Big 12 talk is back thanks to Texas.

[CincyBearcat95]

Personally I WOULD turn it down and wait. The Big 12 is more appealing today than the AAC but may not be the same conference in the near future. If the ACC is at all an option, I would definitely wait for that. I just can't see Texas and OU and others feeling good about adding us to their conference. It works financially for us but it isn't reciprocal in benefits. I hate that $$ is driving the decision and not logistics. Secondary sports, already subsidized and operating in the red will be decimated by travel expense. If we drop to a fifth or six place team in a better conference we won't even make the tournament or meaningful bowl games. I have no desire to try to sell the idea that 5th place in the Big12 is better than first or second in the AAC. We will lose out in the evaluation and numbers game. What would our record have been in any of the more recent successful football seasons in the Big 12? Look at what has happened to WV already after just 2 years. I think they were comparable to us in most competitive respects and they have dropped off the map. Do you think if that happened to us our fan base would still be rabid and pay to come see Baylor or Kansas State or even Texas or Nebraska? I don't think so. Prices will go up, apathy that accompanies mediocrity will set it and our attendance will suffer. You know our fan base as well as I do. It supports a winner and doesn't rationalize the quality of our schedule, only the W's. The financial rewards might indeed make the program more solvent but that doesn't translate into saying it would be more successful. I understand the financial ramifications must be considered, but I would much rather be excited about being 10-2 and in the hunt for a BCS bid in football or 25-5 in basketball and a 3 or 4 seed, than I would be financially more successful and a middle of the pack team hoping for a bid or a bowl game. It doesn't mean we have to settle for anything, heck we're pretty good now in both major sports. I just see the Big 12 as a black hole that we will sink into where we can count our money but not our wins.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here is how I see it.

1. The big twelve teams are not going anywhere. As you said in your later post, Texas will not go anywhere where they are not top dog. OU could get frustrated and go but I do not think that will happen. Biggest discussion on the KU and KState boards is if they will be asked to join the big 10 which is not likely. I believe they have agreed through the state to be a package deal and no one wants to K-State.

2. TX and OU will not feel good about adding any teams because it takes money out of their pockets. They will only add if they need to for a championship game or if they feel the league is threatened (ie. the other leagues start moving to 16, etc.) So it doesn't matter who they add, they will not like doing it.

3. Our share of tv revenue is something like $1.5 to $2M in the AAC. If split equally we would get over $16M in the big 12. We might even accept a lower split initially. Either way, the added revenue easily outweighs the travel costs.

4. Why would we drop in basketball. We played in the big east and made the tourney? We played in the Beast tournament and almost won it. The beast was widely known as the best basketball conference. That is probably the ACC now where Pitt and Syracuse are doing just fine.. I live in Kansas City, hear big 12 sports non stop and go to the games. KU is head and shoulders above the rest of the league which is why they've won the league 10 straight times. WVU is not a good team. Huggs has not put the talent on the floor like he inherited from Beilein. We would beat K-state easily, we would beat OU. We would beat Baylor. We would be in for battles with Iowa State and OSU. Only comparison I have is like opponents and that is Memphis. Memphis beat and lost to OSU this year. We beat Memphis twice. Basketball wise, we would be fine.

5. Football, we have proven we can play good teams including OU which is recently the best in the big 12. Texas will probably be back up and OSU is great. Kansas is horrible at footbball. K-state can only seem to win with Snyder who won't be around for much longer. TCU is not what they once were. Baylor was not very good until RGIII. We won the big east when WVU was in it as well. So, competition wise, we could hang and just like we did in the Beast, the money and tv time would lead to better recruits, improved facilities, etc.

6. It has nothing to do with sports anyway. Our biggest values are:1 helping them get to a championship game 2: our tv market which I believe is#30 3: Our opening the door to recruiting in Ohio and lastly and probably least 4: our paring to WVU as a closer rival.

Also, stipends will happen in the near future. This will add an additional expense that we already cannot afford and further separate the haves and have nots. The only way to compete at the level to where college sports are going is to be in one of the big 5 conferences. Or be relegated to the new version of Division 2.

I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for any conference. I think we will take a seat at any table we are asked to join.

Just my opinion.

[CincyBearcat95]

I do not think the NCAA has made a ruling, though TX is lobbying:
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2014/3...lobbying-could

df

I think you are right. Dennis Dodd posted a story 3 days ago saying that the ACC wants to deregulate as well. It says there is currently support for that but here is the info that seems to mean it is going to take a long time before any changes are made:


"An NCAA spokesman told CBSSports.com that the association's board of directors would discuss the proposal at its April meeting. However, that spokesman also pointed out that the NCAA presidents have "declined to consider rules changes proposed by the conferences," before first finishing the reform and restructuring agendas.

That reform agenda has taken center stage since the results of a presidential summit in August 2011 produced more issues than solved problems. The NCAA and its membership is now in the process of figuring out how to give more power to day-to-day stakeholders like athletic directors and commissioners."

Wondering how long it will take for that first domino to fall. If the commissioners get more power, then we can be sure the deregulation will happen.

[Bearcat_DF]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here is how I see it.

4. Why would we drop in basketball. We played in the big east and made the tourney? We played in the Beast tournament and almost won it. The beast was widely known as the best basketball conference. That is probably the ACC now where Pitt and Syracuse are doing just fine.. I live in Kansas City, hear big 12 sports non stop and go to the games. KU is head and shoulders above the rest of the league which is why they've won the league 10 straight times. WVU is not a good team. Huggs has not put the talent on the floor like he inherited from Beilein. We would beat K-state easily, we would beat OU. We would beat Baylor. We would be in for battles with Iowa State and OSU. Only comparison I have is like opponents and that is Memphis. Memphis beat and lost to OSU this year. We beat Memphis twice. Basketball wise, we would be fine.

5. Football, we have proven we can play good teams including OU which is recently the best in the big 12. Texas will probably be back up and OSU is great. Kansas is horrible at footbball. K-state can only seem to win with Snyder who won't be around for much longer. TCU is not what they once were. Baylor was not very good until RGIII. We won the big east when WVU was in it as well. So, competition wise, we could hang and just like we did in the Beast, the money and tv time would lead to better recruits, improved facilities, etc.

Just my opinion.

@CincyBearcat95 - Good stuff. I think the biggest liability of a move to the Big 12 is that isn't a good geographic fit. The Big East was great - U of L, Pitt, UWV - similar programs in close proximity.

For football poor geographical fit means an obstacle in recruiting. Look back to our C-USA days - recruits had a choice between UC and top MAC schools - they took the top MAC schools.

If we were in the Big 12 - the recruits would have a choice between us and 2nd tier Big 10 school - 2nd tier Big 10 school is going to get them. I don't think we can be competitive in the Big 12 with that level of talent.

For BB - our recruiting niche is shifting - we were in the best conference with ties to NYC. We could compete for most recruits. Now, we are going to be the top team in a second tier league. We'll be on recruits lists behind B10, ACC, and SEC teams . . . May be able to pick up some top talent if there are some issues are involved (grades, injury, discipline) and other teams are staying away.

ACC is definitely the better option. B12 is the life raft.
If neither come, our best hope is to become the new Boise State . . .

[Lobot]

I can't find a source for this. How was it announced and when?

Sorry for the delay. Here's your source: http://footballscoop.com/news/12884-...mpionship-game

These guys are usually on the money and they're citing CBS.

[cmm27]

Well, if true, then for everyone who thought this playoff was going to be more egalitarian and inclusive just got slapped in the face. It was a clever ruse to make the system even more of a good ole' boys club.

[98bearcat]

Sorry for the delay. Here's your source: http://footballscoop.com/news/12884-...mpionship-game

These guys are usually on the money and they're citing CBS.

Ya I saw that article too and it may happen, but as someone said above, it will take time to happen. If one had to guess, at least 3 years before this could be initiated because there are so many variables to consider as it isn't as easy as just saying.. "no more rules on how conference games are scheduled"