KCRag Forum

From everything I've heard, that rumor was just Texas/Oklahoma media types stirring the pot. The Big Ten has *way* more money coming in than the Big 12 does now (and will for the foreseeable future), even after adjusting for 14 vs 10 members.

If the Big 12 is hell-bent on expansion, the existing members have to deal with the reality that it's exceedingly unlikely that any schools from other Power 5 conferences will want to join.

Why? The Big 10 is basically the New York City of College Conferences, the NCAA actually needs the Big 10 to be successful because of the population marketshare they serve, the income of the average students/alumni and overall profitability.

I really think the Big 12 screwed up by not going after Louisville vs West Virginia. Louisville is on a sports roll right now, they have an amazing Baseball program, great football and a legacy basketball program.

brewcrew1000 wrote:Why? The Big 10 is basically the New York City of College Conferences, the NCAA actually needs the Big 10 to be successful because of the population marketshare they serve, the income of the average students/alumni and overall profitability.

I really think the Big 12 screwed up by not going after Louisville vs West Virginia. Louisville is on a sports roll right now, they have an amazing Baseball program, great football and a legacy basketball program.

The fact that the Big 12 needed EITHER WV or Louisville to be good says more about the state of the conferences. Rutgers arguably has the worst Power 5 Conference basketball and football teams*, and it doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things for the Big 10.

*Rutgers and KU are #116 and #122 in the CBS rankings - so KU is technically the lowest ranked big conference team at the moment.

There was a point in time when they could have gone after Louisville and Florida State in addition to already having West Virginia. The leadership were being cautious and trying to make sound long-term business decisions, while everyone else was panicking. That they couldn't pick anything up from the panic aside from TCU and WVU was not a good sign. By waiting for the right opportunity, they missed all of the decent ones. A 12 team Big 12 is necessary moving forward in my opinion if they want to keep the top teams around.

Otherwise, I imagine the best thing would be for one of the bigger conferences to swallow the league whole, even though they aren't likely to want the entire package. I could see someone like the B1G, though, trying to work an acquisition of the Big 12, essentially making two 12 team leagues out of 24. In that scenario, you probably end up with a Big 12 division that has Nebraska and Iowa added to it. At this rate, I wouldn't totally mind that but I'm skeptical the Big 12 brass would be smart enough to work on something like that. Perhaps they would personally lose too much. That scenario would be nice for smaller sports that aren't played at every school, and the B1G would have incredible bargaining power vs. the NCAA. I know, not likely.

Wow! This is quite a different attitude that you all had in 2011 & 2012. It's so nice to see you all FINALLY blaming the Big 12's leadership instead of Mizzou.

There is no reason why the Big 12 can't be a strong, successful, powerful conference, or even the "best" conference. But for that to happen, the conference leadership MUST make smarter decisions.

.

AllThingsKC wrote:Wow! This is quite a different attitude that you all had in 2011 & 2012. It's so nice to see you all FINALLY blaming the Big 12's leadership instead of Mizzou.

There is no reason why the Big 12 can't be a strong, successful, powerful conference, or even the "best" conference. But for that to happen, the conference leadership MUST make smarter decisions.

True, I am blaming the Big 12's leadership, and I don't think anyone ever claimed that leadership was terrific. But the leadership issues have to deal with adding teams after the tantrum throwers left the conference. The 10 team system does result in better games and a more justified champion in both football and basketball, but the conference realignment has changed the landscape such that it probably isn't a sustainable path. So, sure, since the departing teams weakened the conference by volume, the conference was not prepared to deal with the aspect of conference management that hadn't really been a factor for decades (adding and recruiting new schools).

I realize you've been monitoring things for years, just waiting for the right moment to make your statement, but my entire point is that the Big 12 needs 12 teams in today's market, and that leadership should have made this a priority after teams started to abandon ship. This was not an issue in 2010 when there were 12 teams, and teams still had the power to work with the conference to make it better. The SEC really cares what MU has to say now, clearly! Mizzou was threatening to leave for the Big 10 for decades, and they finally stirred up the hornet's nest. Nobody said the Big 12 leadership was some fantastic, equitable organization. What I think we did say was that forsaking decades of tradition for money and hubris was the wrong way to go, and that perhaps things would be better if you stopped blaming everyone else for your problems.

Big XII will not expand at this time.

bobbyhawks wrote:But the leadership issues have to deal with adding teams after the tantrum throwers left the conference.

Simple solution: Don't run your conference in such a way that over half of the schools leave or try to leave.

bobbyhawks wrote:The 10 team system does result in better games

Not saying you're wrong here, but I am curious as to what you base this opinion on.

bobbyhawks wrote:So, sure, since the departing teams weakened the conference by volume, the conference was not prepared to deal with the aspect of conference management that hadn't really been a factor for decades (adding and recruiting new schools).

Simple soluction: Don't run your conference in such a way that schools want to leave and nobody wants to join (of the Power 5 conferences, that is).

bobbyhawks wrote:The SEC really cares what MU has to say now, clearly!

Huh?

bobbyhawks wrote:Mizzou was threatening to leave for the Big 10 for decades

Link? So, Mizzou had been trying to leave for decades and the Big 12 leadership was still blind slighted by conference realignment? Even after NU, CU and A&M left, the Big 12 leadership didn't expect Mizzou to leave after it had been trying to leave for decades?

If even that was true, the simple solution is to not run your conference in such a way that schools want to leave and nobody wants to join.

bobbyhawks wrote:Nobody said the Big 12 leadership was some fantastic, equitable organization.

It's one thing to be caught off guard with conference realignment, but what baffles me is that the Big 12 leadership seemingly continues to make mistake after mistake that screws overs the whole conference. There's no reason why the Big 12 can't be a strong and dominating conference with the teams it has now. But the leadership must start making wiser choices. Put me in charge of the Big 12 and I'll have it be the best conference within 5 years. It's gonna be YUGE!

With the decision for the time being that the Big XII will not expand some have speculated that leaves the conference open to the possibility of schools leaving in the future or having the conference swallowed as a whole or in part by another conference or two.

Catching up here. I do think that when the Big 12 added West Virginia and TCU, they should have also added 2 more teams to get to 12 at that time. Obvious one was Louisville, and then probably Cinncinnati, to strenghten their presence in that region. Now it's too late with the grant of rights in the ACC and that conference stabilizing.

I agree with whoever posted that a ten 10 conference is better for pure games. You play each other every year. I'm a Nebraska fan and we are not going to build any true rivalries with those in the East because we play them to infrequently. At least in a 14 team league we play a 9 game schedule. The SEC is even worst only playing 8 conference games. You will play cross divisional games even less there.

Greg

.

Highlander wrote: Missouri did OK in its second and third years in the SEC while it still had recruits from the B12 days (and an extremely weak SEC East certainly helped) but the program has declined with predictable results since (just as I predicted at least).

I think the crap going on at Mizzou AND the fact can't hire a decent coach has more to do with Mizzou's football decline than anything else. Would Texas kids really want to join this clown show? Mizzou recruited well in the first few years of the SEC. Then crap happened and now recruiting sucks. Besides, if recruiting in Big 12 is so great, how come the Big 12 has a losing bowl record since 2011 and hasn't won a championship since 2005? Why can't Big 12 schools benefit from all this wonderful Big 12 recruiting?

Currently, the Big 12 ranks 6th in RPI, just behind the American Athletic Conference (link: http://realtimerpi.com/college_football ... f_Men.html). So, where's all this awesome Texas recruiting for the Big 12 schools?

Highlander wrote:*even with the SEC network and KU's lack of an effective football program, their athletic department still makes more money than Mizzou's.

Well, yeah. This is because of basketball. Mizzou's inability to hire a decent coach also comes into play here. But Mizzou still gets more conference money than KU. KU is doing great financially. But if KU was in the SEC, they'd be doing even better financially than they are now. So from a purely financial perspective, it's in KU's best interest in to leave the Big 12. The Big 12 is keeping KU (and 9 other schools) from reaching their full financial potential.

.

I believe Mizzou was "middle of the pack" in recruiting for the first few years. Back-to-back SEC East titles and a couple of bowl wins should have help to sustain that. By the time Mizzou won it's 2nd SEC East title, the team had less than 20% of players who were recruited while Mizzou was still in the Big 12. But the clown show started and that's when things went downhill. Otherwise, there's no reason why Mizzou couldn't continue to bowl contender success it had in the Big 12. Except that Mizzou got in its own way.

Wouldn't be Thanksgiving without a stupid argument.

.

How has KC's "economic side of the sports world" been negatively impacted by Mizzou's move to the SEC?

[.

Highlander wrote: Lets see how many future B12 tourney's KC gets. That is a huge event that is definitely at risk....even if it comes back at, it will be a diminished rate of occurrence.

You mean the tournament that has been in Kansas City every year since 2010? The one that has been extended twice since Mizzou joined the SEC? Forgive me if I don't put much weight behind this outdated and unproven cry.