*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, explains why a lot of us that were able to get in had google dns. Google usually updates dns changes pretty fast, especially compared to the stock dns servers mediacom has.
Last edited:
I'm assuming somebody got to close to the truth about ISU to the Big Ten and the site had to be locked down and all evidence purged. Nice work CW, you cagey bastard!
I'm not going to argue on the third tier thing anymore because it's useless. Neither of us are going to give.
I agree with you on this though. Move it to an 8 game schedule.
If that 10-team (9 game) schedule is a bargaining chip to get UT on board with restrictions on LHN, I'd be for it. Even if it costs us money, if it bought stablility it would be worth it. I don't think that long-term we can do without the title game's prestige and cash in the conference, but maybe their thought is that the teams that we'd bring in aren't worth spitting the current deals on...yet.
Honestly, if all we've got for #10 is someone like TCU (or any other texas team), we might be better off at 9.
9 teams doesnt necessarily mean the conference is irrelevant. The only reason the BE has had that problem while staying small is because they havent had any top-tier teams nationally, but theye had solid mid-range teams. We'd have the top tier to keep the conference in the national picture even with 9. (hell, even if TAMU left right now, we'd have 7 of 9 teams -all but KU\KState- either in the rankings or receiving votes). As long as there was sufficient penalties in place to keep the conference together, it would remain a relevant league until the conference could find someone actually worth inviting.
9 teams doesnt necessarily mean the conference is irrelevant. The only reason the BE has had that problem while staying small is because they havent had any top-tier teams nationally, but theye had solid mid-range teams. We'd have the top tier to keep the conference in the national picture even with 9. (hell, even if TAMU left right now, we'd have 7 of 9 teams -all but KU\KState- either in the rankings or receiving votes). As long as there was sufficient penalties in place to keep the conference together, it would remain a relevant league until the conference could find someone actually worth inviting.
So TCU is not worthy of an invite? Who do you suggest? Notre Dame is not coming.
If we're ten teams only with the same 9 game schedule we have now, it's BYU.
TCU is basically a Big East team, we wouldn't add just TCU if we're going to raid a conference on life support with 7 teams. Might as well get what we really want from them if we're going to knock them down to 6. If we add BYU, take two or four from among Louisville, WVU, Cincy and TCU. If we don't add BYU take 3 of them.
Bigger does not necessarily = more money, same reason WV apparently isn't getting any attention from the SEC/ACC. I bought into this on the last go round when it was figured out we could get more money with 2 fewer teams.
For Iowa State - bigger is more sustainable, if you lose 4 teams to the Pac 12 and 1 to the Big 10 - starting with 12, a lot easier to survive with 7 than say 4 or 5.
I would favor bigger for less money in the short run to ensure we have better partners long term.
I think TCU is great if it's TCU and 2 or 4 other non Texas teams. If it's just TCU then it is kind of a lost opportunity to get back some of the footprint we lost.
I'm not really concerned about TCU affecting recruiting. A&M in the SEC is going to affect recruiting more than TCU in the Big East or TCU in the Big 12. TCU is already good enough that they'd be attracting some top recruits even if they were still in the MWC.
The landscape West to East is if nobody does anything a of now is: 12-9-12-13-14-7
It could soon be 12-9-12-14-16-9 if we don't act or it could be as different as 12-14-12-13-16 if we get really aggressive and add 4 Big East teams with the ACC taking two and it folds as a football league.
In my opinion, we're more stable if we're not significantly smaller than the 4 leagues with proven predatory tendencies.
It was a hard lesson, but most of this board has finally learned it.
The "10 is better than 12" crowd was clearly the majority last year, but they couldn't see the long term impact a smaller conference had and they were dead wrong.
For teams with a guaranteed landing spot or who can make their own conference on a whim, smaller and less division of money may be better. For Iowa State a large conference is much better than one that is three leaving teams away from folding.
We should have added BYU the minute Colorado left and been at 11 until another solid option became available. Then the minute the Big East was destabilized by the ACC we should have taken 1 or 3 of their teams that fit us best. That's what we'd have done if we had aggressive leadership like the MWC, ACC, Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12 all have. Then again, if we had aggressive leadership we might still be the original 12.
The distance might appear to be bad, but in terms of a BCS conference BYU is much more likely to stick with the forgotten 4 than Missouri, WVU, Louisville, TCU...
The SEC or Big Ten could offer any of those 4 at any time and it could make sense. The Pac Ten is not likely to invite a Mormon school even if their athletic program grows into a top five powerhouse when in a BCS league, BYU would stay with the Big 12 leftovers before they went non-BCS.
In terms of BCS leagues, BYU is a BCS caliber program (65k per Saturday) that has nowhere to go but the Big 12. Stupid not to accept that in this current climate.
Also, playing 9 conference games every year that include all of the teams is not the best way for ISU to have sustained success, say what you want about it but when you get to miss a team or two that generally will beat you, there is more chance to rise up and compete to be in a championship. An ISU appearance in a Big 12 Championship would be huge.
Exactly, look at Iowa and Illinois Big Ten schedules this year.
We play 5 ranked teams in conference not counting @Missouri, they both cakewalk through playing only two ranked teams the whole year because they each get to dodge two ranked teams not on their conference schedule.
Even if we can only find a 10th or 11th, go to an 8 game schedule like the Big Ten had for decades and decades. Finding 12 should be priority #1, 14 should be #2, anything else should just be temporary fallback.
A 10 team league works just fine, so long as all member schools want to be part of it.
The problem with the Big 12 having 10 teams isn't that 10 is inherently weak, the problem is the high level of mistrust within the league. A 10 team league isn't weak if it's unified. That's just a media perception thing.
The problem with the Big 12 having 10 teams isn't that 10 is inherently weak, the problem is the high level of mistrust within the league. A 10 team league isn't weak if it's unified. That's just a media perception thing.
- Status
