OT/ET: Does the Big X(II) expand?
After losing two members, the Big XII also loses it's championship game. That's a pretty big loss combined. The logical next step to me would be expansion to get 1) the conference championship back and 2) expanding the geographical footprint and television reach.
So this means the next potential expansion project, other than possibly Utah to the PAC10 to fill their 12 team minimum to form a championship game would be for the Big X(II) to expand. There were unsubstantiated rumors today (an Austin sports radio twitter feed was hacked) that BYU and Air Force were headed to the Big X(II).
The question I pose to you, who would be worthy expansion targets for the Big X(II)? I think BYU wouldn't be a bad addition. Utah is one of the fastest growing states and BYU has a good share of that. A second team would be harder to nail down. TCU seems like a logical choice as they compete in several of the same sports the Big X(II) is good at (football and baseball particularly). Other options include Houston and SMU, but like TCU, it doesn't open them up to any new markets.
I kind of wonder if they wouldn't be interested in Memphis based on the recent FedEx news. It's extra money, a new market, a solid basketball school, and a meh football team. It's not that far outside of the current Big X(II) membership either, as Missouri borders Tennessee.
So it basically boils down to filling in holes geographically that offer no new market (TCU, SMU, Houston) or expanding the footprint (Utah, Memphis, some team I might be missing). What's your thoughts?
That will allow them to play a defacto championship against OU each year and guarantee they are potentially in the MNC game each year.
Before I read this, I thought TCU, BYU, Utah would be solid fits. Boise would have been interesting, but that went out the window. I don't know why, but I'm happy Texas is staying put.
I kind of want to say that the Big XII doesn't expand, simply because Texas doesn't need the money, or more properly because it values control over the revenue of a conference game. As it stands:
Big 12 South: Texas says jump, they're 10 feet in the air before they say how high. The lone exception being A&M who does some low grade flirting with the SEC on the side.
Big 12 North: ISU and KSU are lucky to maintain their BCS status, they were done if the Big 12 fell apart. Kansas and Missouri were scrambling around trying to find homes, who knows where they would have landed (MWC, Big East, etc). No one knows for sure, aside from the fact no one was really beating down their doors to let them in.
So basically Texas gets to enjoy top dog status. So if they do expand to get the championship game back, I feel like they'll expand with people they control. Another Texas school and someone else. Memphis kicks in 10 million when you take them in, but sooner or later that money runs out and then you're stuck with the travel costs, so I don't know about that.
I think the Big12's ability to pick a MWC school depends on how the MWC shares revenue and the politics inside that conference. If I'm the MWC right now I'm thinking we ride the waves of our recent successes and try to jump past the Big12 in terms of revenue and national reconigition.
I don't think they can jump the Big X(II). Texas/OU pull in enough by themselves, much less A&M, Kansas, Tech, Mizzou, and OSU.
I agree that BigXII nets more than MWC could hope to touch, but with this unequal revenue sharing I'm not sure how much the smaller schools see. Wasn't one of the Beebe's proposals for the new conference that each school hold local rights. So Texas gets all the revenue from its home market, etc.
Edit: Also doesn't the BigXII currently have kind of a weak deal for TV revenue? They'd admitted they'd dropped the ball on that compared to the SEC and Big10 IIRC.
MWC has produced some quality teams recently, gotten BCS attention and I'd imagine they can command a fairly good regional TV deal. I'm just wondering if most MWC are better off getting a fair slice of the MWC pie than what they'd get out of the BigXII deal.
Even if the BigXII pays out more, is a few million a year worth being a "client state" of some other program(s)?
The Mountain West already have their own conference TV network. It's been around for a few years. I have no idea what each school gets from it. It's why you rarely see Mountain West games on TV now. The Mountain West used to get a lot of espn time on Thursday and Friday nights. That stopped when they created their own TV network.
is no title game. UT opts for an increase in its share, and averts the possibility of a title-game upset loss in favor of a nearly annual BCS bid. Everyone goes along in order to keep the Bx(ii) together. This is the first mention I have heard of Bx(ii) expansion, although it is early yet.
Yeah, the radio reports that were immediately dismissed kind of re-infornced what I was thinking initially. No reason the Big x(II) couldn't exist and flourish, especially if they add back to a championship game.
I think it's more they like being in control. Be it the SWC or Big XII, Texas has always been a/the flagship school of the conference that dictates a lot. For them to go anywhere, they'd want more than equal pay out plus ability to do as they please with several other facets. No other conference would be willing to give them that.
The vast majority recognize that A&M's refusal to go along to the Pac-16 is the primary factor in saving the Big 12 (assuming it is saved).
That 'recognition' will last all of two weeks. Then it will be 'wonderful UT...they let everyone else hang around.' Well even the Harlem Globe Trotters need the Washington Generals.
But in the end, the Aggies were too chickenshit to stand alone.
They deserve what happens from here on in.
I disagree, as a native Texan. It had to be a hard choice. Give up your identity for the glory of the SEC, or keep your identity and swallow the reality that giving up Texas is a big, big step. Not an easy thing. That'd be like MSU leaving for... say, the ACC (as there aren't many choices you could consider to be an upgrade of the Big Ten, much less regionally, hence the exaggeration). They'd have to give up their game with Michigan meaning as much as it does.
That's not so easy of a task.
Outside of the Texas rivalry, which A&M can still have, they have a vibe that is much closer to the SEC than the PAC 10. I work with a lot of A&M graduates, and they belong in Tuscaloosa more than they belong in Austin, much less Eugene.
PAC 10 wasn't the issue here. People are giving A&M grief over chosing to stay in the Big X(II) instead of the SEC. That's a huge difference than talking heading to the PAC 10. Yes, they'd fit in the SEC culturally, but they fit in the Big X(II) culturally just as well, if not better due to the last few years to few decades of history.
For A&M to chose to stay in their own conference over heading to the SEC had to be an extremely tough choice. Ditch Texas, the heart of their identity, as well as their previous rivalries with other Texas schools, or head to the SEC for conference superiority, but consistent struggling to win. Is conference superiority enough to ditch your identity as the ones who must beat "TU"? I don't think that's an easy question. You're sole athletic purpose has been to beat Texas. If you play them in OOC, it loses meaning by definition. They aren't in your conference, so it means much, much less. Do you give up your rivalry that has defined you athletically for improved conference recognition.
I'm not saying that moving to the SEC doesn't have it's benefits, but it comes at a pretty high non-monetary cost. Hell, even some monetary cost as if the rivalry loses luster, it becomes less lucrative. I'm sure that would probably be made up in the SEC, but it's something big lost.
Sooner or later, yes, the Big Not 12 will expand. It'll only take as long as it takes Texas to find someone that can re-expand the conference's presence, whether it's TCU or Houston or BYU or whatever, and at the same time bow to almighty Texas.
The Memphis deal may amount to bribery in the legal sence, so I doubt that will happen.
The thing that strikes me the most is the weakness of Texas AM. They chose to go to the incredibly weakend Big XII instead of the incredibly secure and financial windfall of the SEC. Why? Do they need to appease UT that much?
In terms of expansion, TCU and BYU make the most sense, however, not many teams will want to jump into that unstable (will fall apart eventually) and unequal conferance
RE: A&M, as I've said in other threads, A&M's identity is their rivalry with Texas. It's half of their fight song, it's the main goal of every one of their teams. To not be in Texas's conference by definition deflates the importance of that rivalry, even if they do play every year in every sport for the nonconference schedule.
If anything the loss of Texas would be a financial set back as the main identity of the school changes (see: Michigan going to spread and the backlash it caused with the blue hairs). I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as I think it would be a great thing for A&M, but it would cause a great disruption with not just blue hair Aggies, but some younger Aggies as well. Basically Michigan's recent "civil war" between fans but to a much, much larger level.
You'll notice that even that shirt is about Texas, not about A&M. That's a big part of my point. I think a good portion of going the SEC was to spurn UT. It wasn't the biggest reason, but for many fans, it was a big part.
This is true, but this is not Texas's official school song. Eyes of Texas are obviously the #1. That's not about TAMU.
describing memphis' football team as meh is very generous
I try not to be insulting for the most part. They have had one of the best offenses in a few of the last couple seasons. General caveat that the defense they face are terrible. Memphis would be a good market to expand to though. They don't have the following of Tennessee, but neither does Iowa State. The basketball addition would be huge, as well as re-extending toward the Arkansas (Memphis being on the border) and Tennessee region has it's benefits.
TCU and the revived SMU.
/SWC'd
they can have MSU
I just don't see TCU joining the conference. I think Texas would veto that hardcore. They are enjoying their recruiting dominance in the state way too much, and another Texas team elevating and joining the conference could potentially hamper them a little bit. I'm not saying they still wouldn't have their pick, but TCU coaches at least would be on an even playing field when it comes to TV exposure, travel to other big teams, visibility to NFL scouts, etc.
I feel like this is a pretty valid argument. Had this been TCU 5 years ago, it wouldn't be relevant, but with TCU's success, and even some of their non-revenue showings, I think it shows just how much power they already have.
They have a freshman pitcher on their baseball team who turned down 4 million as a first round draft pick to play at TCU. That pitcher, Purke, just won game one of the super regional at Texas in the TCU series win. They've gained a lot of respect in football as well, and already poise some threat to Texas recruiting. It's not a huge threat, but one or two players here or there. Moving the Big X(II) could be a huge boost to that.
They won't be worried so much about the championship game revenue now that they are getting a new TV deal.
Why expand for a measly $20-30 million for the conference? Adding BYU gets 1 new market, I'm not sure there's another target out there worth the effort.
Right now Texas will probably play Oklahoma for the conference title and a BCS bid. Why would they want to make it harder for themselves to go to the BCS?
I'm kind of thinking the same thing. BYU might break even on income, but I'm not even sure about that. That's kind of why I thought the Memphis thing might work. Even if they got that FedEx bribe for the first few years, I'm not sure Memphis would add enough. TCU might be building it's brand big enough, but 15-20 million? I'm not sure, even with the title game money added on.
But in terms of your last question, why did the Big Ten want to expand either then? There's money out there to grab in TV markets (assuming they create a TV channel) and conference championship games (how many TV sets does Nebraska offer again?).
But as outlined earlier, the Big Ten isn't controlled by any one team's desires. Revenue is split equally, so that the Northwesterns and Indianas got the same TV revenues as Ohio State, even though they don't do well and probably contribute 1/4 of what Ohio State contributes in viewership , The conferece as a whole also suffers from the misconception that it sucks relative to the others, and there's a long layoff between late November and the January bowls.
Now, with the conference championship, the Big Ten solves the relevancy issue. They also add the $20-30 million in revenue, but divided almost equally (as I assume the major money is in TV, the actual championship payout is probably pretty small) This would benefit all of the teams in the Big Ten roughly equally. In addition, the new Big Ten hopefully will be more competitive with an even division split, unlike the Big XII which was usually tilted to the south.
From the perspective of Texas, they're already getting more than enough money from the unequal revenue sharing plan. Is it worth getting an extra $2 million while at the same time giving Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas state $2 million as well as going through the hassle of adding 2 other mediocre schools? If Texas is playing the realpolitik game as well as everybody thinks they are, its worth much more to them to screw everybody else than to get the extra $2 million.
Edit: And no, I don't think the Big Ten is a lovefest, but the established "everybody gets an equal-ish share" seems to be something that the larger programs have accepted. I personally think its dumb that Michigan, OSU, and PSU end up subsidizing NW, Purdue, and IU, but on the flipside, these past two years we've gotten a cut of bowl revenue that we wouldn't have had otherwise.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them add TCU or even SMU. People might laugh at the second choice but I think June Jones will have that program thriving pretty soon.
They really are the Big Ten now, except that they're a throwback Big Ten. It's the era of the Big Two, little eight all over again (with lesser schools, but whatever). Given the Big Ten's history, it's not worthwhile for them to expand unless they can pick up a good school; BYU isn't really worth it, national championship or not. As it is, they can have their slightly inferior version of the Game every year.
I do take issue with calling Texas the overlord of the Big 12. One conference championship in four years does not make an overlord.
I think A&M might benefit more than we realize right now. They're getting a lot of publicity right now and are now the third best team in their conference (instead of fourth at best). Even though these moves aren't official this year, they will no doubt affect recruiting immediately. I'd imagine that a lot of recruits out of Texas that would have considered Nebraska will no longer do so and A&M stands to get good looks from those guys.
A&M has been improving recently and this might help them get over the hump. They had a freshman RB last year that looked awesome in a the couple of games I saw. I might adopt A&M as a casual rooting interest after all of this. If they got to the SEC, they're dead to me.
is still unequal but ISU, for instance will come close if not double their TV revenue off the new deal. They should be around 15 million, which I realize is still pretty small, but it looks damn good compared to 7.5 million.
As far as expansion I really like BYU. Solid in football and basketball and they have a nationwide fanbase. It isn't all that big but it is all over. After that, I don't know where you go. I don't like BSU because of academics. Utah is a PAC 10 near lock. TCU is very interesting but that would be the fifth Texa school and I don't know if they would really like that. Houston is in the same boat. We could go East. You have Louisville, Cincinatti and Memphis there. I probably lean toward Louisville because I htink they could be the most competetive all around. In the end, I just don't see a team, much less two teams out there who are real "gets." I think it stays at ten for now, but they leave themselves open for the future.
As far as aTm:Watch them next year. They could be very good.
Southwest Conference used to be
Arkansas, Rice, TCU, Houston. So. Methodist would all fit right (back) in with the remaining Big 12 schools.
I can see Arkansas leaving the SEC if the money is right in the new Big 12.
I feel kind of bad for Boise. TCU and Boise would be perfect fits for the Big 12 football wise. It seemed as if Boise was poised to take a MWC invite, then pulled back once the Big 12 was in turmoil, then jumped on the MWC invite as soon as it looked like the Big 12 was as good as done.
Other than those two, I don't know. Cincy? Louisville? Memphis? Houston? Who knows, but the Big 12 will go after 2 other schools. They don't want to lose the cash cow that is the Big 12 Championship game.