R Jay wrote:Exactly. Texas (and Oklahoma, for that matter) don't have any interest in expanding (read watering down) the Big 12. The only people who are talking about it are those who like realignment in general and those that believe that their school will be "in" when (if and a really unlikely if) the Big 12 expands.
Westbrook#36 wrote:R Jay wrote:Exactly. Texas (and Oklahoma, for that matter) don't have any interest in expanding (read watering down) the Big 12. The only people who are talking about it are those who like realignment in general and those that believe that their school will be "in" when (if and a really unlikely if) the Big 12 expands.
Except Oklahoma president, David Boren, just 3 months ago publicly stumped for expansion. Rumblings are that Oklahoma is finally fed up with Texas and pissed that the Big 12 might(probably) is at a competitive disadvantage without 12 teams/CCG.
GoldenWarrior11 wrote:The problem with the Big 12 is that it is run by Texas, and the problem with Texas is that Texas will always do what is in the best interest for Texas. As long as Texas continues to get major revenue via the Longhorn Network, they don't care about adding more revenue to the Big 12, their members, or ensuring a spot for the league in the CFP. They really missed the boat in adding Louisville and Cincinnati when they added West Virginia in 2012. It would have given them a solid eastern wing, 12 members and a more stable conference moving forward.
If Cincinnati/Memphis/UCF/USF all manage to snag a life raft off the AAC (like to the Big 12), then I truly believe that UConn calls the Big East in desperation for non-football membership. A conference, in football or basketball, composed of East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU (toxic at this point) and Temple would be a doomsday scenario. There's just no positive spin to it. The severance package that UConn/Cincinnati/USF all got will also run out soon. ESPN doesn't appear to need the inventory either, which doesn't bode well for their TV package.
Even if the AAC considers adding non-football schools (to balance the Navy membership), it is nothing different than the old Big East treading water for so many years to stay afloat as a conference. It doesn't stop the water from sinking the boat. Wichita State and VCU, when they have off-basketball seasons, would bring nothing to the conference (nothing in TV markets, nothing in school academic prestige).
GoldenWarrior11 wrote:Westbrook#36 wrote:R Jay wrote:Exactly. Texas (and Oklahoma, for that matter) don't have any interest in expanding (read watering down) the Big 12. The only people who are talking about it are those who like realignment in general and those that believe that their school will be "in" when (if and a really unlikely if) the Big 12 expands.
Except Oklahoma president, David Boren, just 3 months ago publicly stumped for expansion. Rumblings are that Oklahoma is finally fed up with Texas and pissed that the Big 12 might(probably) is at a competitive disadvantage without 12 teams/CCG.
While true, Texas has more clout (and voting rights) than OU does in the Big 12. OU and OK State vote the same, but Texas would be able to use it's power to convince Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU to vote with them. That's 40% of the conference right there, and, I believe, it takes 75% (or 8 members) to accept an expansion school. Schools like Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU need to vote with the Texas on these matters not because they see eye-to-eye on things, but because they need Texas to survive in any post-Big 12 world. Look at what happened to Houston and SMU when they were no longer members of the SWC - they were deregulated to C-USA status for nearly two decades.
Oklahoma may be upset with Texas, but until they get an invite elsewhere, they are stuck too. It doesn't help matters that there's a perception that they will not go anywhere unless OK State comes with them as a partner.
GoldenWarrior11 wrote:Westbrook#36 wrote:R Jay wrote:Exactly. Texas (and Oklahoma, for that matter) don't have any interest in expanding (read watering down) the Big 12. The only people who are talking about it are those who like realignment in general and those that believe that their school will be "in" when (if and a really unlikely if) the Big 12 expands.
Except Oklahoma president, David Boren, just 3 months ago publicly stumped for expansion. Rumblings are that Oklahoma is finally fed up with Texas and pissed that the Big 12 might(probably) is at a competitive disadvantage without 12 teams/CCG.
While true, Texas has more clout (and voting rights) than OU does in the Big 12. OU and OK State vote the same, but Texas would be able to use it's power to convince Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU to vote with them. That's 40% of the conference right there, and, I believe, it takes 75% (or 8 members) to accept an expansion school. Schools like Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU need to vote with the Texas on these matters not because they see eye-to-eye on things, but because they need Texas to survive in any post-Big 12 world. Look at what happened to Houston and SMU when they were no longer members of the SWC - they were deregulated to C-USA status for nearly two decades.
Oklahoma may be upset with Texas, but until they get an invite elsewhere, they are stuck too. It doesn't help matters that there's a perception that they will not go anywhere unless OK State comes with them as a partner.
stever20 wrote:GoldenWarrior11 wrote:The problem with the Big 12 is that it is run by Texas, and the problem with Texas is that Texas will always do what is in the best interest for Texas. As long as Texas continues to get major revenue via the Longhorn Network, they don't care about adding more revenue to the Big 12, their members, or ensuring a spot for the league in the CFP. They really missed the boat in adding Louisville and Cincinnati when they added West Virginia in 2012. It would have given them a solid eastern wing, 12 members and a more stable conference moving forward.
If Cincinnati/Memphis/UCF/USF all manage to snag a life raft off the AAC (like to the Big 12), then I truly believe that UConn calls the Big East in desperation for non-football membership. A conference, in football or basketball, composed of East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU (toxic at this point) and Temple would be a doomsday scenario. There's just no positive spin to it. The severance package that UConn/Cincinnati/USF all got will also run out soon. ESPN doesn't appear to need the inventory either, which doesn't bode well for their TV package.
Even if the AAC considers adding non-football schools (to balance the Navy membership), it is nothing different than the old Big East treading water for so many years to stay afloat as a conference. It doesn't stop the water from sinking the boat. Wichita State and VCU, when they have off-basketball seasons, would bring nothing to the conference (nothing in TV markets, nothing in school academic prestige).
The thing is, there's absolutely NO scenario where all 4 of those you mention would leave the AAC. It's very possible only Cincy does. That's the problem with all these AAC raid scenarios- they just aren't realistic. And without all of them leaving, UConn won't be needing to jump ship. Also there's the matter of new exit fees. Plus, the NCAA units- remember UConn has 25 units still to collect from their title 2 years ago.
About ESPN and their inventory- ESPN absolutely needs it. ACC is looking to get their own network, and Big Ten very possibly won't have as many games on. What is ESPN airing if not the AAC? Sun Belt? MAC?
VCU's market is up to #56 now. It's just behind Providence and Buffalo.
GoldenWarrior11 wrote: Wichita State and VCU, when they have off-basketball seasons, would bring nothing to the conference (nothing in TV markets, nothing in school academic prestige).
GoldenWarrior11 wrote:Every program - whether you are an Indiana, North Carolina or a VCU - eventually goes through a "down" period and falls off. It is inevitable. Marquette, in the past two years, has really fallen off. However, when an Indiana/UNC/Creighton/St. Johns/Marquette (regardless of their program's prestige) has a down period - they still bring the TV market, academics and institutional fit to the conference. Now, I'm not discounting the run VCU has made, or the level of commitment that VCU has made to basketball over the past few decades - they are very worthy and helped elevate the program to national attention. However, VCU brings a lower TV market than current members (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Providence), and their academics would rank below half of the Big East - and this doesn't even examine the institutional fit scenario that was very clear and evident when the league was formed.
Xavier, Butler and Creighton were the original three choices to bring the C7 to 10-members for a reason - they were in big cities, with big TV markets, with a strong commitment to men's basketball (and a near 10k arena) and with a Private/Catholic institution. It's the same reason why, if the league had to expand today (which they clearly do not), Saint Louis and Dayton would be the next schools added. VCU, while a very strong basketball program, misses on several of the conference requirements the league clearly established in re-starting the league. Does that mean they aren't a strong basketball program? Of course not - they have a better basketball resume that some of the current Big East schools, but realignment has shown that expansion is not just about adding programs - it's about the school, institutional and locational fit.
Gopher+RamFan wrote:
Knowing what a "down" year for that program is important.
Other programs have dipped drastically - even outside the top 150 (SLU/UR/Dayton) in the recent past.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests