TCU to Big12
October 10th, 2011 at 7:09 PM ^
wonder if missouri stays now. they are back to 10 after swapping TAM for TCU
October 11th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
This move is probably because Mizz is leaving. Look for the Big 12 to add another one.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
Can't blame them, but it seems a little skeezy that they accept an invite from the Big East and then bail when they get asked out by the cooler guy. Also, they are going to have a much harder time winning games in the Big XII than they would have had in the Big East where they likely would have dominated.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^
TCU wanted to be in a BCS conference and they imprudently jumped into a bad fit for them. Big East, a marginal BCS conference before this recent conference realignment explosion, is in great danger of losing their auto-bid status. I don't blame TCU for doing what's best for them.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^
A little skeezy, yes, but to be fair to the horned frogs, several members of the Big East have left since they accepted that bid, so the Big East hasn't exactly held up its end of the bargain either.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:49 PM ^
a significant change in circumstances.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
October 10th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
gets a little pocket change from TCU for their trouble while they figure out which Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA schools to beef up their football roster with. I'm doubtful the Big East is able to retain auto-bid in the BCS beyond next season (if even that long).
October 10th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
Is TCU or Utah the biggest winner in the expansion derby?
October 10th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
They went from being a virgin to getting laid regularly. Utah upgraded, but essentially swapped one girlfriend for another.
October 10th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
TCU is a woman of negotiable affection.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:16 PM ^
TCU definitely. Utah will settle into the mid-range of the Pac-12/16/MEGACONFERENCE. TCU may end up somewhere the same in terms of year to year standings, but by regularly competing against other Texas teams and being in a legitimate AQ conference, they should snatch up quite a few more high profile Texas recruits (not that they were doing bad beforehand).
October 10th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
I'm more inclined to say Utah at this point. The Pac-12 is a much more stable conference than the Big XII right now. I'm still not convinced that there's going to be a Big XII in ten years. TCU made a very good choice, and with the new revenue sharing and the AQ bid, they're in a good position, but we'll see how long this lasts.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
Agreed. The Big XII is still on shaky ground. But, no where near the landslide that is the Big East.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:15 PM ^
This makes so much more sense than the Big East, it may be a rough start but being in the Big 12 will help TCU expand on their football success
October 10th, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
Good for them. Good for the Big XII. I'm not a huge fan of expansion, but I don't feel bad about taking Nebraska from their grasp. However, for the most part, it's important that these teams keep their traditional rivalries and what not. Money has become a huge part of the game and unfortunately competition is going to suffer as a result. If this move helps keep Texas in the Big XII and to preserve some of these rivalries, I will be pleased.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
I hate TCU, but this is a good move for them, and it actually makes sense. If it contributes in any way to stabilizing the Big 12 I am very happy about this! =D
October 10th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
Temple (back) to the Big East.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
This isn't TCU leaving a good-looking girl for another good-looking girl. This is TCU leaving a decent looking girl who just got a nasty STD for a good-looking girl who has some problems, but overall is okay.
I mean you're talking about UCF, ECU, Army, Navy, and Temple being in a BCS conference.
October 10th, 2011 at 10:47 PM ^
Ten years ago I might have agreed but the elevation of Temple football over the past five years under Al Golden (and currently under Steve Addazio) make this a bad argument. Further, the Big East needs to solidify a major urban presence for football and could do this by a) elevating Villanova football b) taking on Temple as a full member (basketball/football) and c) adding Army and Navy as full members. If they want to add UCF which is in a larger market (Orlando) and has the better part of 60 000 full time students more power to them.
People somehow forget that Temple is not a small school (39 000) is undergoing a $320 million campus renovation. They've been bowl eligible more times than Michigan (much to my regret) in the last two years and their football team is slowly edging toward respectable (see close loss to PSU this year and absolute hammering of Maryland...). Football at TU certainly isn't basketball but don't forget, basketball is only the 6th best team of all time.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:56 PM ^
Once they officialy start playing in the Big 12. Boise St., on the other hand, needs to play in a real conference.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
What conference should Boise State join? Pac-12?
October 10th, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^
If Mizzou jumps to the SEC, I could see the Big XII taking Boise over Louisville or WVU.
October 10th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^
Is about 30 years away from bring a community college, has no research agenda and is in a state with no tv relevance. They bing nothing but an extra mouth to feed and extra losses to the teams that admit them. A conf with actual schools like cal, Stanford or Texas does not want.
October 10th, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
I don't think anyone but the Big Ten is even bothering to pretend that research makes a bit of difference in whether or not a football team is invited into a conference. BSU has football relevance. BSU and BYU would make a great package deal for a conference. That, of course, is exactly why it won't happen.
October 10th, 2011 at 11:45 PM ^
Is the only conference that can come close the the B10 (12) academic reputation meaning Boise State has no chance in hell and BYU's religious ties have already eliminated it from Pac-12 consideration. TCU is a great fit in the Big 12 with solid non-revenue sports and an excellent football program but will struggle to compete with the big boys on a regular basis. A&M couldn't do it so its hard to imagine TCU being able to string together another run of 10+ win seasons in the near future, though I wouldn't underestimate Gary Patterson. The high school coaches down here love him and many think more of his coaching abilities than Mack Brown.
October 11th, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^
in 5-15 years they won't.
October 11th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
I don't know about that. They've built up a lot of institutional momentum. They've been successful under multiple coaches, not just Petersen.
October 10th, 2011 at 10:34 PM ^
No TV relevance? Idaho just needs an ABC Warehouse...flat screens will be flying out the door.
October 10th, 2011 at 11:51 PM ^
October 11th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^
It's not about the first string it's about the second. Sure, you can play one bowl game with three weeks off and beat a good BCS team.
As Utah is finding out, after playing Washington, instead of Nevada or New Mexico, you get to play Arizona State. Turns out that's harder to do.
Boise plays 2 tough games a year. The one non-conference BCS buster game, and the bowl game.
Baylor's middle of the pack Big 12 and beat TCU.
October 11th, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
that lost a first round pick at QB along with a bunch of other starters. Most teams would struggle the year after that. Oh and that Utah team you are poo pooing only went undefeated and beat UM and Alabama in the same year a few years ago and also has more BCS bowl wins than UM, but I guess that probably won't impress you either.
October 11th, 2011 at 1:29 AM ^
and crushed Utah. Utah barely beating the worst Michigan team possibly ever and then beating and upsetting Alabama is nice, I guess. I mean Purdue beat OSU that one year too, so I guess they were really good. Utah is the equivalent to South Carolina. The top 2 or 3 teams in the Big 12, Pac 12, or Big Ten would have gone undefeated with that schedule. Middle of the pack teams beat the good teams once in awhile.
Sorry, like I said, if you gave a middle of the pack to slightly above average BCS team 2 games against BCS opponents and then ten easy games, they'd look impressive too. That's why Utah looks middle of the pack because they're middle of the pack against a real schedule.
Boise's a 9-3 Big Ten, Pac 10, Big 12 team, and a 8-4 SEC team. It's one thing to be able to have weeks to prepare for your big game, it's another to have to spend time scheming for Northwestern because they could beat you if you play poorly, and then play MSU. Or play Washington, ASU, etc, instead of Utah State and Hawaii or whatever. Utah is the most successful BCS buster to join a BCS conference, and they're being crushed, just like everyone thought.
October 10th, 2011 at 11:53 PM ^
October 11th, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^
Get ready for Texas "It's only fish bait, so it's not AS BAD" Tech: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/10/10/bait.put.texas.am.bus.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a16&eref=sihp
October 11th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
I thought that Texas was adamant that there not be another TX team added to the Big 12? Did they see the light, or did they somehow get overruled?
Are we starting to see an Arab Spring play out in Big 12 land?
October 11th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
is not involved in all of this extreme adding and subtracting of teams...........thank you for tradition.......I can't keep track of which team is moving to which conference.......as a fan, you like to see historic rivalries stay in tack........given the choices, Nebraska was a good addition........it would be painful to see 3-4 teams attempting to leave the Big Ten all at once.