Optimal Conference Size

I couldn’t agree with you more! It’s too bad the chips have fallen the way they have the past 30 years. I really just wish ND would ask/choose to play in the league as an independent when MIzzou leaves. The league could wager that ND probably won’t be going bcs every other year and let them keep all of it if they do. Other than that I don’t care too much. I think the mega-depression coming to out “economy” will necessitate regional conferences and if that’s the case, many current conferences may dissolve as programs may be unable to sustain themselves.

Nice argument, especially the point re: rivalries and the round robin making sure everyone plays each other. A question re: conference strength, though. 10>12 because of the dropped scrub game (ISU>L.Monroe). In a super conference, would a team be playing within conference more often? Would that similarly boost the conference strength?

Other than the tv revenue push, I think a lot of fans are in favor of super-conferences because they think it would move college football closer to a true playoff system.

Good stuff, Huckleberry. Including the TV, rivalry and recruiting aspects is enlightening.

I recall looking at the proposed Pac-16 alignment in June 2010 — and what looked like a helluva deal was a lot of sizzle and not much steak. Meaning the Pac-16 was really two eight-team leagues with occasional crossover matchups, and the division winners playing a CCG.

Remember what our conference slate was going to be? Colorado, Tech, A&M, OU, OSU and the two Arizona schools — plus 1 (possibly 2) opponents from the Pac16-West. With 2 opponents from the other division (a nine-game conference schedule), that would have meant one visit annually to a California school, plus one to the northwest . . . and just one California school and one from the NW coming to Austin. Which would mean that completing a “full cycle” of opponents would take eight years.

Which, as you point out in discussing the old Big 12 North, would mean two levels of conference opponents — REAL ones and SOMETIMES ones.

Nice work Huck. I’d never thought about the conference sizes, and I’d accepted the Big XII as a good size… well, because we played there.

And 16 team conferences seemed a bad idea to me, but I never knew why. Calling them “super conferences” didn’t make it any better.

I’m on board with your plan.

If the big 12 stays together until 2016 we will ave a chance to test both the larger 14 team sec and the Big 12-2. Having lived through the dying days of the SWC I’m concerned a Texas centric conference could be boring. But I have to say even given UT’s down year the conference games have been the best i can remember overall.

No!

Leave conferences the hell alone!

As of 2012, there are 125 First Division Teams. Add three more. Now there’s 128. Perfect binary number.

Divide nation into eight Regions. Sixteen teams in each Region. Regions are geographic, not conference-oriented. For example, Region V is Texas (13 teams) and Oklahoma (3 teams).

All schools have a free 9-game schedule. Play conference games if that floats your boat, play rivalries, play cross-country games, whatever.

There’s a four round tournament in each division. Seeding for the tourney is up for grabs.

The important thing is: EVERYBODY IS IN IT, NO BEAUTY CONTEST.

At the conclusion of the fourth round, there are eight Regional Champions. Now starts a three-round tourney for a true National Championship.

But the Bowl Games can stay… the BCS bowls can be part of the playoffs and/or part of the Bowl Season.

Recapping: each team has an equal opportunity. Go 4-0 in the Regional Tourney, and you’re still alive for the True National Championship. But you still have NINE other games (you don’t HAVE to play all nine of them, but you can…) so everyone is guaranteed up to 13 games if desired.

Scheduling is such that the season starts with five “pre-tournament” weekends, so you play whomever you wish, conference, non-conference, whatever – no bearing on the tournament (other than perhaps for seeding). Beginning Week 6, you alternate Regional Tournament rounds with “open” weekends to play or not. Schedule is such that Thanksgiving Week is non-tournament, so, if you’re agy, you can find a new traditional rival to play.

There’s more, but this much looks to me to be a goo start. The only thing anyone loses is the need to play pushovers. You still have nine games, so any conference can work… just that winning your conference doesn’t buy you a ticket to the TNC tourney, although it could work for Bowls…

Its hard to be rivals if you don’t play (almost) every year. The round robin format will encourage more conference rivalries to blossom. I’m all for it.

The important thing is: EVERYBODY IS IN IT, NO BEAUTY CONTEST.

That is the LAST thing the BCS powers want. Their whole reason for being is to keep the riff-raff out and ensure that football does not become like March Madness.

That would mean you would have to share the money don’t you know.

That is the LAST thing the BCS powers want.

“The BCS powers”, aye.

Gimme a list of who’s against the TNC.

Another reason for a 10 team conference is that there is no possibility of two teams in a championship game playing for a second time during the same season. Not a good thing.

That’s easy: Everybody who’s collecting the biggest share right now.

Dodds and MB want a playoff, but do they want to share the money with Buffalo and San Jose State? Not bloomin’ likely.

They don’t even want to play Buffalo and San Jose State. (And, yes, I understand, they wouldn’t have to. But somebody would — Penn State, USC, somebody.)

That’s easy: Everybody who’s collecting the biggest share right now.

By definition, only one can collect the BIGGEST share. It sounds like it’s not so easy, because you’re just generalizing – not that I disagree, but I sure as hell don’t know who “they” are. C’mon, who is against it?

do they want to share the money with Buffalo and San Jose State? Not bloomin’ likely.

It seems that they’re already “sharing the money” with everyone. I’ve never seen any specifics on the payouts, but I think everyone gets a little sumpin’. Neuter Dome gets a couple M a year, bowl or no bowl.

We keep the conferences, don’t lose any games overall, bowls or otherwise, and it seems likely to me that we generate more interest in more games, and prolly even bigger paydays, overall.

I think there are two forces at work in conference realignment. One is the trend of sports leagues and/or teams controlling more and more of their media rights. Think of the Big 10 network or the LHN. So a strong conference in this environment can’t think in regional terms. They have to think in terms of expanding their geographic footprint and collecting inventory for conference or team specific media outlets. The second is the gradual nationalization of college football. It used to be a collection of regional conferences that had tie-ins with regional bowls. The BCS now has changed the focus towards a national competition with one ultimate championship. Everyone can see the winnoning out towards a 64-team, 4 conference, +1 BCS model. I don’t think a regional 10 team conference with only one or two powers can compete with a 16-team superconference.

Roach said: If the big 12 stays together until 2016 we will ave a chance to test both the larger 14 team sec and the Big 12-2. Having lived through the dying days of the SWC I’m concerned a Texas centric conference could be boring. But I have to say even given UT’s down year the conference games have been the best i can remember overall.

Agree completely on all aspects. I also remember the dying days of the SWC quite well and I fear seeing the Big12 go the same way. As other conferences expand their footprint the Big12 becomes more relegated exposure wise as a regional conference and recruits start going elsewhere to get better exposure and chances at championships. I know the SWC had other issues going on too, but there’s no denying the regional nature of it was significant.

As you say, the next few years may give us an idea of which diection size-wise leads to a stronger conference. If the SECj becomes diluted and loses some of it’s strength while the Big12 stays strong we’ll be more confident we’re on the right path, but if the SEC gets even better by expansion into Texas recruiting and the Big12 falls off as recruits leave for perceived better conferences we’ll know otherwise. The problem is if the latter occurs it may be hard and take years to undo the damage.

There may be some payments to the non-BCS conferences who agreed to play under the system, but I don’t know what they are.

On your idea, if you mix playoffs with other games and you have OU expectations, once you’re knocked out of the playoffs, the other games become scrimmages. Lower-level teams would play hard because they’re not counting on making the playoffs, but under your system, OU’s season just went to crap.

Better chance of getting teams to play harder longer based on the current system.

The problem boils down to one thing: Your conference champ is home washing their laundry while the other conferences are doing title games. Those winners will have a much stronger claim to the MNC game than the Big 12 champ.

I otherwise agree with pretty much everything you write. I wonder why the other conferences don’t?

The first time an Oklahoma or UT gets left behind in the BCS Rapture, you can then thank Dodds once more for his unerring vision – whilst Longhorn Nation deliquesces (he must still be suffering from Ndamakung Suh PTSD).

Then we’ll move to a 12-team conference with the big boys.

Go Frogs!

The overwhelming majority of the schools’ decision makers want to keep it at 10 for the near term. But they all truly believed that Missouri was going to stay, so there is that.

Yes, West Va is a bummer geographically, but it takes away a potential current/future partner from the Big East and the ACC and, to some extent, the SEC. That it adds greater potential for a non-football conference deal with ND with some football sweetener is also a major consideration. It also has the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Monongahela River and Morgantown is no slouch of a road trip. It’s certainly the equal of Columbia and/or College Station and better than Lincoln, Nebraska. Also, there’s still some prime recruiting area in Pennsylvania just down the road that we’d be getting exposure to.

Everybody, no matter what you read, is flying blind right now on this superconference thing and not a single conference has a real plaqn or clue what, if anything, to do about it. There are a shit ton of people in the SEC who are pissed that not only do they believe UM is not worthy, but that Mu said publicly that the SEC was their second choice behind the B1G and they believe Slive has embarrased them. Who knows what effect all this will have on the 80 years of collegial love and respect the SEC has always touted before? Missouri has the same “pencil in a win for the big boys” aspect that Aggy brought, but no new good recruiting teritory, a long ass road trip and a very casual college sports climate in St. Louis, its major media market. Personally, I think Slive tripped over his dick on this one from a long-term perspective.

For another example of form over substance, look no farther than the Pac 12. For all the bullshit and ballyhoo that Scott has been blowing up everyone’s ass, they took in two really shittty teams that add nothing to an already mediocre football league, which has only one perrenial contender (USC), one that may or may not stay one (Oregon) and one that is one graduating QB away from going back to where it was before Harbaugh arrived. The lightning is lefaving the bottle on that one.

The Big 12 is far from dead, even without Aggy, Nebraska and Missouri and, IMO, there’s way too much gnashing of teeth about it. Once Texas gets back to prominence, it has three teams that are potential top 10-15 every season with only one geographical outlier. Only the SEC can top that year in and year out. And as long as Texas remains steadfast, it has the largest, most college football crazy market(s), the State of Texas, in the country. No one else is even close.

Great read. I am afraid this kind of analysis should be left to srr50 as he is the only blogger that seems to have a deep appreciation for the motives of the commissioners of the BiG, ACC, SEC and PAC. It is not about inclusion or the closure of a playoff. It is about keeping the top programs / conferences on top. On Top = $mega$ from all sources.

I agree w/ everything you wrote here, Huckleberry, especially the part where there’s an ulterior motive behind the Okies’ desire for a 12-team league.

The superconference idea is a fad. I don’t see a 14-team ACC working. And if another conference goes to 16 teams, I think we’ll see some of those teams breaking off to form a smaller conference w/o the riffraff like what happened w/ the 16-team WAC.

They said conference championships were horrible when Tennessee lost to LSU. I won’t bring up the other one that comes to mind. conference championships cut both ways. You think LSu/Bama wants to play a 3 loss Georgia team in Atlanta? What would that prove?

Philly Frog -

Can you name all the times a Big 12 team got into the national title game because of the CCG?

Here is my crazy idea for a conference. The PAC 20. Yes, I said it. 20 schools. Sounds crazy, right? Think about it. We take 8 Big 12 school and the Arizona schools. That is the south. You can take Utah and Colorado also. 10 team divisions. They play 9 games in division, that is their conference schedule. You don’t play the other division, unless you schedule it. 2 division winners meet in the championship. So it’s basically 2 10 team leagues that agree to have a championship game against each other and to collude with each other to negotiate the best TV contract. Championship game rotates from LA to Jerry World every yr.

Gimme a list of who’s against the TNC.

Every BCS team — as long as the NCAA or somebody else is in charge. The payout right now is minimal to those outside the BCS — unlike the NCAA basketball tournament where the NCAA keeps enough to fill up their checking acount, and in the appearance of “fairness” sees to it that the rest gets spread around.

That’s what the BCS conferences are afraid of — not a playoff but that the NCAA would be in charge.

Deep Throat is right Follow The Money.

Tonight ESPN is reporting that PAC players are petitioning for a share of TV revenues. Also that the NCAA has announced it favors a $2000 per year cash payment over and above the cost of scholarship.

Paying players will escalate far beyond $2000 each and will eventually erode the flow of cash to the athletic and academic sides even for the biggest programs.

More reason to exclude the havenots and secure the top money for the top 4 conferences.

A playoff owned by and limited to the 4 superconferences with 16 teams is very workable. No cross division play. All 5 non-conference games will be limited to teams from the other three conferences and will not count toward qualification for the conference championship game.

One downside is that undefeated seasons will be rare and one or two loss NCs will be the norm. The fans will have to adjust to seeing their teams lose season games much more often than they will ever like.

I agree totally, ive been thinking about that for awhile. Im not great at putting thoughts to words so thank you for that ! One TV angle i had been thinking about has to do with competition among broadcasters. I feel ABC/ ESPN is pushing these super conferences. They stand to benefit in the long run by reduced competition from networks who cant or will not make that kind of monentary commitment .Reduced bidding due to overall cost of a large conference will eventually lower the price the conferences receive per game. Do you think thats part of the push? Thanks again Huck

Optimal size?

I’d say 6 inches

I agree 100%. I think the Conference Championship Game is huge mistake.

Greedy short term thinking wants the TV money it brings, but as a fan I think the path to a NC is clearer without the conference championship.

 I eagerly await coming years when a dominant PAC-12 or B1G trips in that game while looking ahead to the MNC, or the “replay” games where they have to take on an opponent they’ve already thrashed earlier in the season.

I feel like for every year there’s a good CCG, there’s 2 or 3 with one that no one wants to pay attention to or that ruins the stronger team’s season.

I think you are using this year’s strong showing in non con by the Big 12 to to influence your thoughts and arguments a little too much. If we had our avg number of losses during non con (BU and ISU drop a game…Tech plays someone w/a pulse and loses) then what would we look like? The Big East. Even if you have 2 undefeateds like we do now, you’d hear the conversation shift like it has every year for an undefeated Big East team: “Well who have they played?”

Interesting argument, but explain USC dominance. In a down Pac they rolled. UCLA and Wash fell apart and the BCS path parted like the red sea. Same happened for OSU, as big 10 went into a down period. Truth is pollsters are lazy and if you have OU or a Longhorn on your helmet they will vote for you. Lazy pollsters are our best friends

I like an 18 team conference in pods of 6. You play 8 conference teams per year. You play your closest 5 rivals every year, and every single team in the league every 4 years. You maximize your footprint, and markets.

Huck,

In the BCS era, one of the knocks on the Pac 10 was that their round robin scheduling damaged their teams’ BCS profiles and that was a big reason they rarely got two teams into the mix. They also said the round robin scheduling made it more difficult for the conference to fulfill its allotment of bowls because unless you scheduled 3 patsies you were almost automatically starting one game behind on the bowl hunt. Perhaps the latter was alleviated a bit when they expanded back to 12 regular season games, but its still a potential problem. I suppose that could have all been excuses for what has been a largely weak conference, but I am not going to attempt any sort of statistical analysis to test that hypothesis.

I also don’t buy into the stability argument. The three most ‘stable’ conferences are the ones driving the realignment bus and they have all expanded recently. Are they courting instability by these moves or is simply that the ‘haves’ are forcing the hands of the ‘have nots’?

That said, I like 10 teams for this conference since all the power resides in the South division. Having a championship game is silly if one division is always weaker than the other. That was perhaps the major advantage of a Pac merger. Then you could have the ‘Texas’ base on one end and the ‘California’ base on the other and over time you could see a nice competitive balance emerge with some potential for developing regional rivalries rather than team v. team rivalries.

I predict an increase in people stabbing themselves in the eyes or setting themselves on fire due to this fucking terrible MNF game that has set the game of football back 100 years.

Huckleberry -

Thanks for your analysis. If you could pick any 10 teams currently in the Big 12, the Big East, the Mountain West, and Conference USA – which 10 team configuration do you think would make the most profitable/stable conference (excluding Missouri)?

srr50 -

The Big East has stated that it will not waive the requirement for 27 months notice, before a program can depart the conference. Does this provision exclude Louisville and West Virginia as candidates for membership in the Big 12?

If Louisville and West Virginia are unavailable to join the Big 12, what’s the best move for Texas?

1) Could the old Big 12 south schools vote to dissolve the Big 12 and join the Big East?

2) Or would the Big 12 stoop to taking a team out of the Mountain West or Conference USA?

3) Which Mountain West and Conference USA teams would be the best candidates for the Big 12?

4) If the Big 12 was dissolved, could we ditch Baylor or would we be forced to take the Bears into the Big East instead of Kansas? Is it better to be sued by Baylor now (when Baylor might also sue the SEC and A&M) or is it better to be sued by Baylor later when they can no longer make a case that the SEC and A&M directly destroyed the Big 12 conference?

maroon carrots, how are they going to stop them from leaving if they want to go? Can you imagine what a clusterfuck that would be? They may be able to exact a fee from them for it, like the Big 12 will do from Mizzou and Aggy, but what conference in their right mind would try to actually stop a team from leaving that doesn’t want to be there?

That’s a response to your second from last post, by the way. I’m still trying to figure out the last one, but it looks moot based on the the theory of the Big East handcuffing either WVU or Louisville to their desks, especially after they let Pitt and Syracuse leave for the ACC.

Jake -

The Big East has stated that Pitt and Syracuse will also not be allowed to leave the Big East until 2014. I’m curious whether or not the Big East will be able to enforce this provision, but they could be desperate enough to try.

pods = invasion of the Texas high school body snatchers

Late night, insomnia thoughts….

BCS game selection criteria: (1) butts in seats, (2) size of wallets next to butts, (3) record of team on jerseys attached to butts. Not an issue for Texas, regardless of conference size.

Big East: Death rattles. Won’t be around in 2014. Take a long look at that conference line-up in basketball (its strong-suit) without Syracuse and Pitt. ESPN’s not paying for UConn-Navy games in any sport, unless David Robinson and Roger Staubach have multiple grandchildren with similar athletic talents on the way to Annapolis. Would love to listen to back-room conversations between Bristol and Greensboro on the fate of UConn.

MNC Eligibility: The BCS has a pretty small sample size, so these are hardly conclusive observations, but the two conferences with the most appearances in that game (SEC, B12) both had a conference championship game. I might be wrong on this, but I think the team that had to play a conference championship game is 6-1 when facing a team that didn’t have to play such a game (USC-Oklahoma the lone exception). So, at worst, a weak correlation between 12 team conferences with a championship game and MNC game entry/success. But I see no evidence that getting to/winning the MNC game becomes easier without a conference championship game.

You could argue that the B12 quality/depth in football means it’s the logical entrant at 10 or 12, and you could argue the same thing about the SEC. In other words, there’s no real evidence that the invites or success in the game had anything to do with the conference size/conference championship game, and I wouldn’t really argue with you.

I’m mainly concerned that our season will end with a media whimper – no rivalry game and no championship game. Maybe Texas Tech or TCU can step into that rivalry game void, or perhaps we slot ND into that game, which they’ve traditionally matched with USC (Stanford recently). I really haven’t thought much about the P12 teams and their relationship with ND under their new format. Do they have a need there?

I would not give Notre Dame that carrot, if they want to join the conference, fine. But give them a thanksgiving game or end of season game with them having everything to gain and nothing to lose, no way. Not with BCS money at stake.

GOF, you forgot that you must be in the BCS top 14 to get selected to a BCS bowl. We felt pretty good about getting selected when we hit 10-2, but what happens if 9-3 is the new 10-2 for us?
We have increased the competition of our OOC games but also have one less patsy so we can play KSU every year. 10-2 generally puts us or any other team in the top 14. 9-3 probably doesn’t guarantee a spot.

I’m in agreement with everything in your article, Huck, save one thing. I disagree with your “perfect” big 12 that implicitly kicks out Iowa State. I like that program, they never did anything to hurt anyone, they have fielded solid basketball squads in years past, they are an AAU school, and they are an original big 8 member. I realize no other longhorn fans respect the school, but I do. I like them more from a long term perspective than a k state (Snyder won’t be around forever) or even a Baylor (same for briles and rgIII). And mizzou just pisses me off for starting all this.

Holy hell this board is boring lately.

If Neinas’ lawyers can raise the price of poker high enough, the SEC might rethink where they’re at with the 13-team conundrum.

Either way it’s a pretty strong hand. If the Tigers have to pay out their tail to go to the SEC, then that should grease the money skids to buy out the 27-month window for a West Virginia or Louisville.

Now would be a good time for Dodds to make some kind of face-saving gesture to the Curators. Give them a Monet or a Caravaggio. It’s not about money at this point, it’s about relieving the pressure from the fan base; if he’d done that for AtM, you guys wouldn’t have been stuck with Frogs.

What’s the problem with another couple years on the grant-of-rights? Just a few more pages to shred down the road…..

Philly Frog, A&M was gone no matter what.

Mizzou wants to be gone no matter what, but they don’t have nearly the juice and, let’s face it, implied capacity for jihad that the Ags do.

maroon carrots said: October 24th, 2011 at 9:48 pm

“Jake -

The Big East has stated that Pitt and Syracuse will also not be allowed to leave the Big East until 2014. I’m curious whether or not the Big East will be able to enforce this provision, but they could be desperate enough to try."

I don’t deny they’ve said it and that is a valid point. But as a practical matter I don’t see how they can physically or legally stop them from leaving, particularly as they go about the business of poaching their replacements (Cougar High, et al) from other conferences. Can they financially penalize them? Yes, and they will. Can they prevent them from leaving? I still don’t see how.

On the issue of the conference championship games, I’m a guy that’s had to flip. During the early 2000’s, I thought the CCG was a bastardized money-grab, and had no place in the Big XII. Or that if it did, it should take the two best teams, regardless of division. It made no sense to me that some conferences chose to play that game and risk losing an MNC appearance while PAC and B1G could coast through.

HOWEVER, while I think everybody’s points about CCG are accurate as far as that goes, I think you have to take a step back and view college football macro-centrically. (Hmm… I like that word.) If every other major conference is playing that game, and sees value in doing it, then I don’t understand why the Big XII as a whole should think it can or should do less. More money, more late-December exposure when BCS dance cards are being filled out, etc.

I’ll spot you that it makes sense for Texas and OU not to want that game. Makes perfect sense. But if this conference is going to be run strictly on the best interests of Texas and OU, then we’re going to continue to be bled. And yes, I get that UT/OU are THE valuable properties in this conference, I really do. But if we’ve learned anything by Aggy and Mizzou’s flirtations, its that programs don’t always follow their own self-interests, and or at least their self-interests as Texas thinks they should be.

So, if you’re like me, and think that the regional flavor and lack of CCG will eventually bite a Texas or an OU in the ass, then you’ve got to favor one of two options: Add enough teams to get to 12 and bring back the CCG. You could have divisions for scheduling purposes, but for the love of God, just take the best two records. If you get rematches, you get rematches, and who cares?
OR, seek a waiver from the NCAA to have a CCG even at 10 teams.

Sorry, that should have been EARLY December exposure.

Agree with your 10 team league except drop Baylor and add Colorado back. Also require everyone in conference to agree on which sports to compete in so that you can’t for instance not play baseball ‘cause it’s too cold. Boo hoo . Sack up and compete across the board.

Sadly now we have AD’s and their subordinates (coaches) throwing hissy fits saying we won’t play you cause you left us. We the fans are the losers with each of us trading TCU and Vandy for our annual games together. Maybe in certain years the competition will be better but the feelings and interest will never be the same.

I love the BCS. College football is quirky and full of traditions. Why do people feel the need for a neat and clean playoff system? We are Texas and therefore we are never going to be left out if we go undefeated. If you want neat, clean and balanced look to the NFL. It is perfectly homogenous and often at times extremely boring. I love the debate and the drama of college football.

Aggie Lurking-

You are not allowed to say an AD is throwing a hissy fit when Bill Byrne just threw the mother of all fucking hissy fits and left a conference.

Newy25,

At what point did Bill Byrne EVER have more than a bit part in gomer’s conference realignment? That whole saga was driven by the regents, ex-coaches with way too much sway, and their Barney Fife president.

Shoot, Bill Byrne was in IDAHO during the main thrust of the 2010 version of the saga (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/405838-conference-realignment-a-texas-size-decision-awaits-the-pac-10-sec). When this year’s gomer’s “century decision” was being blame-stormed over a dip-cupped stained, booger-stalagtited, knotty pine conference table, Bill Byrne sat in the corner.

This year, he was similarly MIA. Maybe his batteries ran out, and they didn’t bother to change them.

Byrne’s a third nubbin in the puffed up chest that is aggy.

Aggie Lurking -

A&M abandoned the Texas rivalry when they joined the SEC. Put the blame where it belongs – on Bowtie Loften and his “100 year decision” bullshit. Are you telling me that the aggie genius Bowtie Loften didn’t foresee through all his brilliant scheming that Texas would decline to play A&M after the aggies tried to neuter us? Really?

Most Texas fans couldn’t care less if we never play A&M again. The rivalry is really only important to aggies. Texas played you because we were partners in the same conference and we allowed you to believe that the rivalry game was important.

A&M stabbed us in the back, told everyone it was self-defense, and then tried to burn our house down. Why should we ever play you again?

“A&M stabbed us in the back, told everyone it was self-defense, and then tried to burn our house down. Why should we ever play you again?”

Awesome quote.

Missouri is taking a page out the Aggy book, BTW. They are saying “if the Kansas rivalry ends it is on them.”

No, it isn’t. One team left and it was not Texas or Kansas.

Newy, both the Aggies and Missouri know the truth; they’re just deflecting.

If Texas or Kansas or Baylor or whoever really was the problem, they should be happy to be rid of them and not see them again. Say it’s about the SEC money/security and work with the former league on the way out, maybe things are different. But Missouri’s been looking to leave since the B1G first said it was considering expansion, and the Aggies had their fingers crossed when they came back to the league in 2010. They chose not to do the hard work of working out the problems and threw over 100-year relationships for a few more bucks. We’ll see how it works out.

This wasn’t like leaving a job, where you don’t particularly worry about what happens you’re gone. But if that were the case, who immediately calls their former co-workers, if they left on bad terms, and asks for a favor?

I’m one of the more than a few that does not believe 4×16 is inevitable (or desirable). The 3 most stable leagues are so stable because they are the most geographically and institutionally homogenous. And those 3 leagues have very limited attractive AND feasible options to get to 16, especially if they want to maintain that homogeneity.

I’m 50-50 on 10 vs. 12, though Huck’s arguments may tilt me more toward 10. I think right now, from UT’s perspective, they need to decide whether 10 or 12 is best for long term stability in the Big 12, and then push for that. I believe all of the other issues involved in 10 v 12 will be immaterial to UT (money, scheduling, rivalries, travel, perception, etc.)

Re: Scheduling A&M

Do not schedule them in any sport for 10 years, and then reevaluate on a sport-by-sport basis based on what’s in the best interest of UT and that sport (and assuming they haven’t started recruiting SEC-style ).

Also, assuming that legislation mandating that UT has to play A&M every year has legs, UT/Tech/BU/TCU legislators should amend it to require all public Texas-based AQ schools to play 3 Texas teams per year, including at least 2 AQ’s. After all, we’re talking about what’s in the best interest of fans in the state, right?

(This would be no hardship for the Big 12 schools. Could be one for UH if they get into an AQ league other than the Big 12).

Just thought I’d mentioned ESPN is reporting that the Big12 has invited WestVirginia to join as a replacement for Mizzou is they leave. I have to think if we’ve gone that far in discussions with West Virginia we’re pretty sure Mizzou is gone.

It’s all about #s of t.v. sets and media markets and such because the vast majority of college football fans experience college football from in front of their t.v. sets, not from a seat in a stadium. And on that basis, we will never have a better opportunity than we had with the Pac 16 unless, of course, the Pac 12 changes its mind and decides to expand again and wants Texas in the mix.

from UT’s perspective, they need to decide whether 10 or 12 is best for long term stability in the Big 12, and then push for that

To me this is the crux of the situation. I still think the Big12 has long term viability as one of the BCS conferences and even superconferences if it goes to that. However, the Big12 has to act in a manner consistent with long term thinking. When I hear all the insider reports about how Texas is only interested in the Big12 for a handful of years to get LHN established and will then seemingly shed the conference for bigger and better things I find this bothersome. If we have this attitude on conference decisions then it will become a self fullfilling prophecy that the conference will die.

“gomer’s "century decision" was being blame-stormed over a dip-cupped stained, booger-stalagtited, knotty pine conference table”

funniest shit I’ve seen all day

Nunna, they’ve (supposedly) signed over the media rights, and the league was said to have offered Missouri the terms they wanted in the last-ditch offer. It sounds like UT would be willing to do this because they must like what they hear from ND regarding non-football (and football, if Chip Brown has it right).

jg: The indications were that whatever Larry Scott promised Texas both last year and this, he could not deliver. None of the options Texas had to move were, IMO, a sure thing — just good choices with drawbacks. Keeping the B12 together makes sense, especially with the Aggies deciding to leave.

I’m 50-50 on 10 vs. 12, though Huck’s arguments may tilt me more toward 10. I think right now, from UT’s perspective, they need to decide whether 10 or 12 is best for long term stability in the Big 12, and then push for that. I believe all of the other issues involved in 10 v 12 will be immaterial to UT (money, scheduling, rivalries, travel, perception, etc.)

If it’s 10, I think they’re in a quandary, if they have chosen WVU, the farthest-flung option. You really gotta want it, if you are WVU.

Nunna, they’ve (supposedly) signed over the media rights, and the league was said to have offered Missouri the terms they wanted in the last-ditch offer.

Bob – I don’t consider the 6 year media rights thing a long-term committment. More of a stopgap committment until LHN is established and we can look for better options. Maybe a couple years in things will settle down the conference will feel more stable and longer term committments will be made.

Let’s see what happens with ND. If they show up and start playing Texas, OU and others in football, there won’t be a need to go elsewhere.

You make some good poitns, but I think your arguments surrounding strength of schedule are flawed, like you almost admit yourself. The big 12 have good SOS because we dominated our non conference schedule. That will slip a little as conference play continues and we have a higher proportion of losses. Going to 9 conference games helps SOS to the extent you replace a cupcake with a conference game. If say we cancelled the upcoming ND series to make room it would be negligible. The point is this has nothing to do with 10 or 12 team conferences, it still depends on who you schedule. look at the PAC 12 the play 9 conference games even with 12 teams, so again the extra conference game is not a function of conference size. Finally if you have ever followed the PAC 10 you will know that it was commonly held that 9 conference games hurts SOS/bowl bids as it guarantees 5 extra losses held by the conference.

I’m undecided what I prefer but I am not convinced strength of schedule has anything to do with it, that is still in the hands of the AD, they can seek tough OOC games whether it’s 8 or 9 games, and bein a 10 or 12 team conference does not stop you play 8 or 9 games.

I will say this, the PAc10 and Big 10 were for a long time thought to be better off. However the Big 12 will now be the only major conference without a championship games, this could hurt us in the perception of the voters at the end of the year as we have a lower profile. But let’s also consider that it is one less game for us to enjoy at the end of the season. The end of the game against Nebraska is one of the most dramatic and exciting things I have seen as a longhorn, and I personally looked forward to the Big 12 championship game

Bob,

“jg: The indications were that whatever Larry Scott promised Texas both last year and this, he could not deliver. None of the options Texas had to move were, IMO, a sure thing — just good choices with drawbacks. Keeping the B12 together makes sense, especially with the Aggies deciding to leave.”

I don’t think that the first go-around (2010) Scott promised anything he couldn’t deliver. I think Texas backed out of the deal principally because of political pressure from Baylor (didn’t want to be left behind) and the Ags (didn’t want to go west). I think this last time, Scott may have gotten out ahead of some of his conference members.

Believe it or not, a lot of folks in my part of the country didn’t want Texas or OU in the Pac 12. I think when the story appeared in the AAS following the UCLA game outlining the broad terms of a deal, it came as a surprise to several members of the Pac 12 conference, particularly the part about making room for the LHN. The Pac 12 had just jumped through all sorts of hoops over issues like individual school conferences and revenue sharing and so there was a great deal of resentment over Texas’ incessant demands for special treatment. “We’re Texas!” was greeted by the Pac 12 with “Yeah and don’t let the door bang you in the butt on the way out!” Texas has been known to overplay its hand before.

“Bob in Houston said: October 25th, 2011 at 1:06 pm

Let’s see what happens with ND. If they show up and start playing Texas, OU and others in football, there won’t be a need to go elsewhere."

BiH, that’s exactly what is in discussion right now and we have been leading the charge with ND for it, as I posted right after the RRS. It’s definitely not a done deal, and may not happen, but they could join for non-football sports and play 3 football games per year against selected opponents in the Big 12. The really cool part of it, at least IMO, is how they would suddenly come to have those openings on their schedule and it’s some serious hubris if it comes about, and not on the Big East’s part.

" Expanding into new territories enables the media partners to argue for increased carriage rates in more areas, which in turn get passed on to the conference members. Just as importantly, a 16-team conference – and to a lesser extent a 12-team one – would also have a significantly larger amount of Tier 3 material that could be utilized and monetized via a conference network."

Huh? This is the arguement that never makes any sense. Conference realignment will not increase viewership of college football – the size of the pie does not change no matter how many ways it is divided. It does not matter if there are 40 conferences or 4.

What difference does it make if the SEC makes in-roads into the KC market unless Mizzouri brings more eyeballs to the conference than the average SEC team? That would be the only way adding Mizzouri improves the lot of all the others. If the TV market argument held any water, Rutgers would be one of the most desirable teams in the country. The truth is it is not.

Personally, I’d prefer a 9-team conference to leave opportunity for 4 OOC games per year. A 12-team conference does this as it involves only 8 conference games, but a 10-team structure requires 9 conference games.

CCGs are simply dumb, and not having a CCG forces fat, lazy schools to worry about filling their OOC slate with quality opponents to keep their SOS respectable.

Conference realignment will not increase viewership of college football – the size of the pie does not change no matter how many ways it is divided. It does not matter if there are 40 conferences or 4.

It matters if you’re one of the four.

Right now, everyone’s focused on the money, and I can see why. But I still think this ultimately comes down to that top tier deciding that CFB will not go down the CBB path. I think people forget how quickly UNLV went from the exception to the rule in that sport. Now, that sport’s completely broken, and I would argue CFB has been heading down a similar path with the rise of the partial qualifier powers and the drum-beat for NCAA-administered play-offs.

A top division of football and basketball programs that controlled all the money, that offered a substantially superior GIA structure, and that mutually agreed to higher acceptance standards/grad requirements across the board for student-athletes has real control over the college sports environment — emphasis on college. Because right now, the system’s no better than its weakest honor system links (see: Paul Dee and Gene Smith).

This has real potential to be productive structural change. That’s why I’m not too worried about the B? in the long run. The end-game’s ultimately a top division, and once that’s solidified, the conference alignments will be much more about marketing than economic or competitive differentiation. We’re practically there already, when you think about it.

Great article. One other nuanced point to make on a smaller league increasing rivalries is to take a player perspective (shorter-term of 4-5 years) rather than a fan perspective that often spans decades. If players play a team every year, by their junio or senior year they often develop a “man I hate those guys and their town” attitude that is formed through their own direct personal experience. That often translates to more intense and fun performances on the field. If a player meets a “rival” only once or twice during their career, it just doesn’t translate into the same emotional intensity.

There is plenty of speculation that UT is just biding it’s time until it bolts the Big 12. However, all of UT’s actions and statements to date show a preference for a viable Big 12. In fact, it seems that the UT admins consider that a first best solution.

Any discussion with other leagues has always seemed to me to be of a due diligence or defensive reaction character. UT’s preference is a middle of the country conference with a strong Texas component that includes OU and allows them to pursue the LHN. Only the Big 12 meets those criteria. Everything else is obviously a second best solution to them.

superconference = back door attempt to force a playoff

But if you are going big, 18 is the next logical number after 12.

Also, I don’t think there is a rule preventing a 12 team conference from playing a round robin, it’s just that everyone likes to have a couple of easy W’s.

Can someone rationally explain to me the need for Texas to be in a conference? Is it really that hard to schedule the Iowa States, Kansases (sp?), or Baylors of the world? Or is it so hard to schedule OU non-con (as I see it, the only school left in the Big XII that is a TV draw) that we’re willing to live with the rest?

This is a serious question, not trolling at all. I simply don’t see what Texas gets out of the Big XII as it currently stands that would not be available as an independent – at least in football.

This is very fascinating, You are an excessively skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and stay up for searching for more of your magnificent post. Additionally, I have shared your web site in my social networks

Hello There. I discovered your blog the use of msn. That is a really well written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your helpful information. Thank you for the post. I will definitely return.