Would Big 12 have survived with East/West or Zipper instead of North/South?

[Buffnik]

We've been through this enough that I don't want to re-hash it. But there was a lot of animosity from the schools in the North (particularly Nebraska) about how the conference became unbalanced and too much power -- political, monetary and recruiting -- was clustered in the state of Texas. Particularly with the University of Texas and the built-in voting bloc it had due to so many shared interests.

Well, what if we had broken up that power and those interests from the start?

Here was the map:

Big 12 West: Colorado, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas State, Nebraska

Big 12 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas A&M

Conference schedule would be 5 games against division, a paired rival from the other division, and then 2 of the other 4 non-division. CU would likely get ISU as the paired rival in that scenario.

Then you have the zipper format (geographically confusing, but makes some sense).

Big 12 West: Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas

Big 12 East: Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas A&M

Schedule would be 5 games against division, a paired rival from the other division which is the other side of your zipper (CU gets NU, KSU gets KU, ISU gets MU, OU gets OSU, TTU gets BY, UT gets aTm), and then 2 of the other 4 non-division.

Personally, I think if we'd gone with the zipper it would have had a shot at working.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

We've been through this enough that I don't want to re-hash it. But there was a lot of animosity from the schools in the North (particularly Nebraska) about how the conference became unbalanced and too much power -- political, monetary and recruiting -- was clustered in the state of Texas. Particularly with the University of Texas and the built-in voting bloc it had due to so many shared interests.

Well, what if we had broken up that power and those interests from the start?

Here was the map:

Big 12 West: Colorado, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas State, Nebraska

Big 12 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas A&M

Conference schedule would be 5 games against division, a paired rival from the other division, and then 2 of the other 4 non-division. CU would likely get ISU as the paired rival in that scenario.

Then you have the zipper format (geographically confusing, but makes some sense).

Big 12 West: Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas

Big 12 East: Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas A&M

Schedule would be 5 games against division, a paired rival from the other division which is the other side of your zipper (CU gets NU, KSU gets KU, ISU gets MU, OU gets OSU, TTU gets BY, UT gets aTm), and then 2 of the other 4 non-division.

Personally, I think if we'd gone with the zipper it would have had a shot at working.

May have survived a bit longer, but I think TAMU was looking east, just waiting to get away from UT's shadow. CU had been looking west since '94. Think we would have still ended up switching. NU and mizzou may have stayed in the above scenario though.

 

[SD Buff]

Ripping this off from a Duke fan on a WVU message board. Yep, that's how boring the summer is.



Texas /Texas AM
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Colorado/Nebraska
Baylor/ISU
Kansas/Missouri
Kansas St/Texas Tech

Play nine game conference schedule. 5+3+1(cross rival)

Problem would be losing Oklahoma vs. either Lite or kNU every year. I haven't given it much thought, maybe there'd be an alignment that can get all rivalries on the schedule.

But yes, I think had they gone with something like above, the Big 12 would have had a much better shot at survival allowing more equal access to the state of Texas.

 

[onealcd]

Ripping this off from a Duke fan on a WVU message board. Yep, that's how boring the summer is.



Texas /Texas AM
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Colorado/Nebraska
Baylor/ISU
Kansas/Missouri
Kansas St/Texas Tech

Play nine game conference schedule. 5+3+1(cross rival)

Problem would be losing Oklahoma vs. either Lite or kNU every year. I haven't given it much thought, maybe there'd be an alignment that can get all rivalries on the schedule.

But yes, I think had they gone with something like above, the Big 12 would have had a much better shot at survival allowing more equal access to the state of Texas.

That would look a lot better with Texas Tech/Baylor and Kansas St./Iowa St.

 

[SD Buff]

Yep, it would.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

**** UTerus and the Big XII-IV+II

 

[Deleted member 807]

The demise of the original B12 was more about TV revenues than divisional alignment.

Realigning the conference into a zipper would not have kept CU from playing in bad TV time slots and on regional networks. It would not have kept the big dogs from getting on the national channels during prime time.

It's TV eyeballs in major markets that drives the B12, not geographical gerrymandering. The advantages always goes to the I-35 schools because that's where the viewers are.

 

[sackman]

The B12 would have survived as it was composed had there been an equitable revenue sharing agreement and the conference headquarters located in Kansas City.

 

[Buffnik]

The demise of the original B12 was more about TV revenues than divisional alignment.

Realigning the conference into a zipper would not have kept CU from playing in bad TV time slots and on regional networks. It would not have kept the big dogs from getting on the national channels during prime time.

It's TV eyeballs in major markets that drives the B12, not geographical gerrymandering. The advantages always goes to the I-35 schools because that's where the viewers are.

But if you split that I-35 media power instead of concentrating it, doesn't it improve things? I know that the Pac-12 was very focused on that when it made sure to avoid putting all 4 California programs in the same division. We could have had a Pac-12 South of UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, Arizona and Arizona State. Over time, that would have made for a much less stable conference.

 

[Buffnik]

The B12 would have survived as it was composed had there been an equitable revenue sharing agreement and the conference headquarters located in Kansas City.

The equal split of conference revenue is the other side of this coin. I agree you need both.

I don't think you have to split all conference dollars evenly, though. You could make it so that the schools are rewarded for performance by getting the money for making the NCAAB Tournament and advancing, making a bowl game, etc. But the media dollars have to be shared evenly for a conference to be stable.

 

[Deleted member 807]

But if you split that I-35 media power instead of concentrating it, doesn't it improve things? I know that the Pac-12 was very focused on that when it made sure to avoid putting all 4 California programs in the same division. We could have had a Pac-12 South of UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, Arizona and Arizona State. Over time, that would have made for a much less stable conference.

If a skunk was more like a cat, it wouldn't smell as bad...

The bottom line is that the nature of Texas is to look and act on the premise that college athletics is a competition to collect more money than anyone else.

Every decision they make is about maximizing revenue through 1) filling their 105K seat stadium 7 times per year. 2) maximizing the number of times they play road games within 300 miles of Austin. 3) appearing to be a national brand by playing a blue blood like tOSU, USC, ND.

Dodds and lapdog Beebee just never had it in their nature to bring parity. Texas believes it's their right to sit at the head of the table.

Any geographical re-alignment based on parity defies the very DNA of that conference.

 

[Buffnik]

If a skunk was more like a cat, it wouldn't smell as bad...

The bottom line is that the nature of Texas is to look and act on the premise that college athletics is a competition to collect more money than anyone else.

Every decision they make is about maximizing revenue through 1) filling their 105K seat stadium 7 times per year. 2) maximizing the number of times they play road games within 300 miles of Austin. 3) appearing to be a national brand by playing a blue blood like tOSU, USC, ND.

Dodds and lapdog Beebee just never had it in their nature to bring parity. Texas believes it's their right to sit at the head of the table.

Any geographical re-alignment based on parity defies the very DNA of that conference.

There's the rub. These hypotheticals assume that the DNA of UT is different than it is.

fwiw, this is why I think that any re-alignment that ends the Big 12 sees UT going to the ACC since they are the only other conference that allows for a non-equal revenue split. It's why Notre Dame made the deal. It's why UT will do the same when all this shakes out, imo. ACC and Big 12 will merge with some schools from each being left behind to be absorbed by the other conferences or drop to a G6 when the move to a P4 of 64 programs happens.

New Conference:

East: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, Louisville

The rest scramble to find a new home. (I'm guessing FSU to the SEC, but it could be someone else.)

 

[Deleted member 807]

There's the rub. These hypotheticals assume that the DNA of UT is different than it is.

fwiw, this is why I think that any re-alignment that ends the Big 12 sees UT going to the ACC since they are the only other conference that allows for a non-equal revenue split. It's why Notre Dame made the deal. It's why UT will do the same when all this shakes out, imo. ACC and Big 12 will merge with some schools from each being left behind to be absorbed by the other conferences or drop to a G6 when the move to a P4 of 64 programs happens.

I'd argue that Texas sees the endgame where the B12 survives by raiding the ACC, not the other way around. Nothing would make them happier than to pick up Miami, Florida State and Clemson, while letting the rest of the ACC fend for themselves.

Texas does not go to the mountain. They bring mountain to them.

 

[Buffnik]

I'd argue that Texas sees the endgame where the B12 survives by raiding the ACC, not the other way around. Nothing would make them happier than to pick up Miami, Florida State and Clemson, while letting the rest of the ACC fend for themselves.

Texas does not go to the mountain. They bring mountain to them.

Probably like the Big 12. Even though the Big 8 was rescuing the 4 SWC schools from the limbo of their own implosion, UT demanded and got a setup where the Big 12 was a new conference instead of an expansion of the Big 8. Offices in Texas, new rules on Prop 42/48, etc., etc.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Probably like the Big 12. Even though the Big 8 was rescuing the 4 SWC schools from the limbo of their own implosion, UT demanded and got a setup where the Big 12 was a new conference instead of an expansion of the Big 8. Offices in Texas, new rules on Prop 42/48, etc., etc.

Texas is a parasite that assimilates and destroys conferences.

Once they devour their conference host, the move on to another victim. They are the Borg of college football.