BYU or Houston?

[Lawboy]

There is a reason that Houston, TCU and SMU got dumped when the SWC disbanded and some schools went to the Big 12. Beleive me, those same reasons still exist today. All those markets are already recruited heavily by the other Texas schools and OU, so they do not want the extra competition. Plus, those TV markets are already dominated by those teams, so TCU and SMU and Houston add little in the way of revenue, but take more. TCU is like BSU. They have won lately, but in the grand scheme of it all, they just do not add enough TV sets and butts in seats to mention in expansion talks. And this expansion talk is driven purely by $$$.

[Mars]

I find it interesting that TCU frequently gets the "top of the list" nod for a replacement of a lost Big 12 team. TCU is not a wise choice for the Big 12, unless they lose a large share of their Texas TV market. TCU is mega small, has poor attendance, adds no new geography to the conference in any sense. Conference expansion is about $$$$. Period. If the Big 12 keeps Texas and Tex A&M and in any scenario adds TCU, they have mega rocks for brains. Houston, by the same criteria is not even close to a wise choice for the Big 12.

Following the line of reasoning followed by the Big 10 expansion evaluation process, and the current state of money in college football, the REAL choices for the Big 12 if they lose teams are:

1. Not to add replacement teams. If the conference loses one or two teams and enters into a joint TV deal with the PAC-10, this may work just fine.
2. Add a team or teams that add to television revenue to an appreciable extent AND will actually join the conference (i.e. Arkansas is not leaving the SEC). The teams that make the most sense are, in no particular order: BYU, Utah, Louisville. Probably not both BYU and Utah. Assumptions usually having Utah going to the PAC-10, but the odds that the PAC-10 expands at all are not very overwhelming, especially when the vote to expand has to be unanimous. When considering Stanford and Cal, it would be remarkable to see any expansion take place.

GREAT response! I think I agree with you in a lot of areas.

1. I mentioned earlier that TCU is easily viewed as the #1 team the Big XII should target if replacing a team. YOUR point, that the financial advisers to the Big XII wouldn't recommend them at all (as opposed to lazy sportswriters), is very valid. The driving factor in expansion today seems to be television markets. The Big Ten is looking at New York and St. Louis. The PAC-10 is looking at Denver and Salt Lake City. Is the Big XII really looking at Houston, Dallas, Tulsa, and El Paso? Probably not, since they already completely own all of these regions without the small local schools.

2. So which markets are big enough to interest the Big XII that they don't own already? Salt Lake City could be one. Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati aren't bad either. Neither is Birmingham. What about replacing the Denver market with another Denver school (CSU)? What about Albuquerque? Perhaps any and all of these are more likely than another school in Texas.

3. The Big XII schools rumored to be looking at conference changes include Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado, all NORTH schools. So replacing them with southern teams like TCU or Houston doesn't make sense geographically (unless you are expecting Oklahoma State to switch divisions). BYU or Louisville would make sense joining the North.

4. Just like the PAC-10 isn't looking at two Utah markets, since one would do, the Big XII would think the same thing. So if both BYU and Utah are available (say, to replace Missouri, with the PAC-10 not expanding), which is more attractive to the Big XII? Utah is more attractive to the PAC-10 obviously. I would fear that the Big XII would agree for the same reasons.

5. I agree that the most likely expansion for the PAC-10 is NONE. Unanimous voting requirements make that so. Especially before they have fully explored new TV contract possibilities, such as a joint sports channel with the Big XII, or playing football and basketball on more days of the week to increase dollars. I think they'll go there first, and even if they want to expand division split issues an sheer pride will keep it from ever actually occuring.

6. Everyone is assuming that all power conferences want to go to 16 all of a sudden. Not so, from where I stand. Would the Big XII rather go back to 12 if they lost two teams, or stay at 10? I don't think they would be horribly opposed to staying small and keeping the dollars-per-school figure high. It's worked fairly well for the PAC-10 and the Big east. They would miss the championship game though (or maybe not- see the recent Big XII South division tie-breaker controversy). But schools like Okie State would probably prefer a 1-2/10 chance at a BCS bowl game to a 1-2/12 shot.

[Florwood]

This blog

http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/05/ ... -concrete/

reports an interview with Big XII commissioner Beebe: "Then when asked if possible replacement schools might be in Texas, Beebe said, “I’m not sure how any other institutions in the states we already have schools would add. I think we’ve captured the markets in those states.”

That supports what you're just saying about TCU and Houston not being top tier invites, and moves BYU into the top tier, bringing a new market.

The blog also mentions that these criteria favor BYU and Utah both being invited into the B12. If Utah had the choice of going to the PAC10 with Colorado, or to the B12 with BYU, what would they choose?

[StatsCougar]

This blog

http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/05/ ... -concrete/

reports an interview with Big XII commissioner Beebe: "Then when asked if possible replacement schools might be in Texas, Beebe said, “I’m not sure how any other institutions in the states we already have schools would add. I think we’ve captured the markets in those states.”

That supports what you're just saying about TCU and Houston not being top tier invites, and moves BYU into the top tier, bringing a new market.

The blog also mentions that these criteria favor BYU and Utah both being invited into the B12. If Utah had the choice of going to the PAC10 with Colorado, or to the B12 with BYU, what would they choose?

Utah goes with BYU. I think the rivialry means too much to them and their fans to give it up, if they have the chance to continue it while still joining a BCS conference. I think the Big 12 might prefer it that way as well, traveling partners for basketball to keep traveling costs down.

[Mars]

http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/05/ ... -concrete/

The interesting thing about this article? The idea of the Big XII losing two schools out of Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska, and replacing them with Arizona and Arizona State. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would move smoothly to the North Division.

SOUTH- Arizona/Arizona State, Texas/Texas A&M, Texas Tech/Baylor
NORTH- Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Kansas/Kansas State, Iowa State/Nebraska or Colorado or Missouri

That conference works better actually if Oklahoma and Texas are in different divisions, and can meet for the 2nd time in the same season in a conference championship game.