The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Scorcho]

I wonder if byuTV is an instant red flag to the Big 12.

With the entire Big 12 (san Texas) wary of the Longhorn Network and it's inherent advantages, maybe they view adding a Louisville or TCU as less complicated.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

Sorry, but that particular theory doesn't fly.

When discussing conference membership scenarios you're supposed to use hunting, not flying. I think you mean that dog doesn't hunt.

[Gaffords]

I still think there need to be some legit concessions made to OU, if only to save face. Even if OU has to stay in the B12, you don't want to force them to do it. You want them to be gruntled.

Also, if ND knew it was considering the B12, why would it tell Pitt to consider the ACC? ND would tell Pitt to consider the B12 too. Sorry, but that particular theory doesn't fly.

Because if Pitt moved to the BIG 12 first, the ACC would fill up with other BE schools...

So without knowing if it can get the votes to move into the BIG 12, their last option would more than likely be B1G. It is hard to say if they could get Pitt in due to Penn St. being there.

It could have easily left Pitt holding the bag if the B12 broke up.

[Gaffords]

I wonder if byuTV is an instant red flag to the Big 12.

With the entire Big 12 (san Texas) wary of the Longhorn Network and it's inherent advantages, maybe they view adding a Louisville or TCU as less complicated.

That is why I don't see many concessions being made on the LHN if we are actually trying to bring in BYU/ND. So OU is leaving for sure but wants to be sure the B12 implodes on the way out and we get left holding the bag, or it will render the B12 completely ineffective in adding the only schools left out there that can bring stability.

Which is it?

[Jeff Lebowski]

All this talk about ND to the B12 is loco. Ain't gonna happen.

[Paperback Writer]

At least the Big 12 has an official scape goat. It's not Colorado's fault...nor Nebraska's. Texas A&M is also blameless. It's Dan Beebe's fault. And that article is not too far off. While all the afore mentioned schools share much of the blame, Beebe's appeasement of Texas was the flawed strategy.

Nebraska took a lot of criticism for running off to the Big Ten (some of it deserved) because it couldn't beat Texas. Next, it was little brother Texas A&M who couldn't keep up with UT so they're fleeing to the SEC. But now the one program who can claim football superiority to the Longhorns is now stading up to them and stating that the Longhorns don't play nice or fair. Perhaps the Sooners are on to something, something that the Huskers and Aggies already knew all too well.

The best way to stabilize the Big 12 is for Texas to get behind a Big 12 network (as others have mentioned). Texas has a choice:

• the Longhorns can make concessions with the LHN and agree to equal revenue sharing and maintain much of the power they currently enjoy in the Big 12 albeit under a new Commissioner. They maintain more power but probably have diminished revenue.
  
• or join the PAC-12 or Big Ten which will mean sharing conference power with more and different schools and make similar concessions with the LHN. They won't have near as much power but probably receive similar revenue.

And not to be overlooked, but Texas Tech is not going with UT to the Big Ten and it remains to be seen if Tech or Okie St. will be approved by the PAC-12. My guess is Texas makes the first choice...and BYU get invited once the details of propriety networks get ironed out under a new commissioner.

[TripletDaddy]

Why is Slim Pickens changing his tune so dramatically from one week to the next about the PAC? The PAC probably shot down OSU cold, so Pickens is moving back to the B12 bandwagon.

It seems more clear today that the PAC thing is not going to happen.

On a somewhat related note, is there any chance in hades that BYU ever receives AAU status given all of its horrible issues with academic freedom?

[Blueintheface]

Why is Slim Pickens changing his tune so dramatically from one week to the next about the PAC? The PAC probably shot down OSU cold, so Pickens is moving back to the B12 bandwagon.
It seems more clear today that the PAC thing is not going to happen.

On a somewhat related note, is there any chance in hades that BYU ever receives AAU status given all of its horrible issues with academic freedom?

Was it the first game of the season he was in the booth for a few minutes stammering through a diatribe about the state of college football (I can't remember)? I sensed (interpretation with T'Boo is difficult) he was in the Big 12 camp, so if you're saying he said something between that day and today than the guy has flip flopped more than once.

[TripletDaddy]

Was it the first game of the season he was in the booth for a few minutes stammering through a diatribe about the state of college football (I can't remember)? I sensed (interpretation with T'Boo is difficult) he was in the Big 12 camp, so if you're saying he said something between that day and today than the guy has flip flopped more than once.

I saw that, too. He sounded drunk or senile.

That was the week he was all over the PAC, predicting the end of the B12.

Now he is calling the B12 home.

At any rate, I think the PAC has probably made it clear that OSU and Tech are non starters.

[Paperback Writer]

Because if Pitt moved to the BIG 12 first, the ACC would fill up with other BE schools...

So without knowing if it can get the votes to move into the BIG 12, their last option would more than likely be B1G. It is hard to say if they could get Pitt in due to Penn St. being there.

It could have easily left Pitt holding the bag if the B12 broke up.

I've read contradicting narratives about the relationship between Penn St. and Pittsburgh. On one hand, Penn St. is a valuable ally to Pittsburgh in obtaining an invite to the Big Ten. JoePa has wanted another eastern school in the conference to pair with Penn St. He was pushing for such when Jim Delany announced the Big Ten would be expanding back in 2010. That eastern school was always rumored to be Pittsburgh because of past rivalries with Penn St. Also, adding Pittsburgh to the Big Ten would be a big plus in getting Notre Dame to join since it would be one more Irish rival already in the conference.

On the other hand, I've read that Penn St. and Pittsburgh are bitter rivals and the Penn St. would like nothing better then to see Pitt wiither on the vine. It was rumored that Penn St. and Pittsburgh had an opportunity to join a conference toghether (Big East? or ACC?) but Pittsburgh declined. And since then Penn St. has vowed not to be associated with Pittsburgh and to no longer keep them on the schedule.

If there is truth to the second narrative, then Penn St. would veto Pittsburgh joining the Big Ten and Penn St. wanted an eatern partner in the Big Ten that was not Pittsburgh (Rutgers or Syracuse?). If that is the case, then the ACC is the better fit and safer choice for Pittsburgh.

[LA Ute]

Who knows if Wilner knows what he's talking about? But he does seem to have pretty good PAC-12 sources:

On the topic of voting (nine CEOs must sign off on new members), it’s important to consider Scott’s management style.

Before coming to the Pac-12, which was then the Pac-10, he ran the Women’s Tennis Association — an international organization of independent contractors with their own agendas.

Yes, he is bold and creative. But he’s also a pragmatist and a consensus builder.

He’s in regular communication with his CEOs, including ASU’s Michael Crow, chairman of the league’s executive group, and knows exactly what the presidents and chancellors want.

He’s not going to call for a vote on new members unless those new members agree in advance to work within the Pac-12′s framework.

For example: If Texas doesn’t agree to participate fully in the league’s revenue-sharing plan … if Texas doesn’t agree to fold the Longhorn Network into the Pac-12 regional network structure … if everyone isn’t on board with a 16-team division alignment … then Scott isn’t going to bother asking for a vote on the Longhorns.

The Pac-12 isn’t the Big 12. It’s a unified conference in which the universities work together — and in some cases compromise — for the greater good.

If a handful of schools have major objections to Texas (or Oklahoma) on any number of grounds, the others won’t use strong-arm tactics to ram through their agenda and Scott won’t put a deal in front of them.

[YOhio]

Who knows if Wilner knows what he's talking about? But he does seem to have pretty good PAC-12 sources:

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[Paperback Writer]

On a somewhat related note, is there any chance in hades that BYU ever receives AAU status given all of its horrible issues with academic freedom?

No. And it's not just the academic freedom issues. It's research grant money. That's the main driver of the AAU and BYU is not a big research institution. That's why Notre Dame is not an AAU member even though Notre Dame enjoys an excellent academic reputation.

Also, the AAU is contracting now and not expanding. Syracuse voluntary withdrew and Nebraska was voted out. The ivy leaguers and left coasters want a more elite club. Utah is much closer to AAU inclusion because of its medical school and associated research. But I think Utah probably has a ways to go before it joins the club. Utah would have to up its admission standards and win a lot more research grants among other things.

[LA Ute]

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

You're the one who's been to China. You tell me.

[SeattleUte]

Why is Slim Pickens changing his tune so dramatically from one week to the next about the PAC? The PAC probably shot down OSU cold, so Pickens is moving back to the B12 bandwagon.

It seems more clear today that the PAC thing is not going to happen.

On a somewhat related note, is there any chance in hades that BYU ever receives AAU status given all of its horrible issues with academic freedom?

You could have just asked me.