Thought provoking article on the horizon for the BigXII and possible growth

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

Ultimately I do think expansion makes sense for the conference. But you need the right teams.

I still think there are a couple ways to look at what the "right teams" are, and I'm not sure either of them sound as good when you actually list them.

There was an article a while back where someone did the math of what it would take to make the Big 12 Network plan make sense financially, allow it to improve the income for all the conference schools, AND to make Texas happy by giving them a big enough piece of the pie to make up for getting rid of the LHN. It basically said they would need to go to 14 schools (at least) and focus on state populations more than quality. As a result, BYU was kind of listed as a "maybe" while Cincy, Memphis, and one or both of USF/UCF were "must haves". UConn may have been "in play" there somewhere too.

It might work for the conference network thing, but I'm not sure it helps the conference to overcome any perception issues it has. On the flip side, BYU and Houston might be best if you're trying to fix (or at least do the least harm to) perception, but it hurts more than helps financially... a lot. Like, to the extent that teams SHOULD try to leave if they can.

If anyone can come up with a way that one of these dream scenarios could happen... Arizona and Arizona State (and maybe CU and Utah along with them)... or Arkansas and [someone?]... or FSU and Clemson (and whoever else could be mined from the ACC with them)... then yeah, the Big 12 needs to do it yesterday! But none of those things are anywhere close to likely right now, and to me, as a TEXAS fan (as opposed to a Big 12 fan), I feel like the best plan is to wait out the 10 team conference and get the escape plan to the Pac or B1G all set for if/when it's clear it isn't working.


But yeah, the ego stuff helps make sense of what all might be going on with Boren a bit more...

 

[jsto60]

I hear ya. Its all a matter of what you value.

One argument is straight TV dollars and sense and the split. And here you only look for teams that can significantly add TV sets and money. And there really are very few, if any, 'perfect' options here.

Another could argue that they see the conference dissolving if it doesn't expand. In that case, any team adds value. As no conference is no good for the conference as a whole. Sure teams like UT and OU are pretty confident they will land on their feet. I think this is more where Boren falls. But it isn't solely about this. It does have something to do with his ego and him wanting to feel like people are listening to his wants/needs.

At the end of the day, the 10 teams need to decide what is best for the conference as a whole. Both in the short and long term. And they need to be proactive and have a plan. Not reactive like last time.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

I And they need to be proactive and have a plan. Not reactive like last time.

Yeah. I'm still annoyed that we ended up staying in the Big 12, and yet for some reason didn't end up expanding to the Big 14 or Big 16 (with a new, powerful, East Coast division when the options where there. But now, most of the options that get thrown around sound like things that would speed Texas' desire to leave the conference (whether it be for financial reasons or because of diluting the strength of the conference) rather than helping convince UT to stay. And if Texas leaves when that's an option again, OU is likely to leave too (or vice versa). And if that happens, it's bad for the rest of the conference too.

 

[Scholz]

I have no idea what Boren is thinking.

He doesn't like being told to shut up and sit down. Just take your money and be quiet, fat queen. You voted on teams being able to sell their third tier rights to the highest bidder. You're just mad that UT did way better at that than you.