Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RF2044, post: 4724036, member: 40"]
Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective.  Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable.  And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint.  So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah.  Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think.  In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?