The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Uncle Ted]

Crap. Start getting used to long-term independence status.

Embedded Tweet

I see this as good news.... it just means the Big 12 can add BYU immediately and a 12th team later when they can find someone that is worth adding. The Big 12 doesn't want to make the same mistake that the Pac 10 did.

[Flystripper]

I see this as good news.... it just means the Big 12 can add BYU immediately and a 12th team later when they can find someone that is worth adding. The Big 12 doesn't want to make the same mistake that the Pac 10 did.

that is some sweet spin!

[kccougar]

I see this as good news.... it just means the Big 12 can add BYU immediately and a 12th team later when they can find someone that is worth adding. The Big 12 doesn't want to make the same mistake that the Pac 10 did.

I just posted the same thing elsewhere. Yes, I'm grasping at straws here, but hasn't it been said for some time that the problem with BYU to the Big12 was finding a suitable "partner" that added value to the conference? I assume that if the Big 12 can hold their conference championship game without having to expand to 12 teams and without having to split into divisions, they could feasibly add BYU and stay at 11 teams if adding BYU meant that they increased the content they provide to their TV partners and if the revenue per team increases proportionally as has been reported elsewhere.

Now why would they do that instead of staying at 10? I don't know, but that doesn't mean they can't, right??

[Uncle Ted]

I just posted the same thing elsewhere. Yes, I'm grasping at straws here, but hasn't it been said for some time that the problem with BYU to the Big12 was finding a suitable "partner" that added value to the conference? I assume that if the Big 12 can hold their conference championship game without having to expand to 12 teams and without having to split into divisions, they could feasibly add BYU and stay at 11 teams if adding BYU meant that they increased the content they provide to their TV partners and if the revenue per team increases proportionally as has been reported elsewhere.

Now why would they do that instead of staying at 10? I don't know, but that doesn't mean they can't, right??

BYU adds a lot of value and the Pac 12 might be getting ideas of going to the Pac 13 or 14. (Or just trading up one of their mistakes they made.) The Big 12 needs to make their move while BYU is still available.

Chip Brown says that Big 12 will expand if they find a "cheap date"... BYU is a date that pays her own way.

http://www.scout.com/college/footbal...g-12-expansion

[Jarid in Cedar]

I just posted the same thing elsewhere. Yes, I'm grasping at straws here, but hasn't it been said for some time that the problem with BYU to the Big12 was finding a suitable "partner" that added value to the conference? I assume that if the Big 12 can hold their conference championship game without having to expand to 12 teams and without having to split into divisions, they could feasibly add BYU and stay at 11 teams if adding BYU meant that they increased the content they provide to their TV partners and if the revenue per team increases proportionally as has been reported elsewhere.

Now why would they do that instead of staying at 10? I don't know, but that doesn't mean they can't, right??

Based on what the amendment says, any conference with less than 12(thus divisions) has to play a round robin to be able to hold a ccg. So adding an 11th team means that they would have to play 10 conference games to be able to hold a ccg.

[The_Douger]

I just posted the same thing elsewhere. Yes, I'm grasping at straws here, but hasn't it been said for some time that the problem with BYU to the Big12 was finding a suitable "partner" that added value to the conference? I assume that if the Big 12 can hold their conference championship game without having to expand to 12 teams and without having to split into divisions, they could feasibly add BYU and stay at 11 teams if adding BYU meant that they increased the content they provide to their TV partners and if the revenue per team increases proportionally as has been reported elsewhere.

Now why would they do that instead of staying at 10? I don't know, but that doesn't mean they can't, right??

I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything but bad for us.

[All-American]

I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything but bad for us.

It means we don't have to join their crappy club for losers.

[The_Douger]

It means we don't have to join their crappy club for losers.

I'll be losers with them anytime. We need the money, the church sure isn't going to give it to us. Independence is dumb.

[Uncle Ted]

I think this is purely a PR stunt by the Big12 to influence the vote. I still don't see how this proposal changes anything for the other conferences who play with twelve members. Why would they vote to move the fence for the Big12?

Consider if you have a conference with two divisions. One division has the super good teams (call this the "north division"). The other division is made up of mostly crap teams (call this the "south division"). Because they are mostly sh*t for teams, the south division could send a 3-loss team to the championship game. The north division could send a 1-loss team (like one that has strong ties with sport attire company and that plays in different looking uniforms every week). The north division could have another 1-loss team as well (like one that has a stupid mascot that looks like a tree or something). Now imagine that if the south division gets super lucky because the undefeated north team turns the ball over 5 times and spots the stupid south division team 34 points. And with that lead the south has just enough gas to win the championship game. That could be enough to kick that conference out of the playoffs.

Instead consider if the conference had the option of telling the south division because you have nothing but sh*t for teams we are going to play the two 1-loss north teams in the championship game to determine the "one true champion". The winner emerges still an 1-loss team and heads to the playoffs. Why wouldn't the other conferences go with a plan like that?

[SeattleUte]

So we agree that Utah was a throw in?

Call it whatever you want. It was a confluence of the Pac 12's incentive to expand and Colorado's decision that it wanted the Pac 12. But the the but for cause was Colorado, which is super attractive and had lots of options. It became just a matter of finding a worthy partner. Utah was good enough in combination with Colorado, but it was not the driver. Colorado was the prize even though the Pac 12 took a shot at Texas. Colorado was not a panic pick up. On the contrary.

[USUC]

I guess no expansion is better than expansion not involving BYU.

This does all seem like a really weird deal for the B1G to do a 180 like this. At this point I think it is just a contest between the Big-12 and the ACC on who can last the longest. Seeing as the ACC also wanted deregulation, this is kind of a back stab move by the Big-12. They are allowed to have a championship game that puts the top two seeds in that game, as long as they also play a round robin schedule. Big-12 gets exactly what they want. The ACC can't do this because there is no way to have a round robin schedule with 14 teams. So what is the motivation of the B1G for doing this? Do they want to destabilize the ACC and poach some of those teams? If it all goes to four 16 team conferences, I guess it does seem strange to have 3 east coast based conferences and one west coast based conference. Makes sense to have 2 east coast, midwest, and west coast conferences.

[Uncle Ted]

I guess no expansion is better than expansion not involving BYU.

This does all seem like a really weird deal for the B1G to do a 180 like this. At this point I think it is just a contest between the Big-12 and the ACC on who can last the longest. Seeing as the ACC also wanted deregulation, this is kind of a back stab move by the Big-12. They are allowed to have a championship game that puts the top two seeds in that game, as long as they also play a round robin schedule. Big-12 gets exactly what they want. The ACC can't do this because there is no way to have a round robin schedule with 14 teams. So what is the motivation of the B1G for doing this? Do they want to destabilize the ACC and poach some of those teams? If it all goes to four 16 team conferences, I guess it does seem strange to have 3 east coast based conferences and one west coast based conference. Makes sense to have 2 east coast, midwest, and west coast conferences.

Do they actually have to play a round robin schedule to put the top two seeds in the championship game? If so, that blows my "the south division is crap" theory.

[USUC]

Do they actually have to play a round robin schedule to put the top two seeds in the championship game? If so, that blows my "the south division is crap" theory.

That's my understanding based off what is in the media. Round robin = top two seeds in championship game. No round robin = only divisional champions in championship game. However, this is all speculation given the vote hasn't taken place yet.

[Paperback Writer]

Call it whatever you want. It was a confluence of the Pac 12's incentive to expand and Colorado's decision that it wanted the Pac 12. But the the but for cause was Colorado, which is super attractive and had lots of options. It became just a matter of finding a worthy partner. Utah was good enough in combination with Colorado, but it was not the driver. Colorado was the prize even though the Pac 12 took a shot at Texas. Colorado was not a panic pick up. On the contrary.

Super ignorant post.

The only incentive the PAC-10 had to expand was holding a CCG. If the PAC-10 could have hosted a CCG with 10 teams they certainly would have. Colorado had been wanting to go to the PAC-10 for decades, yet remained in the Big 8/12. Why? Because the PAC-10 didn't want them. There was no reason for the PAC-10 to expand until the Big Ten announced they were going to 12 teams. And why was that? To hold a CCG. Nobody in the Big 12 was mourning the loss of Colorado - it was good riddance.

[chrisrenrut]

Super ignorant post.

The only incentive the PAC-10 had to expand was holding a CCG. If the PAC-10 could have hosted a CCG with 10 teams they certainly would have. Colorado had been wanting to go to the PAC-10 for decades, yet remained in the Big 8/12. Why? Because the PAC-10 didn't want them. There was no reason for the PAC-10 to expand until the Big Ten announced they were going to 12 teams. And why was that? To hold a CCG. Nobody in the Big 12 was mourning the loss of Colorado - it was good riddance.

The PAC-10/12 were also heading into TV contract negotiations the following year. Adding a couple of larger TV markets probably had some part of the decision to expand as well.