You are only saying that because you like ISU, KSU is saying the same things about their school. The fact is both of those schools don't have much clout. If a conference like the Big East is looking to take schools it would take Kansas and Missouri before ISU and KSU, and if it had to pick between the two it probably wouldn't matter which won was picked but Kansas would lobby for KSU. That is all I am saying, I am not saying they have tons of power but the Big East doesn't have to take ISU if it takes those other three schools.
*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
You are only saying that because you like ISU, KSU is saying the same things about their school. The fact is both of those schools don't have much clout. If a conference like the Big East is looking to take schools it would take Kansas and Missouri before ISU and KSU, and if it had to pick between the two it probably wouldn't matter which won was picked but Kansas would lobby for KSU. That is all I am saying, I am not saying they have tons of power but the Big East doesn't have to take ISU if it takes those other three schools.
No, I am saying it because:
1) TVs and markets appear to be driving all of this.
2) KSU adds exactly ZERO markets to a conference already including KU (similar to ISU in the B1G).
KSU does not have the academics of ISU. You may not think that means much. But it does to the University Presidents.
ISU brings more to the table than KSU does.
A quote here from the MU Chancellor to let out a little air of the over inflated ego of Sooner fan.
STLtoday : MU's Deaton discusses OU, future of Big 12
I wouldn't take to much into account with that Boomer homer LandThieves.... He tweets alot of idiotic ideas. Just another Sooner who is p***ed about Tejas and all their cash moneys.
Nah...only would have worked if George Carlin was available to referee the game
MU's intentions are suspect because of the reported flirting with the B1G last year. This has been noted before, but bears repeating everytime we reference MU. They are in a perilous ethical position with Mizzou chancellor Brady Deaton, as the chairman of the Big 12 board. If he isn't going to work to keep the conference together, he ought to resign as board chair.
I think the Missouri quote was interesting and no one is talking about it because idiots like Boomer sit at home in their parents basement masturbating and tweeting all day. Mizzou chancellor mentioned there may be some legal issue that keeps the conference together and that even w/out OU there might be a big 12. I think that is new, and hints that in some way there will be a big 12.
Call me crazy, but I don't think any of the decisions being made are based on academics.
Simply stating that ISU brings more to the table doesn't mean that it is true. I think in the eyes of people across the country they are the same.
That is completely void of logic. Lets assume that the Big East which has plans for its own network actually gets that done. Which scenario makes them more money? Getting that network distributed in the states of Missouri and Kansas by adding MU, KU and KSU or getting it distributed in the states of Missouri, Kansas and Iowa by adding MU, KU and ISU. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to figure out that ISU brings additional market share versus KSU.
Last edited:
KU thinking they have bargaining power to bring along KSU is ludicrous. KU has a great BB tradition. But that is it. KSU was the doormat of the conference until Snyder revived them. Snyder quit and they failed. Now he is back........for a while. And pretty mediocre at this point. Their academics suck. And they bring no additional TV's to the table above what KU brings. ISU would broaden the footprint. Honestly though, I look for WVU to be poached. That opens up things for KU, KSU, Mizzou and ISU for the Big East.
Well the "eyes of people across the country" aren't the ones deciding.
Not that I disagree with that scenario, but I'm not so sure that the Big East wouldn't add MU, ISU, KU and Baylor if this is truly about increasing market share. KSU shares the same small footprint as KU and that puts them in probably the weakest position of any of the forgotten five.
I think everyone needs to step back from the ledge. Take a deep breath and think rationally for just a little bit.
There haven't been any conference moves that didn't make sense up to this point. OU/OSU to the Pac 12 would be the first totally illogical move.
Colorado is a better fit in the Pac 12 than the Big 12. They were the only team outside of our timezone and they have more of a Pac 12 feel to them. Utah is a good fit as well. OU and OSU are not good fits geographically, academically, or culturally. I say that does not happen, no way. The Pac 12 teams have said they don't want OU/OSU. The commish who I admit, can't be trusted, says he doesn't want more expansion. I guarantee UofA and ASU don't want to play OU/OSU every season and I would bet no one wants to have to go through OU to make it to a national championship game. That move makes no sense for anyone. Forget TV revenue. That is overblown. Every single school, especially OU/OSU will incur increased travel costs and wear and tear on their student athletes. This effects a lot more than football and I know everyone is focusing on that, but it is NOT the only factor.
The Big XII has a built in AQ, built in TV contracts, and allows it's members to have their own network. There is no sweeter place to be for a school with a national following such as BYU, Notre Dame, OU, UT, etc. We have a TON to offer other schools that no other conference does.
Let's look at geography. Outside of TCU going to the Big East (which in my opinion was done only to add validity to the Big East as a football conference and from TCU's perspective, they would have preferred the Big 12 but just wanted an AQ conf.) there haven't been any conference moves that don't make geographical sense. I don't think these schools are so stupid that geography isn't a major factor. What did the B1G say? We won't expand to a state that isn't attached to an existing B1G state. There is a reason for this and it's the same reason that will keep FSU from joining the Big 12 or UT from joining the ACC. It just doesn't make any sense.
If we drop all of the emotion and look at what has happened, it really isn't much. CU and Utah to the Pac 12 which makes a lot of sense. NU to the B1G, also makes sense as does aTm to the SEC.
If OU and/or OSU go to the Pac 12 or UT goes to the ACC and some of the forgotten 5 join the Big East then people are truly nuts. No one wins in that scenario from any perspective. Student athletes lose, fans that want to see away games, university travel budgets increase, existing rivalries die, etc.
Once again, in my opinion, this is nothing more than media hype. The Big XII has too much to offer to die. MU coming out and saying there is a legal basis for the league to continue gives a stronger argument that it will not die. UT has said they want it to remain. T Boone saying it's not dead. ISU, KU, KSU, Baylor, MU all wanting it to exist.
The Big XII will be fine.
There haven't been any conference moves that didn't make sense up to this point. OU/OSU to the Pac 12 would be the first totally illogical move.
Colorado is a better fit in the Pac 12 than the Big 12. They were the only team outside of our timezone and they have more of a Pac 12 feel to them. Utah is a good fit as well. OU and OSU are not good fits geographically, academically, or culturally. I say that does not happen, no way. The Pac 12 teams have said they don't want OU/OSU. The commish who I admit, can't be trusted, says he doesn't want more expansion. I guarantee UofA and ASU don't want to play OU/OSU every season and I would bet no one wants to have to go through OU to make it to a national championship game. That move makes no sense for anyone. Forget TV revenue. That is overblown. Every single school, especially OU/OSU will incur increased travel costs and wear and tear on their student athletes. This effects a lot more than football and I know everyone is focusing on that, but it is NOT the only factor.
The Big XII has a built in AQ, built in TV contracts, and allows it's members to have their own network. There is no sweeter place to be for a school with a national following such as BYU, Notre Dame, OU, UT, etc. We have a TON to offer other schools that no other conference does.
Let's look at geography. Outside of TCU going to the Big East (which in my opinion was done only to add validity to the Big East as a football conference and from TCU's perspective, they would have preferred the Big 12 but just wanted an AQ conf.) there haven't been any conference moves that don't make geographical sense. I don't think these schools are so stupid that geography isn't a major factor. What did the B1G say? We won't expand to a state that isn't attached to an existing B1G state. There is a reason for this and it's the same reason that will keep FSU from joining the Big 12 or UT from joining the ACC. It just doesn't make any sense.
If we drop all of the emotion and look at what has happened, it really isn't much. CU and Utah to the Pac 12 which makes a lot of sense. NU to the B1G, also makes sense as does aTm to the SEC.
If OU and/or OSU go to the Pac 12 or UT goes to the ACC and some of the forgotten 5 join the Big East then people are truly nuts. No one wins in that scenario from any perspective. Student athletes lose, fans that want to see away games, university travel budgets increase, existing rivalries die, etc.
Once again, in my opinion, this is nothing more than media hype. The Big XII has too much to offer to die. MU coming out and saying there is a legal basis for the league to continue gives a stronger argument that it will not die. UT has said they want it to remain. T Boone saying it's not dead. ISU, KU, KSU, Baylor, MU all wanting it to exist.
The Big XII will be fine.
As fluid as this situation is, how can anyone assume that anything is likely?
- Status
