Why not throw Colorado in there? You can not be seriously asserting that the boogers, collie cult, and Bo's feedlot tenders set the standard in the big 12.Originally Posted by FaninAma
Why not throw Colorado in there? You can not be seriously asserting that the boogers, collie cult, and Bo's feedlot tenders set the standard in the big 12.
"I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
The ACC is definitely on better (more secure) footing than the Big XII. Right now, things seem to be okay in the Big XII, but I can't imagine it'll last forever. When push comes to shove, one of the two is probably going to fold, and it's highly unlikely it will be the ACC.
The biggest mistake the Big XII made was doing nothing when Louisville was available and interested. After they bolted to the ACC, that left BYU as the only viable option for expansion. Unfortunately, they bring along a lot of baggage and there isn't another school to balance them out (to get to 12). So, unless something crazy happens, there are no other realistic options for the Big XII to expand.
Cincinnati is a better option than Louisville. If we want another mediocre football team to add numbers, they both can fill that space. I have no interest in Kentucky, but I'd love it if we could dip our recruiting paws into Ohio. They play some really good football up there. Just for comparison sake, rivals rates the top 80 players in Ohio (that puts them at the 4th most behind Texas, Florida, and California). They rate the top 5 in Kentucky.
If we just want quality football, we have that. No need to expand. Nobody plays better football than us except the SEC.
If it's numbers we're after, we need to do so with recruiting in mind. Supposedly the Big 10 added Maryland and Rutgers in order to increase it's recruiting territory. The SEC added A&M, which is helping them steal away even more Texas recruits than they already were. Meanwhile, OSU, Baylor, and TCU are on the rise, and will no doubt start beating us out on more and more recruits. My main point is that our (OU's) recruiting grounds are diminishing, and the SEC and Big 10 are expanding theirs. The Pac-16 sounded awesome, because we would have direct ties to California. It doesn't appear that will happen for us, though, so it would be best if we could expand in other directions. Ohio and Florida are the most fertile recruiting grounds available, so adding Cincinnati and USF or UCF would do wonders for us.
Louisville is better than Cincinnati for several reasons:
Their entire athletic department is better, but there's no question the revenue generating sports (football & basketball) are much more competitive. However, the biggest difference is how their athletic departments do in generating revenue:
National Rank Total Revenue Total Expenses Total Subsidy Profit/Loss 18. Louisville $96,193,330 $92,383,221 $10,914,122 $3,810,109 51. Cincinnati $61,915,431 $59,540,002 $21,764,860 $2,375,429
Those are 2012 numbers, but for the purpose of this example, it tells the story. There's a 35 million dollar difference in between the two. That tells you pretty much all you need to know. Also, Louisville is close enough to be effective in the Ohio region for recruiting.
If Louisville would have joined the Big XII, they would have been the 3rd highest revenue program in the conference (and that's before Big XII TV money...although they still would be 3rd). Cincinnati would be the 11th. It's like bringing in another Iowa State.
Louisville's football and basketball programs last year would have been a welcome boost to the prestige of the Big 12.
Honest question...why is it an advantage that Louisville brings in more revenue? Does that effect our revenue?
My take on that is that Louisville should be doing better than they are if they're spending that kind of money. Cincinnati is producing very similar results on the field to Louisville. The influx of TV money would make a bigger difference for Cincinnati.
And I know that Louisville is close to Ohio, but it's not in Ohio. If K-State went Big 10, I don't think that would spark much interest from Oklahoma HS players in that conference. If OSU went Big 10, on the other hand...
It is time for one Super Conference. Here is a fictional version I found
"To this day, Schnellenberger is not held in high esteem by Sooner fans, in part because he made no secret of his lack of interest in the program's history."
I'm not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that when they left the Big 12 was not able to replace them with programs that have the same tradition or name recognition. Their loss very much weakened the conference.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
The issue isn't that we don't have tradition or name recognition. We just don't have undefeated teams. I'm tempted to say that indicates that our conference got better (or at least deeper). In 2009, we had Texas in the MNC. After that, only 3 teams went to the MNC with 1 loss, and none of those 3 came from the Big XII, Pac-12, Big 10, ACC, Big East, AAC, C-USA, etc. All 3 came from the SEC. It's not a valid point unless you think we had a better reputation than the SEC before we lost those teams. I think we all know that's not the case, though.
Please. The ACC is weak sauce outside of FSU. Had FSU actually lost this year, they would not have been in the discussion over Baylor or TCU. That is how highly regarded the ACC is. When FSU was down, the conference was even worse. Miami hasn't been relevant in years. Clemson is up and down. VT is mediocre and was horrible this year-- so bad that beating Ohio State should've disqualified them from any consideration of the 4 spot. ND isn't even a real member of the conference in football.
The Big XII is almost always the #2 football conference behind the SEC. In the first half of the 2000s, I'd say they were the best conference overall. Lately, it has been more unpredictable with the Pac 12 and us butting heads for that 2 spot. The Big 10 has fallen on hard times lately, but seems to be improving with Meyer at OSU, a rejuvenated MSU, and a usually solid Wisconsin. The ACC is always generally the least highly regarded football conference along with the Big East, which ceased to exist once WVU, Pitt, Cuse, etc, all bolted. The Big XII suffers from OU and Texas being down, but make no mistake, Baylor is for real these last few years and TCU is solid this year. KSU is KSU. Solid in conference and mediocre out of it. I don't even know who they're playing in their bowl game, but I bet they lose. They're picking up the slack that TT and aTm left behind and taking advantage of us being down. If OU and TX had been their usual selves this year, I'd say we would've been neck in neck with the SEC (really the SEC West) as the best conference. We aren't, but TX is coming back. OU needs to get its head out of its *** before it is relegated to Aggie status.
My view is that an athletic department's revenue is correlated to their success/popularity. The popularity/success is correlated to the number of eyeballs that watch those programs. The number of eyeballs that watch those programs is correlated to the number of TV's tuned into those games. The number of TVs tuned into those games is correlated to the value of the TV contracts, and so on.
The only reason the conference hasn't already expanded with teams like SMU, Colorado State, South Florida, etc. is because those schools don't bring any monetary value to the conference (in other words, they won't grow the TV contracts). So, a team like Louisville would add value to the conference and grow that pie that everyone gets a piece of, which is the bottom line motivator in today's conference expansion.
Cincinnati isn't a horrible program, and they would provide a foot in the Ohio recruiting door, but that's about the only benefit...and that wouldn't really benefit the majority of the conference. If it were just about getting in a fertile recruiting region, there are plenty of schools in Florida that would join, same with California.
Upon a quick review of Louisville's roster, there are a half dozen or so kids from Ohio on the team. I'm sure the Cincinnati roster is loaded with Ohio kids, but the point is that Cincinnati is close enough to Ohio that it would provide an in to the pipeline. Even without either team, OU has a couple of kids from Ohio, so we're not really hurting for brand recognition nation wide.
You're looking at it from a football perspective (and even then, a very small sample size). The ACC isn't going to unseat anyone as the best conference in the country, but when you really start to look at it, the ACC is on firmer standing than the Big XII.
Everyone know's FSU is the big fish in that pond, but programs like Miami, Clemson and Virginia Tech are nothing to sneeze at, regardless of what they did this year. The capper is the new football relationship the ACC formed with Notre Dame. If you want to compare the Big XII to the ACC, then you have to account for ND inclusion. That makes ND and FSU the two flagship programs in the conference. That matches up with OU and Texas. After that, it's not that different.
When it comes to the next round of TV contracts, the ACC will surpass the Big XII. And while basketball isn't the driver of the money these days, ACC can hold their own with anyone in the conference, and may be at the top of the heap.
Those are valid points. Louisville would bring more money in...at least from the start. I don't think those numbers tell the whole story, though. I'd imagine bringing in FSU would bring us a whole lot more viewers than Louisville, but they're lower on the list. They're even lower than KU and OSU (the Stillwater version).
Fertile recruiting regions are the main thing I'm worried about, and if you read what I posted earlier, if we brought in Cincy, I'd be interested in adding UCF or USF as the other school. USF and UCF might be the longer route as far as adding TV contracts, but I think they'd bring in their fair share a few years down the road once they've started to get power-5 money, and have built up their program to be more competitive. I don't imagine we get many viewers from the state of Florida right now. If TU joined the ACC, I'd certainly watch a few more ACC games a year. UCF beat Baylor pretty good last year, and they'd have little trouble with schools like Kansas and ISU most years. They only need a few wins a year to get people excited, and who knows what it would grow to from there.Cincinnati isn't a horrible program, and they would provide a foot in the Ohio recruiting door, but that's about the only benefit...and that wouldn't really benefit the majority of the conference. If it were just about getting in a fertile recruiting region, there are plenty of schools in Florida that would join, same with California.
Deep down I have this hope that it would get FSU's attention when they starting losing out on a few recruits, and notice that their 1 loss teams aren't making it due to a weak conference. I know it's a long shot, but it's plausible, and I only think this 4 spots for 5 conference thing can end one of two ways. One way is for the playoffs to expand to 8 teams, which I think has at least a 50% chance in the near future. The other way it could end is to have 4 power conferences instead of 5. That likely includes some kind of merger between Big XII and ACC, and I've had my sights on FSU and Miami for a couple of years now. An Eastern division of FSU, Miami, UCF, USF, Duke, WVU, and UNC (or something like this) would be amazing. I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but this would be insanely fun for football and basketball.
I'm curious as to what California schools you think are available that would be comparable to USF or UCF. I'm all for expanding to California. Like I said, I think the Pac-16 would have helped us out immensely. We already do pretty well in California considering the distance. Playing their consistently would be a great opportunity.
I know that Louisville is capable of getting Ohio players. It's kind of like Oklahoma schools grabbing Texas players. It's bound to happen. If OSU joined the Big 10, though, I don't see that helping Big 10 schools get a foot into Texas. In the same way, I don't know that Louisville would help us from a recruiting perspective.Upon a quick review of Louisville's roster, there are a half dozen or so kids from Ohio on the team. I'm sure the Cincinnati roster is loaded with Ohio kids, but the point is that Cincinnati is close enough to Ohio that it would provide an in to the pipeline. Even without either team, OU has a couple of kids from Ohio, so we're not really hurting for brand recognition nation wide.
The ACC is on secure footing simply because of basketball tradition, even if it has been the most overrated hoops conference for about 10 years running now. The 4 tobacco road schools are the nucleus, and the addition of Louisville and Cuse only make it more of a viable long term option as a hoops conference, and also adds conference stability overall.
But for football, it doesn't really strengthen their perception. ND is not a member of the conference in football. It has an affiliation, and an agreement to play 5 games/year versus ACC schools. It also can steal their bowl affiliation if it is ranked higher. But it won't be showing up in the standings of the ACC.
So yeah, more stable than the Big XII right now, which I think will implode if they add Cinci and Memphis. I think the conference just needs to lick its wounds and suck it up and realize that it would be in the playoff if not for the perfect storm that occurred last week. I think if Baylor had lost, TCU would be in. If TCU had lost, I'm not so sure Baylor would be. But when you throw in Ohio State's margin of victory, them being Ohio State, Baylor and TCU being Baylor and TCU, the committee not wanting to deal with the Baylor/TCU choice, and the new Big XII commish having his head in the sand, you get something like this. It is kind of a freak occurrence, much like having 3 major unbeatens in 2004 was.
Okay, we're on the same page then.
I agree, adding two teams for the sake of getting to twelve (considering there aren't two quality teams to add) would ultimately hurt (and probably destroy) the conference. I also agree that the conference needs to realize they are getting left behind (which I think they are aware of now), and correct the things that can be corrected with the current set-up.
In all honestly, I could care less if Baylor or TCU got left out of 10 play-offs, so my only concern is what happens when OU is in that situation. In reality, I think OU's brand (and the eyeballs that come with it) would have been enough to get them in this year (if they had been one of the two co champs), however, Bowlsby should have seen this coming, and there was plenty of time to make corrections.
WE COULD OWN CONFERENCE USA AND HAVE A WAREHOUSE SIZED TROPHY CASE!
[QUOTE=Eielson;4908843]Cincy would be alright, but they're all the way out there in Ohio. Ohio has some good football players, so it might help a tad with recruiting. I'd much prefer that over adding Houston.
I'd rather do nothing right now, though.[/QUOTE ]Solich has built a solid program at UO and IMHO would be a good pairing to bring in with Cincy.Even if they don't add to football(although I think they would),they certainly add to our basketball profile.If we brought in BYU,we would proably add BSU as well.2 up and coming programs to consider IMHO are UCF and USF. What all these have is potential to sell their football programs to recruits and donors if they could become part of a Bi5 conference such as the Big 12-2. All do have some winning history and the schools in Ohio and Fla are in prime recruiting areas.
Owen '05-'26 122-54-16 .677 (Foundation)
Wilkinson '47-'63 145-29-4 .829 (DYNASTY 1) 3 NC
Switzer '73-'88 157-29-4 .837(DYNASTY 2) 3 NC
Stoops '99- PRESENT 179-46.793 (DYNASTY 3) 1 NC and still WAITING
At OU tradition is about more than just one coach 861-319-53 .720
Scattergun toting Posse member
Really? The only thing worse than bringing in Cinci and Memphis is bringing in Ohio U, USF, and UCF. That is just a horrific idea. Ohio State is the football school in Ohio. Nobody else matters in the least. My god, you're talking about poaching the MAC!
My point is that Ohio St. cannot get all the talent in football rich Ohio,put Cincy and Ohio in a Big 5 conference to recruit to and you might have potential for good football.Certainly the chance to be better than ISU,KU, In any case they improbe basketball profile.
For the record I would prefer adding Louisville,Clemson,Florida State in addition to Cincy but everything I have read and heard says that these three are out of reach.UO,Cincy,USF,UCF,all bring a new market and easier acess to fertile recruiting grounds.Dis UCF? Recall that last year they humbled Baylor.
Owen '05-'26 122-54-16 .677 (Foundation)
Wilkinson '47-'63 145-29-4 .829 (DYNASTY 1) 3 NC
Switzer '73-'88 157-29-4 .837(DYNASTY 2) 3 NC
Stoops '99- PRESENT 179-46.793 (DYNASTY 3) 1 NC and still WAITING
At OU tradition is about more than just one coach 861-319-53 .720
Scattergun toting Posse member
Put Cincinnati in a Big 5 conference and it could get good fast. Look, we've just had a season in which TCU and Baylor dominated the conference. A decade ago that would have been unthinkable. I'd certainly prefer to add, e.g., Georgia Tech and FSU. But adding Cincinnati and one of the other Florida schools may be better than sitting on our behinds and watching the Big 5 become the Big 4 with the Big XII on the outside looking in.
Posting Permissions
