Two Sources Indicate No Expansion by Big 12 NOW

[arbitragegls]

Have heard from senior administrator at NCState (cousin) as well as the following from Tallahassee.com that the Big 12 has not contacted any ACC team (not sure I believe this) nor is it wanting to expand at this time. Basis for this is fact that conference is happy with 10 teams--neither Texas nor Oklahoma is supporting expansion at this time...
From Tallahassee.com a Gannett Newspaper:
“Yes, we did (discuss expansion),” Neinas said. “The athletic directors confirmed their position that they are content with 10 members at the present time.”
“We feel well positioned at this time with 10,” Pollard said. “At the same time, we recognize that the landscape continues to change. We’ll all wait to see what happens with the BCS. But at this point we feel that we are best positioned as a 10-member league."

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/...sey=tab|topnews|text|frontpage&nclick_check=1

It appears that as posted in other threads, that the BCS NC discussion coupled with ACC ability to get a bowl and highly competitive team to play against much like SEC/Big 12 will be significant factors in determining what and if expansion will take place this year.

 

[TexanMark]

Basically I read it as we might not expand...but I think they'll be drawn by easy dollars and add UL and Cincy or BYU to get to 12. Their new contract will supposedly allow them to add any 2 teams and get a guaranteed bump to guarantee no less money than they receive now. I feel better that FSU and Clemson won't be accept assuming the ACC squares away a Bowl Game and true access is allowed. I think the 3/1 plan is the best outcome for the ACC.

 

[texasfight]

Did you guys watch the expansion process at all in the last couple years? If a conference talks directly to a school in another conference about coming over, that's tortious interference (big time lawsuit) with 4x monetary penalty.

When people say B12 has not contact them, they're not lying. It's all done through third parties. Boosters talk to ADs and then to boosters on the other side. Go betweens get sent back and forth. The agreement gets worked out in principle, then there's all this public maneuvering for the lawyers. You can look back at Missouri or any other example and all the same things were said.

B12 will say it is comfortable staying at 1o so they can say in court that they were not on the hunt, and if this does blow up then they can say they were never trying to expand in first place. That's how this works. If you're taking public denials seriously then you really are lost.

Again, UL & Cincy are money losers per the study we have in hand. Look at the conversation on their board and you'll get that they are no longer serious targets. BYU has been asked twice and said no. They will end up in PAC or no where. ACC is ground zero.

 

[SU2NASA]

Louisville and BYU - they make by far the most sense in my opinion.

Less strings attached, more contiguous, and with the contract being agreed to that any expansion schools get the same deal as everyone else, the main benefit would be adding a championship game. Keeps Texas and Oklahoma as the marquee names.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

That study that claimed Louisville would be a "money loser??" Texas got taken by the "consultants" on that one. Cincy a money loser? Yes. Louisville? Think again.

 

[All4SU]

Did you guys watch the expansion process at all in the last couple years? If a conference talks directly to a school in another conference about coming over, that's tortious interference (big time lawsuit) with 4x monetary penalty.

When people say B12 has not contact them, they're not lying. It's all done through third parties. Boosters talk to ADs and then to boosters on the other side. Go betweens get sent back and forth. The agreement gets worked out in principle, then there's all this public maneuvering for the lawyers. You can look back at Missouri or any other example and all the same things were said.

B12 will say it is comfortable staying at 1o so they can say in court that they were not on the hunt, and if this does blow up then they can say they were never trying to expand in first place. That's how this works. If you're taking public denials seriously then you really are lost.

Again, UL & Cincy are money losers per the study we have in hand. Look at the conversation on their board and you'll get that they are no longer serious targets. BYU has been asked twice and said no. They will end up in PAC or no where. ACC is ground zero.

Always nice to hear a different viewpoint. But I believe that these rumors were floated to gauge reaction and interest. I think the B12 now realizes that FSU and Clemson are not coming, so they are indicating that they are holding pat. However, I do think that they will add two, and they won't be coming from the ACC -- and L'Ville will be one of them -- in the fairly near future.

 

[orange79]

That study that claimed Louisville would be a "money loser??" Texas got taken by the "consultants" on that one. Cincy a money loser? Yes. Louisville? Think again.

It's actually not so far-fetched. LV's addition would have to make more money for every team in the league, as would any other entrant. Not saying it's true or it's not true, just that it's not a no-brainer either way.

 

[TexanMark]

Did you guys watch the expansion process at all in the last couple years? If a conference talks directly to a school in another conference about coming over, that's tortious interference (big time lawsuit) with 4x monetary penalty.

When people say B12 has not contact them, they're not lying. It's all done through third parties. Boosters talk to ADs and then to boosters on the other side. Go betweens get sent back and forth. The agreement gets worked out in principle, then there's all this public maneuvering for the lawyers. You can look back at Missouri or any other example and all the same things were said.

B12 will say it is comfortable staying at 1o so they can say in court that they were not on the hunt, and if this does blow up then they can say they were never trying to expand in first place. That's how this works. If you're taking public denials seriously then you really are lost.

Again, UL & Cincy are money losers per the study we have in hand. Look at the conversation on their board and you'll get that they are no longer serious targets. BYU has been asked twice and said no. They will end up in PAC or no where. ACC is ground zero.

This article sez the B12 could add any two teams and get a guaranteed $20M per team
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...orn-again-and-feeling-its-oats-at-10-12-or-14
So UL and another team could be added...and the B12 wouldn't lose money...maybe ESPN/FOX is drawing a line in the sand saying no more $$$ even if you add FSU/Clemson.

 

[HtownOrange]

This article sez the B12 could add any two teams and get a guaranteed $20M per team
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...orn-again-and-feeling-its-oats-at-10-12-or-14
So UL and another team could be added...and the B12 wouldn't lose money...maybe ESPN/FOX is drawing a line in the sand saying no more $$$ even if you add FSU/Clemson.

Shortly after the WVU blogger made the claim that for each new team the Big 12 added, each existing team would get $2MM increase. The TV gurus and Big 12 explained exactly what you stated: No increases for everyone, guarantee the new teams will get the same share.

Personally, I think ESPN learned the hard way through the SEC and ACC that they cannot build in automatic renegotiations.