Kansas begs Nebraska not to leave the Big 12

I've felt for some time that the best option for the leftovers may be to join with some C-USA teams, and possibly steal a couple of the more midwestern Big East teams, and create a basketball-centered midwest conference. It's not like any of the schools we're talking about really care that much about football anyway.

Put ku, ksu, ISU, OSU and Baylor in a conference with Marquette, Louisville and DePaul from the Big East, plus Memphis and you've got a pretty solid basketball conference. Throw in a handful of other C-USA teams (like Houston, UTEP, Rice and SMU to "lock up" the Texas market...), or just keep 'em all and make it a 20 team league. Swing a TV deal similar to the current Big 12 deal so the power teams keep the bulk of the revenue... you know East Carolina or Marshall will put up with it if they get to be in a conference with the likes of kansas. Or just trim out ECU, UCF, Southern Miss and Marshall and keep it at 16.

They won't have an automatic BCS berth most likely, but an expanded Mountain West isn't guaranteed one, either, especially if the Pac 10 takes Utah. That would enable schools like ku to stop pretending they care about anything but basketball, schools like ISU to continue pretending they matter, and schools like the C-USA schools to begin pretending they do. It would also help the three Big East schools get out of the extremely competitive Big East, retain some respectability and cut down on travel costs.
 
I'm completely amazed that the KU President was not at those meetings. The reality is Football/Poulation is driving the bus....there are only about 10 schools in the major conferences that focus on hoops. I agree with you, some of these schools would be VERY wise to focus on aligning in hoops; however, these new conferences may make even that a thing of the past.

You are objective about the situation Sawyer, based on what you are seeing/hearing...what teams do you think end up in a new Pac-16 [p..s. saw oSu fans making fun of Baylor and OU today. Classic oSu.]
 
stoops4pres said:
Given the fact that The Bleacher Report isn't a credible source, I'm not sure I would consider the content in this article more likely to happen than anything else.
Click to expand...

Not citing it as a source, just the most plausible, thought out scenario. It was an opinion piece...what about it do you disagree with?
 
boksooner said:
Texas is the big prize. The Pac-10 won't jeopardize the opportunity to bring in Texas, simply because they don't like Baylor.

I can see them bringing in Colorado to force-out Baylor, but adding Utah does not make logical sense.
Click to expand...

+1

IMO, I don't see Utah going unless the Pac 10's previous plan of expanding 6 Big 12 teams falters.
 
Mr.B!!! said:
I'm completely amazed that the KU President was not at those meetings. The reality is Football/Poulation is driving the bus....there are only about 10 schools in the major conferences that focus on hoops. I agree with you, some of these schools would be VERY wise to focus on aligning in hoops; however, these new conferences may make even that a thing of the past.

You are objective about the situation Sawyer, based on what you are seeing/hearing...what teams do you think end up in a new Pac-16 [p..s. saw oSu fans making fun of Baylor and OU today. Classic oSu.]
Click to expand...

Pretty much what you've said.

CU, Utah (UU? That looks weird), OU, UT, A&M and probably Texas Tech.

That's if they go to 16. I think thats 50/50 right now, with the alternative being Colorado and Utah. Going to 12 teams, adding a championship game and renegotiating a new TV deal with two top 30 TV markets added would be enough to increase each team's revenue by quite a bit. I think most schools would be ok with that.
 
stoops4pres said:
+1

IMO, I don't see Utah going unless the Pac 10's previous plan of expanding 6 Big 12 teams falters.
Click to expand...

It is already going off the grid with the [perceived] instance that Baylor be included. We've spent about the last 12 years under UT's thumb and with horrid leadership in the B12, is that why it is so surprising to see a SMART person/conference that is not completely dependent on UT do it their thing? Baylor wants a spot...no more room for Baylor while you watch NU and Mizzou jet as well. You are now the Big 9...who else wants to wait?
 
Mr.B!!! said:
Not citing it as a source, just the most plausible, thought out scenario. It was an opinion piece...what about it do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

I must have misunderstood, I assumed you believed it was the most thought-out source per se. That site is basically a glorified message board--you, me, or anyone else could post an article on there, and I assumed you were taking the site's material over the scenarios explained on actual credible sources such as ESPN, CBS, etc. I understand where you're coming from now, though.

Whoever the guy was seems like he knows a lot about the schools, but what I disagree with is his reasoning for why Colorado and Utah should be taken. What makes "the most geographical sense" shouldn't be a more prevailing factor than choosing a conference that gives you more earning potential and a better football pedigree, two factors that are basically the crux of the entire expansion.

If the Pac 16 wants to fulfill its potential, it goes with the 6 schools, regardless if Texas wants Baylor (who I think Colorado should still be chosen over) as a package deal. Taking those 6 would be exponentially better for the Pac 16 in the long-run than taking Colorado and Utah.
 
Why does anyone credit the Denver market to Colorado? Have you seen the ratings for Colorado games in Denver? Denver is a pro town. End of story. Adding Colorado will not bring in the Denver market.
 
stoops4pres said:
I must have misunderstood, I assumed you believed it was the most thought-out source per se. That site is basically a glorified message board--you, me, or anyone else could post an article on there, and I assumed you were taking the site's material over the scenarios explained on actual credible sources such as ESPN, CBS, etc. I understand where you're coming from now, though.

Whoever the guy was seems like he knows a lot about the schools, but what I disagree with is his reasoning for why Colorado and Utah should be taken. What makes "the most geographical sense" shouldn't be a more prevailing factor than choosing a conference that gives you more earning potential and a better football pedigree, two factors that are basically the crux of the entire expansion.

If the Pac 16 wants to fulfill its potential, it goes with the 6 schools, regardless if Texas wants Baylor (who I think Colorado should still be chosen over) as a package deal. Taking those 6 would be exponentially better for the Pac 16 in the long-run than taking Colorado and Utah.
Click to expand...

Does Baylor bring the Sate of Colorado and does oSu bring the State of Utah? It makes a ton of geographical and common sense if the Pac-10 is hedging their bets. Like the article says, they hurt their two closest competitors while making their league more attractive by expanding into another time zone.

Here is the reality, what does oSu bring that OU wouldn't already bring? What does Baylor bring that UT, aTm and TT wouldn't already bring? That is how these decisions are being made...not the Texas legislature or the Oklahoma legislature or anything else. In short, offering CU and Utah is a safe play of the Pac-10.

As stated above, I'll be curious to see who of OU, UT and aTm flinches first.
 
boksooner said:
Why does anyone credit the Denver market to Colorado? Have you seen the ratings for Colorado games in Denver? Denver is a pro town. End of story. Adding Colorado will not bring in the Denver market.
Click to expand...

Will it bring more people than adding Baylor, Tech or oSu?
 
boksooner said:
Why does anyone credit the Denver market to Colorado? Have you seen the ratings for Colorado games in Denver? Denver is a pro town. End of story. Adding Colorado will not bring in the Denver market.
Click to expand...

It does if the deal is anything like the Big 10 Network. The Big 10 Network is added to the cable packages of all households in the states within the Big 10's footprint. There is also advertising to consider, but that's a much smaller part of the revenue the network generates. Their network also happened to be put together by the same guy - Kevin Weiberg - that worked on the Big 10 Network, so I'm sure they'll shoot for a similar deal.

If they get what they're hoping for, it doesn't matter if no one in Denver watches CU. They're all paying to subscribe anyway.
 
Mr.B!!! said:
It is already going off the grid with the [perceived] instance that Baylor be included. We've spent about the last 12 years under UT's thumb and with horrid leadership in the B12, is that why it is so surprising to see a SMART person/conference that is not completely dependent on UT do it their thing? Baylor wants a spot...no more room for Baylor while you watch NU and Mizzou jet as well. You are now the Big 9...who else wants to wait?
Click to expand...

First, while I agree that the leadership has been awful, I think the belief "Texas has run the Big 12" is a big misconception. They aren't running things near to the extent that people make it out to be.

Also, Larry Scott seems like he's a heck of a leader (he helped the WTA reach beyond its earning potential), so I trust that should this expansion take place, he won't be near as inept as Beebe and Weiberg.

I think he knows that giving into Texas' preference of having Baylor over Colorado, while might not be the best option that Scott wants given that he probably would rather have Colorado over the baptist school, is the best option for the conference currently and in the long-term. Think about it: You take the 6 schools, as opposed to just Colorado and Utah, you're obtaining more viable TV markets and more schools with football clout (the two vital factors in this discussion). The potential is vastly greater should the Pac 10 take those 6 rather than just Colorado and Utah, and I think not letting Texas in because of an "ego" factor, would be a big mistake. Just because Texas gets its way letting Baylor in over Colorado, does not mean Texas will be running the show. Give in to the demand to let Texas as well as the rest of the Texas schools in, and treat the entire teams in the conference equally. The outcome would be much greater.
 
Mr.B!!! said:
Will it bring more people than adding Baylor, Tech or oSu?
Click to expand...

Probably not much more than OSU. Tulsa & OK City metro's combined are probably similar to Denver I'd guess.
 
Cheno said:
Sad, I'd say. Too bad the history of the Big 8/12 doesn't mean anything to some schools.
Click to expand...

No, the history does mean something, but OU's best interests mean a lot more.

And for the record: I do feel bad and think its sad for K-State and especially Iowa State. But given the fact that KU--a very arrogant fan base (in most cases particularly basketball, rightfully so)--is practically begging another team to stay is not only ironic, but funny as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
NIL article
Replies
0
Views
126
WichitaSooner
W
NickZepp
Glad we leave the Big 12 after this year
Replies
9
Views
2K
red recluse
red recluse
W
Kelvin will be bringing the number one team in the country to Norman
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
SoonerDutch
SoonerDutch
W
Record predictions
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Skeeter1
S
O
Resume is Fine; Eye Test is Not
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
3K
WichitaSooner
W
Back
Top