Big 12 talk is back thanks to Texas.

[CincyBearcat95]

Is Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC 12 dead? Does anyone know that? If those two move, obviously, it opens the door for us to the Big 12. I'm hoping for this scenario. Or if the Big 10 wants to expand at Florida State or Clemson or both. Then we have options with the ACC. Despite the 50 million buyout, I still think that this can happen. IF FSU and Clemson decide that the 50 million buyout is negated by a large TV contract and revenue with the Big 10 Network over time, then it's all possible. If that network can bring FSU and Clemson dollars to off set 50 million, it could work out. I know the Big 10 is not done. I'm not sure they are all thrilled with the Maryland/Rutgers group either. Both are floundering in all sports except women's basketball. It gives them TV revenue or positioning, but that's it. Neither school is breaking ground anywhere. Also, none of us should discount the impact Mick Cronin is having here. He may very well be vaulting UC into the big time with his dynamic ranked team. This could pay dividends for UC. This UC basketball team is only going to get better. Look at the incoming and add Deshayn Moorman.

There is no $50m buyout going forward. It's grant of rights now. Meaning anyone leaving the league would have to sign over their tv rights to the league until 2026-2027. I don't see anyone leaving the ACC for any reason until close to the end of the contract. They are each getting $20m a year as well.

Our only chance is for the ACC or Big 12 to add schools or for SEC, Pac12 and Big 10 to steal from a conference not named ACC.

[vince8290]

Your right it's unlikely that anyone would give up those rights. However, if what they add with the BTN is significantly better, it may be an option. I agree, adding schools is most likely the only hope.

[red_n_black_attack]

Can Bohn moving CU out of the Big 12 hurt the Bearcats chances of getting into the Big 12?

[vince8290]

If I'm not mistaken, Tom Jurich is a Vice President at Louisville, not just athletic director. Secondly, has anyone given much thought to the teams that moved to the power conferences such as TCU, Utah, WVU and where are they now? TCU 0-18 in the Big 12 in basketball, no bowl bid this year in football, WVU no bowl bid in football and no NCAA appearance in basketball, Utah, (might have bowl bid in football), no NCAA in basketball. Can't help but think, is the grass really greener on the other side? Is all that money producing anything but sub par finishes and disgruntled fans? What does UL have to look forward to in the ACC next year and Rutgers in the Big Ten? Anyone?

[RedDog]

Combine your performance drop off info with the fact we would have NO rivals and ridiculous travel expense, I don't see this as a good option in any way shape or form. Plus as I have said many times before, the good teams in this conference will leave shortly after we were to join and we will be stuck. This is a bad move. Wait for the ACC or stay with the AAC and dominate.

[coach]

The fans who want to jump conference ships so bad are usually the first ones to quite buying tickets as well. If teams isn't winning(for whatever reason), not a good thing in cincy.

[red_n_black_attack]

Combine your performance drop off info with the fact we would have NO rivals and ridiculous travel expense, I don't see this as a good option in any way shape or form. Plus as I have said many times before, the good teams in this conference will leave shortly after we were to join and we will be stuck. This is a bad move. Wait for the ACC or stay with the AAC and dominate.

I guess the meat of this path is can we make as much or more money dominating the AAC and continually going to NCAA and peridoically going to a BCS type playoff Bowl? I don't think the revenue will add-up. Even when we went to a BCS game, the ticket allottment, travel, and other expenses chewed up the pay-out. Going to a major Bowl will not replace the added tv revenue.

The next question is will the added tv revenue offset increased travel for all sports and band travel? Maybe? The big impact of the Bowl game was buying 17-20,000 tickets at face value. This will not be case for typical travel. Most current trips are a flight and I would expect that to be the same. It could be a major driving force to schedule local teams in non-conference schedules for ease of travel. Conference games/meets will be a little more, but it would take someone a lot more well versed in accounting (and the actual current vs predicted money spent). I cannot answer this one, only suppose that additional revenue should just about offset increased travel cost.

A more challenging conference will at minimum pay-off for better seeding in the NCAA - not that it helps. I do agree with Coach K's comments that so called second tier teams in ACC or Big 12 are as good as lesser conferences - I interpret this to be the 5th, 6th, and 7th teams in ACC are as good as the 3rd or 4th teams in Big East, A-10, and the American. If we were in a more challenging top to bottom conference, we could go farther in the NCAA tourney, but the reality is there isn't a guarantee.

Will home attendance go up if we are playing Texas, Baylor, Ok State, etc. and KU, OU, K State, Iowa state the other years? Probably a big yes in football and in basketball. I'd expect season tickets to go up in both value and total numbers with sellouts for most of the conference games. The only ACC games I could see selling out would be Louisville and Fl State in football, with several basketball games getting to 13,176.

I'm not saying the Big 12 is a better or best fit for UC. I'm saying I would not turn it down to wait for the ACC. Can you agree with that?

[RedDog]

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.

[Lobot]

Well throw all the Big 12 stuff away. They just just got approved for a championship game with only 10 teams meaning they have no reason to expand anymore. This SUCKS!

[London 'Cat]

A more challenging conference will at minimum pay-off for better seeding in the NCAA - not that it helps. I do agree with Coach K's comments that so called second tier teams in ACC or Big 12 are as good as lesser conferences - I interpret this to be the 5th, 6th, and 7th teams in ACC are as good as the 3rd or 4th teams in Big East, A-10, and the American. If we were in a more challenging top to bottom conference, we could go farther in the NCAA tourney, but the reality is there isn't a guarantee.

UC was in a top-tier conference for 8 years, the Big East. I am not sure that UC experienced higher seeds in the NCAA as a result of its conference affiliation. Nor did UC advance further in those years it was in the Big East.

[longtimefan]

UC was in a top-tier conference for 8 years, the Big East. I am not sure that UC experienced higher seeds in the NCAA as a result of its conference affiliation. Nor did UC advance further in those years it was in the Big East.

In basketball maybe. But the major conference made a big difference for the better in football.

[swilsonsp4]

Well throw all the Big 12 stuff away. They just just got approved for a championship game with only 10 teams meaning they have no reason to expand anymore. This SUCKS!

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

[red_n_black_attack]

UC was in a top-tier conference for 8 years, the Big East. I am not sure that UC experienced higher seeds in the NCAA as a result of its conference affiliation. Nor did UC advance further in those years it was in the Big East.

I beg to differ. We were in the NCAA the last three years in the BEast. Would a 26-9 team that was 6th in the BEast have done better than a 6th seed in 2010/11? We may have been screwed a little in 2011/12 also getting a 6th seed after finishing 4th in the BEast with a better conference record. I was happy woth the 10th seed we earned last year after finishing 8th in the leaugue. 6th and 8th in league like C-USA, A-10, current BEast, or AAC would result in definite NIT bid possibly a play-in game if we had similar signature wins. Who you play also affects your RPI/BPI.

The Big 12 is happy at 10; however, I still see the B1G going after more markets. I don't think they will get Texas or OU; howevery every other Big 12 team will be a target starting with Kansas, then perhaps Ok State and Baylor as the B1G likes to be contiguous. I would not be surprised if the B1G goes after an SEC or ACC team even with grant of rights. I know it was a long shot to hope the Big 12 added teams because of Championship game though it's still possible the Big 12 expands as a pre-emptive strike or in response to being poached. A league with Texas and OU as anchors will survive. The BEast didn't have anchors like that.

[RedDog]

Texas won't do anything they can't totally control. OU isn't much better. I agree the fringe BIG12 teams are more likely targets, especially geographically as you say. The grant will keep any ACC from moving unless they are willing to spend a fortune in court. Without sounding condescending to my own school and program, do you really think UC appeals to Texas or OU as a new member or is this just wishful thinking on our part. Even if it happened which I am on record hoping it doesn't, it would be a football decision that is doomed to fail and basketball would suffer as an afterthought.

[Bearcat_DF]

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

df