Big 12 in 2016

[swilsonsp4]

You may be right, but shouldn't that conversation be had when they extend an invitation? I can't believe that they would be so shortsighted as to go with the lowest bidder.

I don't believe it will go to the lowest bidder, but Bowlsby has to make sure the schools can handle whatever level of reduced compensation can be negotiated. Also, no invitations have been issued as yet. That will come after the B12, (a) decide for sure to expand; (b) choose the schools they want.

So, IMO, the face-to-face would be just a final step prior to the clinching votes, followed by invitations. Those would be a mere formality at this point. I can't imagine any of the candidates getting cold feet.

[Big Herm]

It's very possible that the face-to-face meetings have nothing to do with the merits of each school, but, rather, how they fit financially in any deal struck. In other words, the size of the haircut.

You may be right, but shouldn't that conversation be had when they extend an invitation? I can't believe that they would be so shortsighted as to go with the lowest bidder.

[swilsonsp4]

Does this strike anyone else as absolutely ridiculous? From what I understand, the schools have already made formal presentations of one sort of another, and I'm sure the schools that are likely to be short-listed (UC, BYU, Houston) have been courting the Big12 for years now and have had opportunities to make informal presentations on several occasions. Moreover, the Big 12 has the reports from their consultants and likely their own files from in-house research. What are the Big 12 officials possibly going to learn during these presentations that they don't already know? What would they learn that would somehow overcome their political allegiances? What would they learn that would possibly sway their decision, which surely they have formed by now?

You might answer this by saying that the Big 12 officials want to see if the presidents, ADs, whoever of the candidate institutions are people they would want to work with. Those people change though -quite frequently in some cases- and this is supposed to be a (nominally) long term partnership of institutions, not office personnel. So if they already know the schools,their facilities and their traditions, and their commercial potential has been quantified by at least one outside consultancy, and if the current administrations of the various AD's offices are really not relevant, then what is left?

I'm not a business-minded person in the least and maybe I lack imagination, but my interpretation is that the only answer that is left is that these interviews, where they make the institutions come present one more time, only serves to stoke the egos of the Big 12 officials. Way to drag it out, guys.

Man, will I be glad when this is over, no matter how it turns out.

It's very possible that the face-to-face meetings have nothing to do with the merits of each school, but, rather, how they fit financially in any deal struck. In other words, the size of the haircut.

[red_n_black_attack]

I don't think he says exactly that. In fact, he says that tO$U owns Ohio in regards to recruiting. I really don't think that tO$U has anything to worry about if we get an invitation to join the Big12. I think the other Power5 schools that recruit the remaining players that don't go/aren't recruited by tO$U might be affected, but I don't see it being significant. Like the player from LaSalle who flipped to Northwestern - there's a chance UC might have retained his commitment if the Power5 vs. Group of 5 conference weren't a factor.

We have competed with daO$U directly for commits when we were in the BEast, I can't recall that we won any of those battles except maybe a couple of kids daO$U didn't offer because the kids was lower on their list of targets. If daO$U offers a kid in SW OH, they usually only lose to other bluebloods like ND, MSU, UM, and very few others. The Big 12 is much different than the BEast. We will offer kids to put up their talents against Texas and Oklahoma within easy commute to home so all of their friends/family can attend. I'm not saying we will compete with daO$U forall of the top kids, but we will win some instead of going 0 fer.

[London 'Cat]

Ari Wasserman at Cleveland.com seems to think we're a threat to OSU recruiting if we jump up.

http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.s...rt_river_index

I don't think he says exactly that. In fact, he says that tO$U owns Ohio in regards to recruiting. I really don't think that tO$U has anything to worry about if we get an invitation to join the Big12. I think the other Power5 schools that recruit the remaining players that don't go/aren't recruited by tO$U might be affected, but I don't see it being significant. Like the player from LaSalle who flipped to Northwestern - there's a chance UC might have retained his commitment if the Power5 vs. Group of 5 conference weren't a factor.

[Lobot]

Ari Wasserman at Cleveland.com seems to think we're a threat to OSU recruiting if we jump up.

http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.s...rt_river_index

[Lobot]

There's an article circulating from a former Nj.com writer that says the list has been culled to 9. For one, ECU has been publicly notified that they are out. Unfortunately the list is s $ only. Safe to say we're on it.

https://tmgcollegesports.com/2016/08...to-only-a-few/

[Big Herm]

"...each finalist is expected to make presentations to Big 12 officials (presumably in Dallas) during the next few weeks."

Does this strike anyone else as absolutely ridiculous? From what I understand, the schools have already made formal presentations of one sort of another, and I'm sure the schools that are likely to be short-listed (UC, BYU, Houston) have been courting the Big12 for years now and have had opportunities to make informal presentations on several occasions. Moreover, the Big 12 has the reports from their consultants and likely their own files from in-house research. What are the Big 12 officials possibly going to learn during these presentations that they don't already know? What would they learn that would somehow overcome their political allegiances? What would they learn that would possibly sway their decision, which surely they have formed by now?

You might answer this by saying that the Big 12 officials want to see if the presidents, ADs, whoever of the candidate institutions are people they would want to work with. Those people change though -quite frequently in some cases- and this is supposed to be a (nominally) long term partnership of institutions, not office personnel. So if they already know the schools,their facilities and their traditions, and their commercial potential has been quantified by at least one outside consultancy, and if the current administrations of the various AD's offices are really not relevant, then what is left?

I'm not a business-minded person in the least and maybe I lack imagination, but my interpretation is that the only answer that is left is that these interviews, where they make the institutions come present one more time, only serves to stoke the egos of the Big 12 officials. Way to drag it out, guys.

Man, will I be glad when this is over, no matter how it turns out.

[red_n_black_attack]

Per this source: http://www.commercialappeal.com/spor...391823321.html

Direct quote from the article leads me to infer the presentations will be made to Bowlsby and then Bowlsby will select two schools for the presidents to vote on. I would think either the presidents or representatives will be attending the presentations and be involved in cutting the list to two teams, but article says Bowlsby will cut list to two schools. This means expansion only by two teams and only one option will be given to the Big 12 presidents to vote on, i.e. while the presidents are informed, and assuming their preferences are taken into account, the presidents aren't horse trading themselves. If information is being passed between them, Bowlsby is collecting the information and selecting the two best candidates that will be presented....if this artcle is to be believed.

The Big 12 is trimming the list to BYU and several AAC schools with in person presentations going to the Big 12 offices in Dallas within the next two weeks.
"According to the story, each finalist is expected to make presentations to Big 12 officials — "presumably in Dallas" — during the next few weeks. After receiving the presentations, league commissioner Bob Bowlsby and his staff will trim the list to two candidates, Blaudschun writes, and Bowlsby will make his recommendations before the Big 12's board of directors at a scheduled October meeting. At that point, the board, comprised of league presidents and chancellors, conceivably could "vote to issue invitations.""

[blackattack]

[QUOTE=slimm;n351551 9/17 of 2017 ..... Lol [/QUOTE]

September of next year sounds about right. Anyone else shocked that UTEP, Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette didn't make the cut? What a joke this "process" is. When David Boren said earlier this year that the Big 12 is "psychologically disadvantaged" because they only have 10 teams he wasn't kidding...........and this expansion "process" is another example of that.

[slimm]

9/17 of 2017 ..... Lol

[longtimefan]

For what it's worth.

GREG SWAIM SHOW (@GSwaim) tweeted at 11:39 PM on Tue, Aug 30, 2016:
I've ripped the #Big12 for dragging this out, but they are close to wrapping this up with #BYU and #Bearcats. Expect word before 9/17.

[Lobot]

BYU about to reveal the findings from its' internal Title IX study. Considering what happened with Baylor, I think the Big 12 is going to be rather interested in this.

http://news.byu.edu/news/Advisory-Co...g-Final-Report

[Lobot]

So what happened at 10:40???

It was the weekly football coaches teleconference call for media. Nothing to see here unfortunately.

[red_n_black_attack]

So what happened at 10:40???

It was a coaches conference call with reporters. I only half-listened to the last 8-9 minutes and the questions were collecting info to write preview stories for the first game of the season. Expansion didn't come up in the tail end of the conversation.