EagleOutsider.com

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:I still think 20 years from now college football won't exist as it does today. I am very curious: board members with a kid in the 0-5 range, would you want your son playing football as he grows up? I'm pretty sure I've seen Tyler Rouse get concussed a half dozen times in his career and he's not going to make a cent playing football.

HJS {l Wrote}:So... according to this link, our own gumshoe has revealed the final B12 expansion list of candidates.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/repor ... 18723.html

Of course, in his haste to release the names behind a payroll, it's seems he wrote something like:

The Big 12 has sent out its “preferred list” of potential expansion candidates and that it is AAC heavy (UConn/Cincy/UH/Memphis) along with BYU and reference that UCF, USF and two ACC schools (who remain nameless) are on this purported list.

That was later corrected to "two AAC schools". That typo certainly makes a world of difference.

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:So... according to this link, our own gumshoe has revealed the final B12 expansion list of candidates.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/repor ... 18723.html

Of course, in his haste to release the names behind a payroll, it's seems he wrote something like:

The Big 12 has sent out its “preferred list” of potential expansion candidates and that it is AAC heavy (UConn/Cincy/UH/Memphis) along with BYU and reference that UCF, USF and two ACC schools (who remain nameless) are on this purported list.

That was later corrected to "two AAC schools". That typo certainly makes a world of difference.

Interesting coincidence here - College Football News mentions the Big 12 going after BC & Syracuse if they were to add UConn.

I don't see BC making that move in a million years.

http://collegefootballnews.com/2016/big ... t-carolina

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:So... according to this link, our own gumshoe has revealed the final B12 expansion list of candidates.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/repor ... 18723.html

Of course, in his haste to release the names behind a payroll, it's seems he wrote something like:

The Big 12 has sent out its “preferred list” of potential expansion candidates and that it is AAC heavy (UConn/Cincy/UH/Memphis) along with BYU and reference that UCF, USF and two ACC schools (who remain nameless) are on this purported list.

That was later corrected to "two AAC schools". That typo certainly makes a world of difference.

Interesting coincidence here - College Football News mentions the Big 12 going after BC & Syracuse if they were to add UConn.

I don't see BC making that move in a million years.

http://collegefootballnews.com/2016/big ... t-carolina

leahy would have to eat his hat if we made that move. the big 12 doesn't have the academic pedigree that the good father touted on the move to the acc

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:https://twitter.com/RedDirtSport/status/788055928398458881

[Big 12] commissioner [Bob] Bowlsby was kind of forced into having to go through this process. When you know that the athletic administrators think that the best solution is the solution we currently have, why would we then want to say, 'No, we'd rather have 12 members?'

Because we want to add more schools to this league that are going to be like Rutgers or Boston College in their conferences? Which have no fans coming to the games, and they're getting outscored 170 to whatever it was. In Boston College's case, haven't won a game in two to three years in their conference. That totally dilutes your value.

At 10, we give ourselves a lot more flexibility down the road versus adding maybe members that would only clutter up the process. People say, 'In eight years, Texas and Oklahoma are going to bolt.' Well, if we added teams and forced it on them, I guarantee they'd bolt. So that's a part of this process that people aren't thinking about.

The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we're the Mountain West Conference, and we're getting $3 million [in annual TV revenue, a drastic decrease]. We've got two star players, whether people want to like that or not: Texas and Oklahoma.

I'm glad to be on a team that's got two great players. We benefit from being on that team. We could go play on a team and be the star, but then people would be saying, 'How do you get us in one of those Power Five conferences, Mr. AD?'"

I don't fault anybody for making a mockery of the process from the outside, because if you were on the outside, that's what it looked like. I think the best thing that could happen for the Big 12, is that everybody who's talking about what they think they know is the right answer to quit talking about it, and just let the ADs go do what they need to do.

I think it's fair to say that a lot more money will be coming into the Big 12 over the next eight years. The league is really strong. Everybody just wants to beat it up.

I guarantee as it appears today, somebody's not going to get in the College Football Playoff this year. If it's a Big 12 team, I can guarantee somebody's going to say, 'It's because the Big 12 didn't expand.' I guarantee that will be the narrative, because it's an easy narrative to pick on. But I'd remind them, it's never quite as clear as any of us would like it to be.

HJS {l Wrote}:Iowa State's Athletic Director explained the Big XII's rationale in staying put...
http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... iowa-state

[Big 12] commissioner [Bob] Bowlsby was kind of forced into having to go through this process. When you know that the athletic administrators think that the best solution is the solution we currently have, why would we then want to say, 'No, we'd rather have 12 members?'

Because we want to add more schools to this league that are going to be like Rutgers or Boston College in their conferences? Which have no fans coming to the games, and they're getting outscored 170 to whatever it was. In Boston College's case, haven't won a game in two to three years in their conference. That totally dilutes your value.

At 10, we give ourselves a lot more flexibility down the road versus adding maybe members that would only clutter up the process. People say, 'In eight years, Texas and Oklahoma are going to bolt.' Well, if we added teams and forced it on them, I guarantee they'd bolt. So that's a part of this process that people aren't thinking about.

The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we're the Mountain West Conference, and we're getting $3 million [in annual TV revenue, a drastic decrease]. We've got two star players, whether people want to like that or not: Texas and Oklahoma.

I'm glad to be on a team that's got two great players. We benefit from being on that team. We could go play on a team and be the star, but then people would be saying, 'How do you get us in one of those Power Five conferences, Mr. AD?'"

I don't fault anybody for making a mockery of the process from the outside, because if you were on the outside, that's what it looked like. I think the best thing that could happen for the Big 12, is that everybody who's talking about what they think they know is the right answer to quit talking about it, and just let the ADs go do what they need to do.

I think it's fair to say that a lot more money will be coming into the Big 12 over the next eight years. The league is really strong. Everybody just wants to beat it up.

I guarantee as it appears today, somebody's not going to get in the College Football Playoff this year. If it's a Big 12 team, I can guarantee somebody's going to say, 'It's because the Big 12 didn't expand.' I guarantee that will be the narrative, because it's an easy narrative to pick on. But I'd remind them, it's never quite as clear as any of us would like it to be.

Congrats to Fr. Leahy for appropriately positioning BC Athletics in its relative importance to the larger University mission. Congrats to the University Board of Trustees for giving him the appropriate resources to accomplish his goal.

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:Iowa State's Athletic Director explained the Big XII's rationale in staying put...
http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... iowa-state

[Big 12] commissioner [Bob] Bowlsby was kind of forced into having to go through this process. When you know that the athletic administrators think that the best solution is the solution we currently have, why would we then want to say, 'No, we'd rather have 12 members?'

Because we want to add more schools to this league that are going to be like Rutgers or Boston College in their conferences? Which have no fans coming to the games, and they're getting outscored 170 to whatever it was. In Boston College's case, haven't won a game in two to three years in their conference. That totally dilutes your value.

At 10, we give ourselves a lot more flexibility down the road versus adding maybe members that would only clutter up the process. People say, 'In eight years, Texas and Oklahoma are going to bolt.' Well, if we added teams and forced it on them, I guarantee they'd bolt. So that's a part of this process that people aren't thinking about.

The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we're the Mountain West Conference, and we're getting $3 million [in annual TV revenue, a drastic decrease]. We've got two star players, whether people want to like that or not: Texas and Oklahoma.

I'm glad to be on a team that's got two great players. We benefit from being on that team. We could go play on a team and be the star, but then people would be saying, 'How do you get us in one of those Power Five conferences, Mr. AD?'"

I don't fault anybody for making a mockery of the process from the outside, because if you were on the outside, that's what it looked like. I think the best thing that could happen for the Big 12, is that everybody who's talking about what they think they know is the right answer to quit talking about it, and just let the ADs go do what they need to do.

I think it's fair to say that a lot more money will be coming into the Big 12 over the next eight years. The league is really strong. Everybody just wants to beat it up.

I guarantee as it appears today, somebody's not going to get in the College Football Playoff this year. If it's a Big 12 team, I can guarantee somebody's going to say, 'It's because the Big 12 didn't expand.' I guarantee that will be the narrative, because it's an easy narrative to pick on. But I'd remind them, it's never quite as clear as any of us would like it to be.

Congrats to Fr. Leahy for appropriately positioning BC Athletics in its relative importance to the larger University mission. Congrats to the University Board of Trustees for giving him the appropriate resources to accomplish his goal.

That is sad, embarrassing and angering.

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:Iowa State's Athletic Director explained the Big XII's rationale in staying put...
http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... iowa-state

[Big 12] commissioner [Bob] Bowlsby was kind of forced into having to go through this process. When you know that the athletic administrators think that the best solution is the solution we currently have, why would we then want to say, 'No, we'd rather have 12 members?'

Because we want to add more schools to this league that are going to be like Rutgers or Boston College in their conferences? Which have no fans coming to the games, and they're getting outscored 170 to whatever it was. In Boston College's case, haven't won a game in two to three years in their conference. That totally dilutes your value.

At 10, we give ourselves a lot more flexibility down the road versus adding maybe members that would only clutter up the process. People say, 'In eight years, Texas and Oklahoma are going to bolt.' Well, if we added teams and forced it on them, I guarantee they'd bolt. So that's a part of this process that people aren't thinking about.

The Big 12 exists because we have Texas and Oklahoma in the room. If we take Texas and Oklahoma out of the room, we're the Mountain West Conference, and we're getting $3 million [in annual TV revenue, a drastic decrease]. We've got two star players, whether people want to like that or not: Texas and Oklahoma.

I'm glad to be on a team that's got two great players. We benefit from being on that team. We could go play on a team and be the star, but then people would be saying, 'How do you get us in one of those Power Five conferences, Mr. AD?'"

I don't fault anybody for making a mockery of the process from the outside, because if you were on the outside, that's what it looked like. I think the best thing that could happen for the Big 12, is that everybody who's talking about what they think they know is the right answer to quit talking about it, and just let the ADs go do what they need to do.

I think it's fair to say that a lot more money will be coming into the Big 12 over the next eight years. The league is really strong. Everybody just wants to beat it up.

I guarantee as it appears today, somebody's not going to get in the College Football Playoff this year. If it's a Big 12 team, I can guarantee somebody's going to say, 'It's because the Big 12 didn't expand.' I guarantee that will be the narrative, because it's an easy narrative to pick on. But I'd remind them, it's never quite as clear as any of us would like it to be.

Congrats to Fr. Leahy for appropriately positioning BC Athletics in its relative importance to the larger University mission. Congrats to the University Board of Trustees for giving him the appropriate resources to accomplish his goal.

That is sad, embarrassing and angering.

The ironic part is that currently Iowa State fits into this equation: Rutgers:BIG as BC:ACC as ___:Big12. You'd think Iowa State would see the value of adding a doormat-ier doormat. They've only won 4 conference games in the last 4 years. We've at least won 8.

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:The ironic part is that currently Iowa State fits into this equation: Rutgers:BIG as BC:ACC as ___:Big12. You'd think Iowa State would see the value of adding a doormat-ier doormat. They've only won 4 conference games in the last 4 years. We've at least won 8.

claver2010 {l Wrote}:rutgres with some nice publicity in the sunday times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/spor ... front&_r=0

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Does this include Rutgers boosters offering up their female relatives to recruits?

The ACC, like many conferences, splits the revenue equally. With 16 members, that puts the three-year tournament take for each ACC school at around $6.8 million. That's even for Boston College, who hasn't been to the NCAA Tournament for the last eight years.

HJS {l Wrote}:When you don't win any conference games, it kinda allows the media to use you as the example of the worst program in the conference. It will take years of consistent Top 5 finishes in BOTH BB and FB for BC to stop being a punchline. Congrats Leahy, Marin and anyone else who allowed Leahy to destroy Monan's athletic department.