Baylor Football

Hang ups in first round of the Big 12's expansion prevented more additions

October 22, 2021
33,209

SicEm365 Radio provided an update on the hangups that could be coming in the Big 12’s potential second round of expansion and why the league didn’t expand with more than four teams originally.

Highlights From The Conversation

  • The Big 12 is willing and wanting to move to the next level. The league was interested in possibly adding eight teams in Chapter 1 of expansion and eliminate the need for a second chapter of Big 12 expansion after adding Cincinnati, BYU, UCF and Houston.
     
  • Boise State, South Florida, SMU and Memphis were all on the radar for initial round of expansion for the Big 12 and continue to be on the radar for a second round of expansion. Some of those programs told the Big 12 that they were not ready.
     
  • Memphis is dealing with a presidential change that could be impacting a move in chapter one in addition to the need for renovating the Liberty Bowl, the program’s football stadium.
     
  • There is belief from the Big 12 that Memphis was not be as adamant about the move and was balking at the move from the American Athletic Conference and the Big 12 opted to move with four additions.
     
  • Memphis is still likely to be included in an additional round of expansion by the Big 12.
Tags: Big 12, Football
Discussion from...

Hang ups in first round of the Big 12's expansion prevented more additions

25,858 Views | 61 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by bear2be2
BYUnerd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As a newcomer, beggars can't be choosers so I'll be happy with whatever the decision makers decide.
I'm not sure why you're already talking about another expansion into G5.
Boise and SDSU only bring good football/basketball. Neither have a big following.
SDSU is in a good area, but NFL. MLB, NBA dominate that market.
I say stay put, or wait for AZ/AZ st.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The XII is only spread out for BYU and only when they play UCF, UC and WVU and like wise for those schools playing BYU. Otherwise Austin and Colleg Station for example are about as close to Lexington, Gainesville Athens etc. as Waco is to Morgantown and Cincinnati . Which is a shorter distance than USC and UCLA from Seattle and Pullman and maybe Eugene and Corvallis for that matter. Other than BYU the new XII is essentially as regional a conf as all of the other P5s.
1984Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My thought is wait to see what USC and Oregon do. If they don't get the money they want when the PAC 12 negotiates its new TV deal in a couple years, they will bolt to the Big 10. After that, perhaps we can get the Arizona schools, Utah and maybe a California (or Colorado) school. That sounds a whole lot better than Boise State and Memphis.
1 bears opinion
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't add garbage teams for the sake of numbers...there is not safety in numbers past 12 currently...the conference is on solid footing now with BYU+Cincinnati (and Houston and UCF) ...wait for the AZ schools and possibly Utah + Boise. The PAC is a dumpster fire and the BIG will get involved in poaching of USC, UCLA, Oregon & Stanford at some point...maybe UW too. Be patient but establish relationships with "target" PAC schools.
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BYUnerd said:

As a newcomer, beggars can't be choosers so I'll be happy with whatever the decision makers decide.
I'm not sure why you're already talking about another expansion into G5.
Boise and SDSU only bring good football/basketball. Neither have a big following.
SDSU is in a good area, but NFL. MLB, NBA dominate that market.
I say stay put, or wait for AZ/AZ st.
I concur.

Put me in the camp of liking 12. You will get to play most schools every year, and you'll get to play everyone at least every other year. I wouldn't go to 14 or 16 unless we got obvious value.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1984Bear said:

My thought is wait to see what USC and Oregon do. If they don't get the money they want when the PAC 12 negotiates its new TV deal in a couple years, they will bolt to the Big 10. After that, perhaps we can get the Arizona schools, Utah and maybe a California (or Colorado) school. That sounds a whole lot better than Boise State and Memphis.
This! And agree just adding random small time G5 now does nothing for any of the members of the new XII.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1 bears opinion said:

Don't add garbage teams for the sake of numbers...there is not safety in numbers past 12 currently...the conference is on solid footing now with BYU+Cincinnati (and Houston and UCF) ...wait for the AZ schools and possibly Utah + Boise. The PAC is a dumpster fire and the BIG will get involved in poaching of USC, UCLA, Oregon & Stanford at some point...maybe UW too. Be patient but establish relationships with "target" PAC schools.
If the Big 12 is adding further, it's not for the sake of numbers. It's because they're convinced -- and perhaps have even been told by potential media partners -- that 16 is a more lucrative model then 12.

If you follow the bread crumbs and read the tea leaves, it would certainly appear that a second round of expansion is possible, perhaps even likely. And if the Big 12 does go that route, it will be about money, and more specifically making more of it.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That is why you wait a couple of years and see if USC really is happy in the Pac or if they do to it what Texas and OU did to the XII over the summer.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

1984Bear said:

My thought is wait to see what USC and Oregon do. If they don't get the money they want when the PAC 12 negotiates its new TV deal in a couple years, they will bolt to the Big 10. After that, perhaps we can get the Arizona schools, Utah and maybe a California (or Colorado) school. That sounds a whole lot better than Boise State and Memphis.
This! And agree just adding random small time G5 now does nothing for any of the members of the new XII.
The Big 12 isn't going to do anything that makes its members less money or hurts the long-term viability of the league. If it expands beyond 12, it will do so because such an addition does benefit the conference and the bottom line of its existing members.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

That is why you wait a couple of years and see if USC really is happy in the Pac or if they do to it what Texas and OU did to the XII over the summer.

You can wait for that if you want, but the odds of USC leaving the PAC-12 before the Big 12's TV contract is negotiated are virtually zero. Explore all options, but we should knowno well before the PAC-12 deal is inked whether there's any real hope of adding current PAC-12 schools.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Contracts can be modified all the time. They can be drafted even with it in mind that new figures will come about if there is expansion. I doubt the XII will sign any contract that says under no circumstances are we allowed to expand beyond the date of signature on this contract.

But feeling an emergency rush to go out and ink SMU etc,and give them one of our slots in time for a new contract is silly. They have been terrible since the mid 80s until a couple of years ago under Dykes but Dykes probably isnt a long term HC there and even while winning they dont carry DFW and dont fill up the 30K stadium they play in.
Shakesbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HEX TEX! HEX TEX! HEX TEX!!!
Retreat Hell! We just got here! The 2/5
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Contracts can be modified all the time. They can be drafted even with it in mind that new figures will come about if there is expansion. I doubt the XII will sign any contract that says under no circumstances are we allowed to expand beyond the date of signature on this contract.

But feeling an emergency rush to go out and ink SMU etc,and give them one of our slots in time for a new contract is silly. They have been terrible since the mid 80s until a couple of years ago under Dykes but Dykes probably isnt a long term HC there and even while winning they dont carry DFW and dont fill up the 30K stadium they play in.
I just don't see any incentive for our future media partner(s) to include any such clauses or provisions in our next TV contract, given the current circumstances and our realistic expansion prospects.

The burden is on the Big 12 to prove its value in a post OUT landscape, not on our media partners to accommodate a collection middling football brands that aren't likely to move the needle ratings-wise.

The Big 12 is going to have to get creative to mitigate the losses it's about to take on its Tier 1 and 2 media rights and to create new revenue streams via its Tier 3 inventory. No one is going to do this league any favors. We need to make ourselves marketable/relevant.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Then if the burden is on the XII to prove its value than the current new XII is the best case for arguing its value. Not bringing in SMU etc and trying to prove to ESPN that SMU et al are valuable and that the XII should get a raise from what it would be as just the current new XII.
RedBear05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm really against these potential 2nrd round additions. Seems like we're really watering down the conference Kool-Aid too much.

The Pac12 is a dumpster fire and we should be targeting some of their unhappy P5 members. And there's no reason not to at least attempt at some ACC ones like Louisville. Feel like the Big12 missed a big opportunity not picking up Louisville years ago.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Then if the burden is on the XII to prove its value than the current new XII is the best case for arguing its value. Not bringing in SMU etc and trying to prove to ESPN that SMU et al are valuable and that the XII should get a raise from what it would be as just the current new XII.
The Big 12 may conclude that that 12 schools is best, but it's obvious from what they've made public that they're strongly considering further expansion. And if they do choose to go that route, it will be because they're convinced -- based on information they're privy to and we're not -- that a larger league is more lucrative.

I don't understand the certitude some of y'all bring to this discussion, as though you know better than a group of people who are fighting for their long-term existence and have far more information than we do.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well keep in mind, with the exception of the additions of UC, BYU, UCF, and UH, the entire history of the conference is one of being run by folks who make dumb decisions. So I'm not that comforted in their wisdom of adding these potential additions if that is what they are thinking.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Well keep in mind, with the exception of the additions of UC, BYU, UCF, and UH, the entire history of the conference is one of being run by folks who make dumb decisions. So I'm not that comforted in their wisdom of adding these potential additions if that is what they are thinking.
The entire history of the conference is one of being run by UT, which never cared about the health or well-being of this league.

That's no longer the case. Those making the decisions now -- both at the commissioner and AD level -- are dependent on the long-term success and sustainability of the Big 12. They're not going rush into a decision that hurts the financial or competitive viability of the conference. If they expand to 16, it will be because their research and due diligence supports it.

I trust the post-OUT Big 12 leadership and will support whatever decision they make, whether it's to stay at 12 or expand to 16. As I've said before, they have more and better information than I do and more urgency/skin in the game.
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:


The entire history of the conference is one of being run by UT, which never cared about the health or well-being of this league.
That is the absolute truth, and I am so glad that is over.

This is like the freedom of getting rid of a crazy girlfriend.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they are going to add 4 small time G5s they probably should make sure the play off will be expanded first otherwise they will make what is currently what we call a P5 and turn it into a G6 or whatever number and they will have locked the XII out of the play offs essentially.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

If they are going to add 4 small time G5s they probably should make sure the play off will be expanded first otherwise they will make what is currently what we call a P5 and turn it into a G6 or whatever number and they will have locked the XII out of the play offs essentially.
Regardless off whether or not the playoff expands (it will IMO), there's not going to be a P5 going forward. There's a P2 and everyone else. But the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC will remain autonomous five conferences whether the SEC or Big Ten likes it or not.

All the Big 12 should be worried about is a) making sure it's putting a good enough product on the field to earn a spot in a 12-team playoff and b) maximizing its television/streaming revenue. Adding to 16 will do nothing to effect A in a negative, because the strength of the current 12 will ensure a seat at the table and more teams means less losses for your best teams. If it helps you accomplish B, you do it.
WarEagle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
love conference shuffle and musical chairs. Eyeballs are referenced and I am sure the powers that be have other numbers they are crunching. Metro area is clearly the driving force. UCF and BYU are clearly supported by their fans, but Houston and Cincinnati (top5* w/ current coach) are not really supported by their fans otherwise, look at 5 year history. Of the other 4 in rd2, BSU and Memphis are the only ones that have people show up for their FB home games. SMU and USF aren't a draw in their market, reference their attendance numbers. BSU is way out there but for 1 trip, BYU/BSU won't have to fly far, sucks for every college athlete that has to go but come winter time ski mountains or Disney world would be great options. BSU a brand, but have been on the decline since Peterson, check the record. Memphis is heart of SEC, with a large corporate supporter, B12 bid liberty bowl already, their coach also has them on a decline. SMU is Dallas redundant but sports a huge endowment and with NIL could come back to the 1980 glory, but no one goes to their games, almost 2 generations of kids don't know the SWC:SMU. USF must be in just to say there are options we didn't opt for. BSU and Memphis should be in without question.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WarEagle said:

love conference shuffle and musical chairs. Eyeballs are referenced and I am sure the powers that be have other numbers they are crunching. Metro area is clearly the driving force. UCF and BYU are clearly supported by their fans, but Houston and Cincinnati (top5* w/ current coach) are not really supported by their fans otherwise, look at 5 year history. Of the other 4 in rd2, BSU and Memphis are the only ones that have people show up for their FB home games. SMU and USF aren't a draw in their market, reference their attendance numbers. BSU is way out there but for 1 trip, BYU/BSU won't have to fly far, sucks for every college athlete that has to go but come winter time ski mountains or Disney world would be great options. BSU a brand, but have been on the decline since Peterson, check the record. Memphis is heart of SEC, with a large corporate supporter, B12 bid liberty bowl already, their coach also has them on a decline. SMU is Dallas redundant but sports a huge endowment and with NIL could come back to the 1980 glory, but no one goes to their games, almost 2 generations of kids don't know the SWC:SMU. USF must be in just to say there are options we didn't opt for. BSU and Memphis should be in without question.
I think Boise and Memphis are shoo-ins if there's another round. I'm leaning more to westward expansion now if we go to 16. San Diego State would be a good pickup in terms of adding strength to both your football and basketball roster, and I don't really care who gets added after that. I'd probably stay in the Mountain time zone in order to build a four-team western pod, so that leaves Colorado State as a possibility, but you could add an SMU and push Tech out that direction if you had to.
osoprimo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would lean towards eastern expansion because that's where the population is - which is what the tv gods pay for.

What team/s could offer a game with a guaranteed 4 million viewers (google it) every year? what 2 teams have fans all over the world, not just America?

Army and Navy would be 2 random programs that could add huge value of national viewership - and a guaranteed 4 million viewership game every year (since we're going random with teams like Boise, USF, Memphis or SMU, negatives any which way Bowlsby wants to try and frame it).

I don't doubt SMU boosters are in Dallas-resident Bowlsby;'s ear all the time about adding SMU. Bowlsby may even stand to gain personally quite handsomely if he helps add the ponies, but it would not be for any reason that is good for the Big XII.
DST
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Admittance takes an 80% vote, so unless they're ready to buy off most of the league, it doesn't matter.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
osoprimo said:

I would lean towards eastern expansion because that's where the population is - which is what the tv gods pay for.

What team/s could offer a game with a guaranteed 4 million viewers (google it) every year? what 2 teams have fans all over the world, not just America?

Army and Navy would be 2 random programs that could add huge value of national viewership - and a guaranteed 4 million viewership game every year (since we're going random with teams like Boise, USF, Memphis or SMU, negatives any which way Bowlsby wants to try and frame it).

I don't doubt SMU boosters are in Dallas-resident Bowlsby;'s ear all the time about adding SMU. Bowlsby may even stand to gain personally quite handsomely if he helps add the ponies, but it would not be for any reason that is good for the Big XII.
The Army-Navy game wouldn't do those numbers on a normal college football weekend, and neither program would do anything for you the rest of the season.

As with the first round of expansion, we need programs that can compete at a high level and create compelling matchups with their play. None of these schools have brands that draw on name alone.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.