Big XVI?

Have I missed it? I'm surprised there's no talk of the Big XII adding 4 teams. Should be easier than Big 10 finding 5 teams or the Pac-10 finding 6 teams.

Side question -- what 4 teams would be interesting?

(No particular order)
1) Iowa. Almost certainly never gonna happen but isn't it a little unusual for 2 BCS schools in 1 state to be in different conferences?
2) Minnesota. Geography makes sense at least.
3) TCU. Find another Texas school and we could have the "Texas" division and the "others" division.
4) Tennessee?
5) Auburn? (I just giggled at that.)
6) Arkansas?
7) LSU?
8) Kentucky?

I seem to be going entirely based on geography.

First of all, no team will leave the Big 10 or SEC to come to the Big 12.

And why hasn't the Big 12 offered anybody to expand? Ask Beebe..

The Big 10 has THE tv deal right now, from what I can gather. No Big 10 team is going to bolt.

SEC just signed a monster tv deal as well.

Anyone else really doens't bring much money to the table and I'm thinking Texas isn't inclined to share. So why add teams and split it more?

Good read:
Big Eight Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

The Big 10 has THE tv deal right now, from what I can gather. No Big 10 team is going to bolt.

SEC just signed a monster tv deal as well.

Anyone else really doens't bring much money to the table and I'm thinking Texas isn't inclined to share. So why add teams and split it more?

---

Adding teams == being proactive.

Waiting to see what other schools do == reactive.

Maybe Texas (and Oklahoma?) can be reactive, but one would think the conference would try to be proactive.

Although you could argue that the "ultimatum" is a proactive move. I would say it's a poor move (more likely to tick schools off than to entice them to stay).

The only way the Big 12 goes to 16 teams is at the power of MWC, WAC, CUSA, and possibly even MAC teams. No one from the Big 10 or SEC (namely Minnesota, Iowa, LSU, and Arkansas, which seem to be the popular names thrown around here) are going to leave their conferences to first get less money in the Big 12, and second, willingly become the new pawn that fattens Texas' wallet even further under the Big 12's unequal revenue sharing model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedKumsher

Adding teams == being proactive.

Waiting to see what other schools do == reactive.

Maybe Texas (and Oklahoma?) can be reactive, but one would think the conference would try to be proactive.

Although you could argue that the "ultimatum" is a proactive move. I would say it's a poor move (more likely to tick schools off than to entice them to stay).

---

What you have to ask is this: is the team we are adding going to increase revenue? Because that team that is added is just one more team to split revenue with amongst all of the conference members. If we could pull teams in (that would actually come) that would actually increase revenue, then do it. Otherwise, you are just taking money away from the other conference members.
I.E. if we added TCU, they bring nothing to the table in terms of market revenue. The Big 12 already owns all of Texas' market, so in this case TCU would just be another team to split the money with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedKumsher

Adding teams == being proactive.

Waiting to see what other schools do == reactive.

Maybe Texas (and Oklahoma?) can be reactive, but one would think the conference would try to be proactive.

Although you could argue that the "ultimatum" is a proactive move. I would say it's a poor move (more likely to tick schools off than to entice them to stay).

---

Sure Ted, but you're saying that as if the Big XII is a partnership with equal consideration and not, in fact, run out of Austin, Tx. :wink:

The teams you mentioned earlier have nothing to really gain by moving. In fact, they'd probably lose. So anyone else isn't goig the add much in terms of $$$. Hence, the "have's" have nothing to gain, and more likely would have to split their piece of an already small pie that much more. And the have-nots still don't matter.

Ultimately, the "ultimatum" was put out there to help 6 of the 12 conference schools determine their futures - the ones that most likely would move to the Pac 10. It would help the rest of us in at least we have a clearer picture of the future - if not where we fit in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

What you have to ask is this: is the team we are adding going to increase revenue? Because that team that is added is just one more team to split revenue with amongst all of the conference members. If we could pull teams in (that would actually come) that would actually increase revenue, then do it. Otherwise, you are just taking money away from the other conference members.
I.E. if we added TCU, they bring nothing to the table in terms of market revenue. The Big 12 already owns all of Texas' market, so in this case TCU would just be another team to split the money with.

---

I should have made the disclaimer that I'm not smart about athletic conferences.

Anyway -- there's something to be said for:

better conference == more national attention == more national tv coverage == more money. At this point in time, there is no Big XII tv network. We have to get other networks to give us regional AND national air time. TCU could theoretically bring enough enough national increase to offset the 0.64% $$ difference by splitting 13 ways instead of 12 (if it were an even split). That amounts to a decrease of 7.7%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedKumsher

Have I missed it? I'm surprised there's no talk of the Big XII adding 4 teams. Should be easier than Big 10 finding 5 teams or the Pac-10 finding 6 teams.

Side question -- what 4 teams would be interesting?

(No particular order)
1) Iowa. Almost certainly never gonna happen but isn't it a little unusual for 2 BCS schools in 1 state to be in different conferences?
2) Minnesota. Geography makes sense at least.
3) TCU. Find another Texas school and we could have the "Texas" division and the "others" division.
4) Tennessee?
5) Auburn? (I just giggled at that.)
6) Arkansas?
7) LSU?
8) Kentucky?

I seem to be going entirely based on geography.

---

It's moot in the current situation. Had it come earlier in the process (spurred by B12 expansion instead of initiated by the B10) and was not purely TV-revenue-driven, then maybe.

But I'll play along anyway, considering I've seen about 87 different scenarios floating around.

Potential new members of a 16-team "Big 12"
Iowa -- perfect for geography/rivalry; would never happen given historical ties to Big 10
Minnesota -- next best idea if Iowa didn't want in; same overall historical problem
Colorado State -- gives a nice in-state couplet w/ CU to match the rest of the conference, and would be BCS-lucrative for CSU
New Mexico/New Mexico State -- if Iowa and CSU joined, that would keep a natural North/South structure intact.
Etc: TCU, Utah, Boise State, Memphis, BYU, Tulsa, Northern Illinois, Arkansas. Wyoming? Tulane? UNLV?

Well, that was fun.

I further should have been clear that it was more an exercise in curiosity -- not an exercise in reality.

Well, I think adding 4 teams could/should be an exercise in reality. The teams I listed were an excercise in curiosity. The top schools from "lesser" conferences would be the most likely realistic candidates -- especially if they add decent TV markets and aren't horribly outside of our geography. (Boise State?, Utah?)

Note that Iowa was a co-member of the root of the Big 12 conference (in 1907 -- ISU didn't join until 1908).

Useless trivia for all of us to enjoy. (according to wikipedia)

16 teams is the way to be.
http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/a...-all-big16.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flipper

16 teams is almost a certainty if the PAC-16 and SEC go to 16.
http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/a...-all-big16.jpg

---

16 teams for who? The Big XII?

Odds are if they Pac 10 goes 16, there won't be a Big XII.

IF the B12 keeps the B12 south, a counter-offer of having USC, Oregon, Cal and Arizona join the B12 seems reasonable to me. The Pac-10 is pretty desparate at this point and maybe those teams bolt.