• The KillerFrogs

Why not 16?

F

frogyou

New Member
Why would the bigxii not jump to 16? why not get the best you can get now?

The Pac-10, sec, and big 10 already have a seat at the table. Thus, we are not coming from a power position. But if the bigxii jumps to 16 over the next 4 years, why would that be a bad thing. If there is a chance that it goes to 4 16-team conferences and there is a chance you aren't one, why not take a risk and get there first?
 
L

leofrog

Active Member
frogyou said:
Why would the bigxii not jump to 16? why not get the best you can get now?

The Pac-10, sec, and big 10 already have a seat at the table. Thus, we are not coming from a power position. But if the bigxii jumps to 16 over the next 4 years, why would that be a bad thing. If there is a chance that it goes to 4 16-team conferences and there is a chance you aren't one, why not take a risk and get there first?
Click to expand...
Which teams are on your list? The idea is about quality, not quantity. If there are enough quality teams out there, I would agree.
 
gohornedfrogs

gohornedfrogs

Tier 1
Nobody has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that 16-team super conferences are inevitable, nor that they are manageable.

There's also the issue of diluting the TV and bowl proceeds, and the natural barriers to inviting attractive teams.

Any conference could add bodies -- adding bodies that provide incremental value is the trick. Look at the SEC -- even they can't add a 14th team overnight like so many people assume they can.
 
Delmonico

Delmonico

Semi-Omnipotent Being
The only ones pushing the 4/16 seems to be the media. The conferences have now proven multiple times that it doesn't interest them all that much right now. ACC could easily go to 16 right now, but for various reasons chose not to do so. Going to 14 was more a case of a CYA move in case the SEC came calling than toward a proactive move to 16. The Big 10 could go to 16 anytime they want, but seems happy at 12. The Pac XX could have obviously gone to 16 last month, but the Longhorn Network got in the way. And that's the only real chance they have for 16. The SEC is finding it difficult to find #14, much less 15 and 16, again, for multiple reasons. Getting to a 4/16 model would involve moves that don't seem possible right now.
 
F

frogyou

New Member
Frog Em said:
Uhhh bc that divides tv revenue... To add 6 more you have to add some spares. Happy with 10
Click to expand...

I understand, but I am concerned that the tv revenue argument is a short term argument. I am talking long-term.

I would gladly give up tv revenue to be the first to 16 and wait for others.

And as far as no one making the case for it being inevitable, I understand that. And if someone had made that argument there would be a stampede towards 16. What I am saying I think jumping to 16 over the next 4 (or so) years is a calculated risk. That would give us more teams for a larger tv contract when this is up in 6 years and would *almost* guarantee us a seat at the table if everyone jumps to 16 teams (assuming all ours stay).

And as for the teams, I don't know, I am just very intrigued at being the aggressor and jumping to 16 before anyone else does.
 
B

BULongFellow

New Member
Keep in mind that the Big 12 can no longer be reactive. We need to be proactive. It's not like there are a lot of quality schools/programs to choose from unless you ignore geography. We need to go to at least 12, ideally 14. After all, the SEC is gunning for at least 14. If other conferences start pushing for 16, then I think we could manage finding two decent schools/programs to round it out. If we sit around at 10 or 12, then any move by the PAC-12, Big 10, or SEC could leave us scrambling.
 
Army Frog Fan

Army Frog Fan

Active Member
So far only one conference has tried 16. The WAC. It was a failed experiment and half the league bolted. Whose to say that wouldn't happen again in the Big 12. Especially if BYu is brought in.
 
M

MidlandFrog

New Member
I've never bought the 4 super conferences argument. It dilutes revenue by killing good rivalries and it is built on the assumption that the schools want playoff, THEY DON'T!!! I think the Big 12, ACC, SEC, PAC-12, and Big Ten will all re-up during the next BCS meeting. Big East is a question mark because I think the Big 12 will go back to twelve with either Boise and BYU or WVU or Louisville, either scenario hurts Big East, if rumors about BSU going are true.
 
Big Frog II

Big Frog II

Active Member
12 should be the minimum, 14 maximum. Safety in numbers. You never know when some school or schools will get the itch to leave. I still think BYU, UL, WVU, and Cincy are viable candidates.
 
M

Mike Brooks

New Member
Estridge had a gould point on the SDSU broadcast. We were in the 16 team WAC for three years with SDSU and never played them. Ten or 12 are good numbers. More than that not so much IMO.
 
F

froginaustin

Active Member
Big Frog II said:
12 should be the minimum, 14 maximum. Safety in numbers. You never know when some school or schools will get the itch to leave. I still think BYU, UL, WVU, and Cincy are viable candidates.
Click to expand...

I think there's also safety in numbers . . . of conferences.

I hope the college football scene shakes out so that AT LEAST the Mountain West and the Big East continue to exist as viable conferences for national football powers. I would hate to see options limited not only for TCU, but for any other program that might need a new deal.

Screw Britton Banowsky and C-USA. I hope their good teams go elsewhere and the rest languish between the top conferences and FCS. Screw Karl Benson, too, although I have a hard time getting angry with the programs trying to make it in the WAC.
 
fanatical frog

fanatical frog

Full Member
frogyou said:
I understand, but I am concerned that the tv revenue argument is a short term argument. I am talking long-term.

I would gladly give up tv revenue to be the first to 16 and wait for others.

And as far as no one making the case for it being inevitable, I understand that. And if someone had made that argument there would be a stampede towards 16. What I am saying I think jumping to 16 over the next 4 (or so) years is a calculated risk. That would give us more teams for a larger tv contract when this is up in 6 years and would *almost* guarantee us a seat at the table if everyone jumps to 16 teams (assuming all ours stay).

And as for the teams, I don't know, I am just very intrigued at being the aggressor and jumping to 16 before anyone else does.
Click to expand...

The current tv contract can be revisited if the conference adds teams, so the "tv revenue argument" isn't so much a short term argument as it is a flawed argument to begin with.

If the B12 stays at ten it simply facilitates Texas' plan to use the conference as a cash cow until they make their move to the B1G or the PAC ____ in six years.

So the rest of the conference needs to decide if we want to remain vulnerable to being poached back to CUSA levels or if we want to remain viable in 2017. If we want to remain viable we have no choice but to add the strongest programs (regardless of geography) we can attract and do it before they get snatched up by the SEC or B1G.

Doing that requires us to look outside the Central Time zone.

Currently, there are only four programs that are, or could be, recruited who would add to the football resume of the B12. They are Brigham Young; Boise; West Virginia and South Florida. Add all four of them to get to 14 and put exit penalties in place that would curl the lower lip of our sitting President.

Frogyou and BULongfellow are correct. If we want to survive we have no choice but to be aggressive. The BEast tried passive and we see how that turned out. The ACC was aggressive and now they're sitting pretty despite the fact they'll be the weakest of the BCS programs after the BEast loses AQ status.
 
Platypoke

Platypoke

New Member
I would just like us to add two more teams. Poach two of Louisville, Cincinnati, or West Virginia from the Big East. I want to be 12 again. We can't be like that uber-elite Big 10 with their weird number situation.
 
F

froginaustin

Active Member
Large membership conferences bother me instinctively, but those that say we must could be right. I might be temped to look away from the Ohio valley schools or the Zoob - Tater Zoob axis out west, to places with better economic prospects (and without the downsides of BYU's demands for special treatment).

If fans' opinions on the internet reflect institutional thought even a little bit, both South Florida and Central Florida are the B12's for the asking. Both are large enrollment schools that sort of remind me of Texas Tech, except that the Florida schools may have better academics soon if they don't have them now (both are too new to develop academic reputations that take (or in the past have taken) generations for most good State schools to develop), and both are in parts of the country that are likely to develop, economically, a lot faster than the plains around Lubbock.

Both the Florida schools seem to be way ahead of UHouston developing their athletic programs, despite the fact that they are much, much newer schools that UH.
 
F

frogyou

New Member
I really like the idea of adding WVU and BYU, I think they are substantial enough to be no brainers right now. I wouldn't be too upset about UL or Cincy, but USF and Central Florida don't get me excited at all. But I do like opening up Florida for recruiting possibilities.
 
HoustonHornedFrog

HoustonHornedFrog

Active Member
hindry said:
i think we should invite TAMU
Click to expand...

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: and while we are at it why not call up Arkansas. Maybe they have figured out by now that they are never going to win the SEC in football.

But as for going to 16, I don't see it right now, I do think going to 12 and creating divisions makes sense. I'd rather have 8 conference games 4 home and 4 away than the 9 game schedule with 5 and 4.
 

Latest posts

Top