nvm

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

The Big Ten already made this mistake by thinking Rutgers and Maryland would increase their TV viewership. It turns out no one in those areas cares to watch those programs. None of the G5 schools in major markets make dents in those markets. Their alums are the only diehards and others only watch (sometimes) when they're presented with a compelling product.

Our best bet at increasing TV viewership is increasing the number of compelling games our league plays. People tune in for good, fun football. With that in mind, give me the four schools most likely to provide that.

In hindsight 10 years ago, I wish during the last turmoil that we had applied to the ACC when they were on this panic buying spree just to go ahead and get away from Texas and OU 10 years ago.

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

The Big Ten already made this mistake by thinking Rutgers and Maryland would increase their TV viewership. It turns out no one in those areas cares to watch those programs. None of the G5 schools in major markets make dents in those markets. Their alums are the only diehards and others only watch (sometimes) when they're presented with a compelling product.

Our best bet at increasing TV viewership is increasing the number of compelling games our league plays. People tune in for good, fun football. With that in mind, give me the four schools most likely to provide that.

---

Yes, and all of the schools mentioned meet two requirements.

1) they make regional sense overall (when combined)
2) they have all within the last decade had top 25 teams. some even entered the discussion for the playoff late in the year.

The teams mentioned aren't scrub teams. To many people, they just make more sense than Boise, a small school that has been incredibly successful, but doesn't work for other reasons.

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

The Big Ten already made this mistake by thinking Rutgers and Maryland would increase their TV viewership. It turns out no one in those areas cares to watch those programs. None of the G5 schools in major markets make dents in those markets. Their alums are the only diehards and others only watch (sometimes) when they're presented with a compelling product.

Our best bet at increasing TV viewership is increasing the number of compelling games our league plays. People tune in for good, fun football. With that in mind, give me the four schools most likely to provide that.

---

Yes, and all of the schools mentioned meet two requirements.

1) they make regional sense overall (when combined)
2) they have all within the last decade had top 25 teams. some even entered the discussion for the playoff late in the year.

The teams mentioned aren't scrub teams. To many people, they just make more sense than Boise, a small school that has been incredibly successful, but doesn't work for other reasons.

---

I understand what you're saying. I'd just argue that the reasons they don't work aren't factors the Big 12 should be focusing on right now. The only factors that matter during this round of realignment for the Big 12 are those related to on-field play and long-term competitive viability.

A reconstituted Big 12 will never be able to compete with the other power conferences in tradition or TV market share. It needs to divorce itself from those aims. The only way the Big 12 remains viable going forward is by proving to the rest of the country that it can compete with those conferences on the field ... and then hoping that that collective on-field success leads to more eyeballs than any of these programs/brands can attract on their own.

We basically have three seasons to prove to TV partners that the Big 12 is worthy of a better contract than the AAC's. That's easier done with a program like Boise than Houston, which could have its third straight losing season this year.

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

The Big Ten already made this mistake by thinking Rutgers and Maryland would increase their TV viewership. It turns out no one in those areas cares to watch those programs. None of the G5 schools in major markets make dents in those markets. Their alums are the only diehards and others only watch (sometimes) when they're presented with a compelling product.

Our best bet at increasing TV viewership is increasing the number of compelling games our league plays. People tune in for good, fun football. With that in mind, give me the four schools most likely to provide that.

---

Yes, and all of the schools mentioned meet two requirements.

1) they make regional sense overall (when combined)
2) they have all within the last decade had top 25 teams. some even entered the discussion for the playoff late in the year.

The teams mentioned aren't scrub teams. To many people, they just make more sense than Boise, a small school that has been incredibly successful, but doesn't work for other reasons.

---

I understand what you're saying. I'd just argue that the reasons they don't work aren't factors the Big 12 should be focusing on right now. The only factors that matter during this round of realignment for the Big 12 are those related to on-field play and long-term competitive viability.

A reconstituted Big 12 will never be able to compete with the other power conferences in tradition or TV market share. It needs to divorce itself from those aims. The only way the Big 12 remains viable going forward is by proving to the rest of the country that it can compete with those conferences on the field ... and then hoping that that collective on-field success leads to more eyeballs than any of these programs/brands can attract on their own.

We basically have three seasons to prove to TV partners that the Big 12 is worthy of a better contract than the AAC's. That's easier done with a program like Boise than Houston, which could have its third straight losing season this year.

---

Agree with this 100%. The #1 goal has to be national relevance. The finance will follow in time. Baylor is not a publicly traded corporation so money is a means to an end, not the end itself. We have to look beyond the next TV deal to the bigger picture, which for us fans is enjoying a nationally relevant sports team affiliated with the school we love for years to come.

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

The Big Ten already made this mistake by thinking Rutgers and Maryland would increase their TV viewership. It turns out no one in those areas cares to watch those programs. None of the G5 schools in major markets make dents in those markets. Their alums are the only diehards and others only watch (sometimes) when they're presented with a compelling product.

Our best bet at increasing TV viewership is increasing the number of compelling games our league plays. People tune in for good, fun football. With that in mind, give me the four schools most likely to provide that.

---

agreed. "new markets" and marginal increases in viewership are fool's gold. The long game is a great, competitive football league that can put as many in the CFP as possible and compete for national championships. The promise of doing that some day again is the primary reason we are all fans --- not so that the athletic budget can increase (particularly in the short term). No body pockets that and I couldn't give a crap how much money we pay Mack Rhoades (although I hope we can keep him). Money is a means to an end.

CTbruin said:

---

Houston would bring Tilman Fertitta and Memphis would bring FedEx......both would be big assets in our expanded league.

---

Houston would bring Tilman Fertitta DEBT and Memphis would bring FedEx.....one would be big asset in our expanded league.

And I'm in the just say no to BYU.

According to Forbes, Fertitta current net worth is 4.7 billion.

From our friend Mac Engel. BYU, Cincy, UCF and Boise.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article253767368.html

LK4BU87 said:

---

From our friend Mac Engel. BYU, Cincy, UCF and Boise.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article253767368.html

---

I hate to agree with Mac the hack. But he's right on this one.

And I think you could spin it into a nice positive with the "Big 12 is dead" crowd if you can say that our supposedly doomed league just grabbed the two best programs from the AAC, the best program from the Mountain West and an independent that is already considered a P5 school for scheduling purposes. If it was still considered an upgrade to those schools, it should be by fans and TV execs as well.

If the Big 12 is going to expand into Florida, they should take USF instead of UCF. USF brings a much larger city than UCF. USF has a long history of success, has never had a winless season (UCF has two of those), and was the #2 team in the country at one point. USF plays in a much nicer stadium than UCF, has newer locker rooms, and has huge plans for upgrading facilities. Don't be fooled by UCF's success over the past ten years, USF is by far the better option.

Biguns89 said:

---

If the Big 12 is going to expand into Florida, they should take USF instead of UCF. USF brings a much larger city than UCF. USF has a long history of success, has never had a winless season (UCF has two of those), and was the #2 team in the country at one point. USF plays in a much nicer stadium than UCF, has newer locker rooms, and has huge plans for upgrading facilities. Don't be fooled by UCF's success over the past ten years, USF is by far the better option.

---

Well that's an interesting take. Maybe I have fiesta bowl bias but I think of USF as UCF's little brother. Recency bias is huge in thinking about these "worth of school things."

Ewalker80 said:

---

Biguns89 said:

---

If the Big 12 is going to expand into Florida, they should take USF instead of UCF. USF brings a much larger city than UCF. USF has a long history of success, has never had a winless season (UCF has two of those), and was the #2 team in the country at one point. USF plays in a much nicer stadium than UCF, has newer locker rooms, and has huge plans for upgrading facilities. Don't be fooled by UCF's success over the past ten years, USF is by far the better option.

---

Well that's an interesting take. Maybe I have fiesta bowl bias but I think of USF as UCF's little brother. Recency bias is huge in thinking about these "worth of school things."

---

UCF is also larger than USF (which is also very large), and with it's recent success (they've won four of the AAC championships since the league started in 2013.

BYU and Cincinnati should be immediate adds. They are the only two schools that already belong in a P5 in just about every way. Good in football, good in basketball, long-term history, and fanbase--although there really isn't another school available that compares to BYU for fanbase and TV eyeballs. Adding Cinci would help bridge the geographical gap with WVU as well.

Cinci and BYU in a heartbeat. We can then take our time with any further additions.

94_Bear said:

---

BYU and Cincinnati should be immediate adds. They are the only two schools that already belong in a P5 in just about every way. Good in football, good in basketball, long-term history, and fanbase--although there really isn't another school available that compares to BYU for fanbase and TV eyeballs. Adding Cinci would help bridge the geographical gap with WVU as well.

Cinci and BYU in a heartbeat. We can then take our time with any further additions.

---

Totally agree. Hopefully we can keep UT and OU in the conference for several more years and suck every last penny out of them. Let's get these two new schools in ASAP and hopefully they can rack up some wins against UT and OU before they leave. Then we are at 12 for now which we should be, actually improve in football until UT/OU leave and can survey the landscape for their replacements.

Sort of a digression here. But I frankly thought Cincy last season could run the table in the XII had they been in the conference last season.

If USF joins the Big 12, we instantly become one of the top teams, and would win the conference within 2-3 years easily. Our #2 ranking would be the highest of any remaining Big 12 team, or any other teams that might be added. Ask West Virginia if they remember the whippings we put on them.

PartyBear said:

---

Sort of a digression here. But I frankly thought Cincy last season could run the table in the XII had they been in the conference last season.

---

Would have been great to have Cincy and BYU, other things being equal. Cincy was incredible, really. BYU was very good as well.

Cincy finished ranked #8 in the AP Poll (7th AP ranked finish).

BYU finished ranked #11 in the AP Poll (18th AP ranked finish).

As I said yesterday, our problem as Baylor fans is that we want to have our cake and eat it, too. It's hugely amusing to see our angst to remain in a P5 conference while at the same time avoiding (and don't tell me that isn't what it is) the addition of schools that would be tougher to beat on a regular basis than UT has been, all the while bashing the recent level of our non-con FB competition. Kind of head-on-a-swivel kind of stuff, really.

Memphis and Houston are correct responses for various reasons. They fit in the most ways and have potential that many can not yet see, but it's there. Houston was a successful big time athletic school when they were in a major conference, before they got busted for cheating and helped destroy the SWC. There's no reason to think they can't get back to that level. They can already compete.

BYU is legit, but has issues that need to be overcome first. It can be done, but somewhat touchy. I have my doubts.

Cincy is among the most popular, because they have some good football, but I have serious doubts about P5 potential. I think they're pretty much maxed out as a legit qualifier by all necessary check marks.

SMU for old times sake, and easy travel and rivalry, would be kind of nice, but I don't even really think they want to be an across the board major sports contender any more. They don't seem to want to make that commitment.

canoso said:

---

As I said yesterday, our problem as Baylor fans is that we want to have our cake and eat it, too. It's hugely amusing to see our angst to remain in a P5 conference while at the same time avoiding (and don't tell me that isn't what it is) the addition of schools that would be tougher to beat on a regular basis than UT has been, all the while bashing the recent level of our non-con FB competition. Kind of head-on-a-swivel kind of stuff, really.

---

Adding Houston to the Big 12 would technically mean that there would then be 6 Power conference teams in Texas (with the next closest states having only 4 - CA and NC), with the top tier programs (2) being in the SEC and the second tier of programs (4) being in the Big 12. That alone raises some concerns about the viability of elevating Houston, but, nevertheless, if Houston has the value the network partners want, it should be added to the conference. However, that being said, once Houston acclimates to its new conference and the new NIL rules, it will likely generally be top tier of the Big 12 in terms of football (assuming programs from the lot of BYU, Boise, UCF, Cincinnati are also added), and there are probably some concerns from the Baylor fanbase that Baylor may not also be on the top tier - which are legitimate concerns.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

canoso said:

---

As I said yesterday, our problem as Baylor fans is that we want to have our cake and eat it, too. It's hugely amusing to see our angst to remain in a P5 conference while at the same time avoiding (and don't tell me that isn't what it is) the addition of schools that would be tougher to beat on a regular basis than UT has been, all the while bashing the recent level of our non-con FB competition. Kind of head-on-a-swivel kind of stuff, really.

---

Adding Houston to the Big 12 would technically mean that there would then be 6 Power conference teams in Texas (with the next closest states having only 4 - CA and NC), with the top tier programs (2) being in the SEC and the second tier of programs (4) being in the Big 12. That alone raises some concerns about the viability of elevating Houston, but, nevertheless, if Houston has the value the network partners want, it should be added to the conference. However, that being said, once Houston acclimates to its new conference and the new NIL rules, it will likely generally be top tier of the Big 12 in terms of football (assuming programs from the lot of BYU, Boise, UCF, Cincinnati are also added), and there are probably some concerns from the Baylor fanbase that Baylor may not also be on the top tier - which are legitimate concerns.

---

We were in a conference with Houston for decades and it worked out fine. If they take recruits from anyone it's more likely to be Aggy because that's their prime recruiting zone and they are huge public schools.

Dia del DougO said:

---

Memphis and Houston are correct responses for various reasons. They fit in the most ways and have potential that many can not yet see, but it's there. Houston was a successful big time athletic school when they were in a major conference, before they got busted for cheating and helped destroy the SWC. There's no reason to think they can't get back to that level. They can already compete.

BYU is legit, but has issues that need to be overcome first. It can be done, but somewhat touchy. I have my doubts.

Cincy is among the most popular, because they have some good football, but I have serious doubts about P5 potential. I think they're pretty much maxed out as a legit qualifier by all necessary check marks.

SMU for old times sake, and easy travel and rivalry, would be kind of nice, but I don't even really think they want to be an across the board major sports contender any more. They don't seem to want to make that commitment.

---

Smu would jump at big 12 in a second but they are way down on the list. Something like 80 percent of Baylor grads go to dfw and it's smaller than Baylor so it doesn't even have the upsides that Houston has but has downside of competing for Texas recruits.

94_Bear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Sort of a digression here. But I frankly thought Cincy last season could run the table in the XII had they been in the conference last season.

---

Would have been great to have Cincy and BYU, other things being equal. Cincy was incredible, really. BYU was very good as well.

Cincy finished ranked #8 in the AP Poll (7th AP ranked finish).

BYU finished ranked #11 in the AP Poll (18th AP ranked finish).

---

meme need to think beyond one single year but I think these are still two top choices.

Biguns89 said:

---

If USF joins the Big 12, we instantly become one of the top teams, and would win the conference within 2-3 years easily. Our #2 ranking would be the highest of any remaining Big 12 team, or any other teams that might be added. Ask West Virginia if they remember the whippings we put on them.

---

What number two ranking are you referring to? I didn't know that but at what point in season? I would be interested in hearing a serious case for USF over ucf aside from one week's ranking and some machismo.

Biguns89 said:

---

If USF joins the Big 12, we instantly become one of the top teams, and would win the conference within 2-3 years easily. Our #2 ranking would be the highest of any remaining Big 12 team, or any other teams that might be added. Ask West Virginia if they remember the whippings we put on them.

---

No offense, but y'all are coming off a 1-8 season and have had six losing seasons in the last 10. There was a time when USF was one of the fastest rising programs in the country. That time has passed.

Ewalker80 said:

---

Biguns89 said:

---

If USF joins the Big 12, we instantly become one of the top teams, and would win the conference within 2-3 years easily. Our #2 ranking would be the highest of any remaining Big 12 team, or any other teams that might be added. Ask West Virginia if they remember the whippings we put on them.

---

What number two ranking are you referring to? I didn't know that but at what point in season? I would be interested in hearing a serious case for USF over ucf aside from one week's ranking and some machismo.

---

It was in 2007. They finished that season at 9-4 and unranked.

My God UCF has 71k students. I don't know if they have a system and they are counting everyone or if that is on the main campus or that is the only campus.

The serious candidates are BYU, Houston, UCF, Cincinnati. Colorado State would also be nice.

atomicblast said:

---

You are idiots if we let U of H in. Houston can eclipse us if we give them the chance. I say we do the first two we know for sure which can boost us- UCF and BYU. We do Cincinnati to pair up with WVU. and lastly we go for a project- Colorado State.

---

The new conference needs to be competitive and we need to kill the AAC and MWC as competition. Houston being good means we can elevate to their level, and they add a bunch of regional rivalry games back to the schedule which is good for us.

Don't let fear override sensibility. Houston is already a competitor with us, everybody benefits if we are playing each other.

PartyBear said:

---

My God UCF has 71k students. I don't know if they have a system and they are counting everyone or if that is on the main campus or that is the only campus.

---

I believe they have a strong online presence -- maybe even about 1/2 their enrollment.

Biguns89 said:

---

If USF joins the Big 12, we instantly become one of the top teams, and would win the conference within 2-3 years easily. Our #2 ranking would be the highest of any remaining Big 12 team, or any other teams that might be added. Ask West Virginia if they remember the whippings we put on them.

---

Is this a joke? That #2 ranking was 15 years ago. USF has been rather easily eclipsed by UCF in recent years. Neither team is going to come into the B12 and dominate. Ask TCU how easy that is.

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

The goal for expansion is two fold:

-get schools who have shown they get into the top 25 with limited resources.
-expand the footprint

I would argue that UH does both. Houston is a gigantic city and UH is minting graduates in a city currently filled with A&M and UT fans. The conference lost its foothold on the 4th largest city when UT left. Having 4-5 conference matchups that likely get close to 45-50k people (when counting the much larger away crowds baylor / tech / TCU / osu would bring) brings a different level of excitement for the school and the brand as a whole.

---

I wouldn't be opposed to Houston, but I'm taking Boise first. If you look at the past two decades, no mid-major program has had more on-field success than Boise, which has earned a level of national respect that Houston has not. We need teams in this conference that help change the perception of the Big 12's overall strength. And BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise are the best equipped to do that. All four of those, like TCU, Utah and Louisville before them, would become respected power conference teams in a hurry.

---

What if Boise ends up crumbling from the pressure of Power 5 competition and ends up being bad in basketball, and football.

At that point.....what value would they bring to the BIGXII?

I understand that Boise St is good now and has a great history, but I'm not sure what they bring to the table as a long term conference partner.

What value would Baylor gain playing in Idaho, as opposed to Houston and Memphis?


The metro areas of Memphis and Houston have more high end football and basketball talent than Idaho or Utah.
I want Baylor playing in cities/regions where recruiting can be made easier.
Any of the schools that are added need to have a major airport nearby.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis all fit the bill.

---

Why would Boise crumble? Teams that compete at a national level with piss poor resources don't get worse with better resources. Like TCU, Utah and Louisville, Boise's floor would get lower in a league with deeper competition. But their ceiling wouldn't change. And they've proven for years that their ceiling is higher than Houston's.

And the bulk of Baylor's talent will come, as it always has, from Texas. So the recruiting area doesn't matter a lick to me. I want the four best programs. Period.

---

I look at downside vs. upside, and as they go through another coaching change this year, there's always the concern that they miss on the new head coach and go into a downward spiral. With all their resources, UT has had a decade of missing on coaches. A&M went through a number of coaches to start the 2000s.

Boise metro has about 750k people, and Idaho as a whole only has about 1.8 million people.
Memphis metro has 1.3m people in a state with 6.8m people.
Cincinnati metro has 2.2m people in a state with 11.7m people (and only one p5 team)
Tampa Bay metro has 3.1m people in a state with 21.5m people
Orlando metro has 2.5m people in a state with 21.5m people
Houston metro 7.1m people in a state with 29m people

Logistically they are way out of place in the conference, especially if you start adding schools in Florida and the midwest, and their floor is very low if they start losing.

---

The size of your market doesn't matter if you only carry a minute share of it. We're not adding any programs that move the needle in history or market share. Only on-field success and fun football will bring eyeballs to our teams' games. So you can keep your markets. I want the programs most likely to be playing important games the next decade plus, and Boise tops that list.

---

I agree with you most of the time. One this point I'm going to veer left.

My opinions on this subject matter are fluid. One day I'm for this school...the next day someone makes a great argument and I rank this school ahead.

BYU is easily a better choice than Memphis. Lets get that out of the way.

Where I'm differing from you is Boise St vs Houston. I completely understand that Boise St has a great football program. They would still be one of the last teams that I would add.

Its my belief that the new BIGXII needs to capitalize on marketing by playing games in the largest TV markets. DFW (7.5 million) and Houston (7 million) are each the population of medium sized states like Tennessee, Indiana and Arizona.

The BIGXII needs 4 schools in Texas. TCU (DFW), Baylor (Central Texas) Texas Tech (West Texas) Houston (Houston, SE Texas). That would also mean a hard NO for SMU.

The Baylor Bears need to be playing games in Dallas and Houston every year. The football and basketball talent in these cities is among the best in the entire country.

---

The Big Ten already made this mistake by thinking Rutgers and Maryland would increase their TV viewership. It turns out no one in those areas cares to watch those programs. None of the G5 schools in major markets make dents in those markets. Their alums are the only diehards and others only watch (sometimes) when they're presented with a compelling product.

Our best bet at increasing TV viewership is increasing the number of compelling games our league plays. People tune in for good, fun football. With that in mind, give me the four schools most likely to provide that.

---

Yes, and all of the schools mentioned meet two requirements.

1) they make regional sense overall (when combined)
2) they have all within the last decade had top 25 teams. some even entered the discussion for the playoff late in the year.

The teams mentioned aren't scrub teams. To many people, they just make more sense than Boise, a small school that has been incredibly successful, but doesn't work for other reasons.

---

Rutgers was necessary so the B1G Network could be carried in New York - where plenty of B1G alumni are.

Maryland was necessary so the B1G Network could be carried in the DMV area - where plenty of B1G alumni are.

The B1G's decision to add those programs made sense at the time the decision was made, and the B1G would make the same decision again because it has paid off for the conference. If two of Georgia Tech, UNC, or Virginia become available, they will get invites.

We want a solid,competitive conference that will have a lot of value in the broadcast and media market. We can't be scared of Houston or others competing because it will help Texas recruiting. We need competition and an alliance that is good for all parties, with great competition. Otherwise, whatever is next won't last long, either.