Big XII Expansion 2024+

[Fishy]

Yep- a good reason why the talk will go nowhere or it ends up with the pac schools taking a lower payout

Basically, yep.

Something will have to give….everyone will have to sign a GOR and settle for $22-23M or some teams refuse and some schools bail for the B12 and maybe something crazy like the ACC takes in some number of PAC schools and hopes that reopens their own deal.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah, I’m going to disagree with you. The addition of the NYC and DMV DMA’S was brilliant and lucrative. I suspect if Rutgers was unavailable for whatever reason that Connecticut might’ve gotten the call up. Rutgers also bordered the lucrative, Philadelphia DMA and has 9 million citizens compared to Connecticut’s 3 million citizens. In any event, the addition of Rutgers gave the Big Ten credit for 2 million of the 3 million Connecticut citizens since Fairfield county is a part of the New York DMA.

Sure it still matters. It just isn't the driving factor it was. Not because cable is dead, its not, but because they got smarter about who matters in those markets. You take Rutgers not because it matters, but because the B1G has a huge alumni base in metro NY and so Michigan and Ohio State matter more there if they play locally. I also believe that the B1G schools wanted Maryland and Rutgers to increase the flow of wealthy, high SAT undergrads from those regions. It worked. Applications to schools like Indiana and Purdue from the northeast rose significantly. Ultimately, the AD is marketing. It exists to make the school attractive to applicants. BC saw a huge increase in applications from the south when they joined the ACC, and ACC schools have seen a bump in applications from New England.

I actually think one of UConn's selling points is the strong pool of good high school students with money. I guarantee you that Georgia Tech wishes more of them would consider coming to Atlanta.

 

[Rufus]

Conspiracy Theory……

What if the B1G was waiting for the proposed PAC media rights contract to be announced in order to know the flat rate they would need to pay Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal upon entering the conference? If the PAC offers 22-23 million, then the B1G knows it can offer them 24 million in the first year and sell a media rights package that includes the late night time window as long as none of the 16 current members lose any money over the duration of the contract, which is essentially the buy in period to become a full member.

 

[Exit 4]

I also believe that the B1G schools wanted Maryland and Rutgers to increase the flow of wealthy, high SAT undergrads from those regions. It worked. Applications to schools like Indiana and Purdue from the northeast rose significantly. Ultimately, the AD is marketing. It exists to make the school attractive to applicants.

I agree with this- it is working. A lot of kids here in lower FF county see B1G schools as their back up plan if they miss on their first and second choice with Ivies and sub Ivies. The conf brand for academics is on the rise. Indiana and Michigan are certainly getting plenty of kids from down here in particular.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I agree with this- it is working. A lot of kids here in lower FF county see B1G schools as their back up plan if they miss on their first and second choice with Ivies and sub Ivies. The conf brand for academics is on the rise. Indiana and Michigan are certainly getting plenty of kids from down here in particular.

My friend in Westport had his daughter graduate from IU last year. Even here in Mass I see loads of kids applying to ACC schools, Clemson is wildly popular. SEC schools on the rise too.

 

[Exit 4]

Conspiracy Theory……

What if the B1G was waiting for the proposed PAC media rights contract to be announced in order to know the flat rate they would need to pay Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal upon entering the conference? If the PAC offers 22-23 million, then the B1G knows it can offer them 24 million in the first year and sell a media rights package that includes the late night time window as long as none of the 16 current members lose any money over the duration of the contract, which is essentially the buy in period to become a full member.

Not a bad theory. Fits with the “the B1G didn’t want to be the ones that killed the PAC.” The PAC dies on its own and they they jump back in to get two more schools- albeit at a discount.

Of course the B1G really did have a very large hand in killing the PAC- just did it in an indirect manner.

 

[CL82]

Sure it still matters. It just isn't the driving factor it was. Not because cable is dead, its not, but because they got smarter about who matters in those markets. You take Rutgers not because it matters, but because the B1G has a huge alumni base in metro NY and so Michigan and Ohio State matter more there if they play locally. I also believe that the B1G schools wanted Maryland and Rutgers to increase the flow of wealthy, high SAT undergrads from those regions. It worked. Applications to schools like Indiana and Purdue from the northeast rose significantly. Ultimately, the AD is marketing. It exists to make the school attractive to applicants. BC saw a huge increase in applications from the south when they joined the ACC, and ACC schools have seen a bump in applications from New England.

I actually think one of UConn's selling points is the strong pool of good high school students with money. I guarantee you that Georgia Tech wishes more of them would consider coming to Atlanta.

The Big Ten took Rutgers because it gave them the opportunity to get premium pricing for every single customer in the New York City DMA. That is a huge number.

Does the Big Ten have a lot of NYC metro alumni? I’m confident it does, but that was a collateral benefit and not the driving force of the Rutgers addition. Additional collateral benefits were a state of New Jersey population total of 9 million people and overlap into the Philadelphia market.

Pretty sure the same analysis applies to Maryland and the DMV. That is what drove those additions. Does that mean that that will be the driving force behind every addition from this point forward? Of course not.

Eventually, I would imagine what’s going to be the driving factor will be the potential for additional subscriptions to the Big Ten network. That’s an area where I think Connecticut with shine. Our fans travel and are passionate. It’s very likely that they would pay a monthly subscription fee in order to get access to Connecticut sports. We would also give Big Ten schools the ability to access their alumni base in the NYC/Boston metroplex, but that’s not a driving factor.

I strongly doubt that we get picked up by the Big Ten, though, it’s possible. I think eventually we end up in an east coast best of the rest league that may, or may not, be called the Atlantic Coast Conference.

 

[Kolumbo]

Found this at a UCF site

 

[LetsGoUC]

Big 12 in contact with Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah as Pac-12 media rights future remains uncertain

The "Four Corners" schools may be looking elsewhere with the Pac-12 in the midst of contentious media rights negotiation

www.cbssports.com

If this does happen, the Pac 12 is done. I also think it would greatly lowers the chances of the Big 12 going after any Big East schools for basketball only as previously rumored.

I think if UConns ultimate goal is the ACC, this would help in a major way. The ACC would easily be the worst of the new P4 conferences and they would HAVE to make some sort of move - giving UConn a really really good shot.

 

[Fishy]

Would love to see us do a partnership with some of the pac 12 teams that remain if they break up. Games against Stanford and Cal would be great. Give them east coast visibility and us prestigious named schools on the schedule. Until we are in a conference we should explore all partnerships with all major conferences

Avoid the temptation of

First, I don't believe the numbers being thrown around by the B1G or SEC. Second, why should the Big 12 pay anything nominally more than the ACC at this point? It can't match the big boys. The Pac 12 is kaput. The acc is locked in at below market rates.

The numbers are set. The numbers you see are the numbers.

Sports rights fees are still strong. Networks will pay…but instead of paying six conferences as they did 15 years ago, all of it is going to essentially three conferences now. Bigger pie split three ways….and the third slice is split in half by the Big 12 and ACC.

The PAC views itself as the top academic conference
Stamford , Cal ,and Washington are some of the top Schools in the World .
Utah , Colorado , and the Arizona schools are all rising in academic importance. Even Oregon is AAU
UNLV
Boise
Tulsa
Fresno
Memphis
i don’t so

Tulane and Rice are better fits
SMU got taken because it’s a top academic school that also values athletics

Honestly, you would probably see the PAC 12 add as few teams as possible. There’s nothing in that group that is additive. If they remain intact and need inventory, SDSU and SMU. If they lose four teams, probably add UNLV and, if they have to, Fresno or Boise.

 

[Kolumbo]

Avoid the temptation of


The numbers are set. The numbers you see are the numbers.

Sports rights fees are still strong. Networks will pay…but instead of paying six conferences as they did 15 years ago, all of it is going to essentially three conferences now. Bigger pie split three ways….and the third slice is split in half by the Big 12 and ACC.


Honestly, you would probably see the PAC 12 add as few teams as possible. There’s nothing in that group that is additive. If they remain intact and need inventory, SDSU and SMU. If they lose four teams, probably add UNLV and, if they have to, Fresno or Boise.

I don't understand how the numbers are set if people are constantly cancelling cable. Where is all this money coming from? If the big 12 and ACC are each getting half, why are they even getting that much if the GOR is keeping them hostage?

 

[Fishy]

I don't understand how the numbers are set if people are constantly cancelling cable. Where is all this money coming from? If the big 12 and ACC are each getting half, why are they even getting that much if the GOR is keeping them hostage?

I feel like you have a poor handle on this. The conferences have contracts that pay them for their broadcast rights. Those payments are fixed in the contract - the Big East gets a set amount of money from Fox no matter if one person or a million watches.

In order to sell these broadcast rights, some conferences have to sign a grant of rights so that the network partner has certainty of the conference’s make up during the contract period. In the ACC’s case, they all signed a grant of rights to induce ESPN into forming an ACC Network - they figured that would be their answer to the Big Ten network, but it has not worked out that way. They really thought their contract was amazing when they signed it.

And these people not canceling cable and moving to caves. They’re moving to streaming services, but those services are still acting as carriers. Like, I canceled Optimum, but I still pay YouTubeTV for television. There’s still money coming into ESPN and Fox….

 

[TheCatsLair]

The Big 12 is getting raided right now if they stayed at 8 teams instead of adding Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and UCF. The only reason the Big 12 is in position to grab the Pac-12 schools is because of their new TV deal and the Big 12 would not have gotten that deal if they expanded with the Four Corner schools to get to 12 because the Four Corner schools do not have the football cache of the incoming Big 12 schools nor the East Coast penetration.

 

[UConnJim]

And these people not canceling cable and moving to caves. They’re moving to streaming services, but those services are still acting as carriers. Like, I canceled Optimum, but I still pay YouTubeTV for television. There’s still money coming into ESPN and Fox….

ESPN subscribers on traditional cable carriers and services like YouTubeTV are included in ESPN's subscriber numbers. Households with ESPN peaked at 100.1 million and it is down to ~74 million today and still declining. How has ESPN managed to offset the subscriber declines? Price increases and the launch of ESPN+, although ESPN+ produces big losses currently.

 

[Kolumbo]

The Big 12 is getting raided right now if they stayed at 8 teams instead of adding Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and UCF. The only reason the Big 12 is in position to grab the Pac-12 schools is because of their new TV deal and the Big 12 would not have gotten that deal if they expanded with the Four Corner schools to get to 12 because the Four Corner schools do not have the football cache of the incoming Big 12 schools nor the East Coast penetration.

 

[Slasher]

Utah has been good. The other three have been mediocre (Az State) to awful (Arizona, Colorado.)

 

[Echo Hawk]

I'm amused by the useless eaters in these conferences who are there to be doormats not bell cows. (BC, Rutgers, Northwestern to name just a few). They play that role and get their cut year in and year out. None of this makes sense to me. The trick is to get the gig.

 

[TheCatsLair]

Over the last 20 years, Cincinnati has been to the Orange, Sugar, and Peach Bowl and the CFP, Houston has been to the Peach Bowl and recently beat Auburn in a Bowl game, UCF during that stretch has been to two Fiesta Bowl and a Peach Bowl and beat Auburn, BYU has a national championship in its history. All three have had nationally ranked programs at some point in the last 3 years.

Outside of Utah's recent run and Fiesta Bowl run, which is not any better, and arguably not as good, as Cincinnati's back-to-back years of a Peach Bowl and CFP as well as the Sugar and Orange Bowls, what have Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado done that makes you laugh and spit up your water? Colorado has the same number of national championships as BYU and both titles came in the same time span, BYU's in '84 and Colorado's in '90.

I think people look at conferences and just assume that those schools are better than the Big 12 schools because they see Pac-12 beside their name.

 

[TheCatsLair]

Over the last 20 years, Cincinnati has been to the Orange, Sugar, and Peach Bowl and the CFP, Houston has been to the Peach Bowl and recently beat Auburn in a Bowl game, UCF during that stretch has been to two Fiesta Bowl and a Peach Bowl and beat Auburn, BYU has a national championship in its history. All three have had nationally ranked programs at some point in the last 3 years.

Outside of Utah's recent run and Fiesta Bowl run, which is not any better, and arguably not as good, as Cincinnati's back-to-back years of a Peach Bowl and CFP as well as the Sugar and Orange Bowls, what have Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado done that makes you laugh and spit up your water? Colorado has the same number of national championships as BYU and both titles came in the same time span, BYU's in '84 and Colorado's in '90.

I think people look at conferences and just assume that those schools are better than the Big 12 schools because they see Pac-12 beside their name.

When looking at seasons ending with double-digit wins and a national ranking it is even more glaring. During that same stretch Arizona has had ONE double-digit winning season and ONE ranked season, the same with Colorado. Arizona State had four such seasons.

In comparison Cincinnati had 8 of those seasons (along with four 9 win seasons), BYU had 7 of those seasons, UCF had 6 double-digit winning seasons and five ranked seasons, Houston had 5 double-digit winning seasons with 3 of them finishing nationally ranked. Also keep in mind that besides for Cincinnati's early run in the Big East these were done in non-power conferences without power conference resources. Utah had 10 of those seasons and even then Cincinnati's run is still comparable to Utah's despite Utah spended twice as much time in a power conference as Cincinnati and Cincinnati spending more time in the AAC than Utah did in the Mountain West during this stretch.

 

[noeynox]

Over the last 20 years, Cincinnati has been to the Orange, Sugar, and Peach Bowl and the CFP, Houston has been to the Peach Bowl and recently beat Auburn in a Bowl game, UCF during that stretch has been to two Fiesta Bowl and a Peach Bowl and beat Auburn, BYU has a national championship in its history. All three have had nationally ranked programs at some point in the last 3 years.

Outside of Utah's recent run and Fiesta Bowl run, which is not any better, and arguably not as good, as Cincinnati's back-to-back years of a Peach Bowl and CFP as well as the Sugar and Orange Bowls, what have Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado done that makes you laugh and spit up your water? Colorado has the same number of national championships as BYU and both titles came in the same time span, BYU's in '84 and Colorado's in '90.

I think people look at conferences and just assume that those schools are better than the Big 12 schools because they see Pac-12 beside their name.

Wait a minute, you give BYU credit for having a national championship in their history but not Colorado and Arizona? And their's is more recent? You cherry picking here son.

 

[TheCatsLair]

Wait a minute, you give BYU credit for having a national championship in their history but not Colorado and Arizona? And their's is more recent? You cherry picking here son.

It says in my post, the one that you quoted, that Colorado and BYU have the same number of championships in the same time span and I even listed the years each school won their national championship. Arizona football has never won a national championship.

 

[UConnJim]

When looking at seasons ending with double-digit wins and a national ranking it is even more glaring. During that same stretch Arizona has had ONE double-digit winning season and ONE ranked season, the same with Colorado. Arizona State had four such seasons.

In comparison Cincinnati had 8 of those seasons (along with four 9 win seasons), BYU had 7 of those seasons, UCF had 6 double-digit winning seasons and five ranked seasons, Houston had 5 double-digit winning seasons with 3 of them finishing nationally ranked. Also keep in mind that besides for Cincinnati's early run in the Big East these were done in non-power conferences without power conference resources. Utah had 10 of those seasons and even then Cincinnati's run is still comparable to Utah's despite Utah spended twice as much time in a power conference as Cincinnati and Cincinnati spending more time in the AAC than Utah did in the Mountain West during this stretch.

I think the new schools going to the Big 12 will be in for an awakening as the competition will be much harder week in and week out. Don't get me wrong, the AAC was a good football conference, but clearly a step down from the P5 conferences. Part of the reason Cincinnati was so successful is that they didn't play many P5 teams. Look at the comparison of 2 schools we know well that had almost identical Sagarin ratings and ranks although one had a worse record:

Cincinnati ranked #48, Sagarin rating of 74.73, record 9-4, schedule rank = 73
West Virginia ranked #49, Sagarin rating of 74.44, record 5-7, schedule rank = 11

If Cincinnati played WVU's schedule do you think they would have finished the season at 9-4?

Sagarin schedule rank over past 10 years:

Cincinnati = 80.3 (toughest = 67)
West Virginia = 25.8 (toughest = 8)

Some other metrics:

Cincinnati record over the past 10 years against current P5 schools excluding the new additions to the Big 12: 11-12

Cincinnati bowl record over the past 10 years: 2-6

Fickell knew that repeating his performance at Cincinnati over his tenure when they moved to the Big 12 would be very difficult and decided to move on.

UCF? 11-13 against the P5 in the last 10 years.

Houston? 10-9 against the P5 in the last 10 years.

 

[TheCatsLair]

I think the new schools going to the Big 12 will be in for an awakening as the competition will be much harder week in and week out. Don't get me wrong, the AAC was a good football conference, but clearly a step down from the P5 conferences. Part of the reason Cincinnati was so successful is that they didn't play many P5 teams. Look at the comparison of 2 schools we know well that had almost identical Sagarin ratings and ranks although one had a worse record:

Cincinnati ranked #48, Sagarin rating of 74.73, record 9-4, schedule rank = 73
West Virginia ranked #49, Sagarin rating of 74.44, record 5-7, schedule rank = 11

If Cincinnati played WVU's schedule do you think they would have finished the season at 9-4?

Sagarin schedule rank over past 10 years:

Cincinnati = 80.3 (toughest = 67)
West Virginia = 25.8 (toughest = 8)

Some other metrics:

Cincinnati record over the past 10 years against current P5 schools excluding the new additions to the Big 12: 11-12

Cincinnati bowl record over the past 10 years: 2-6

Fickell knew that repeating his performance at Cincinnati over his tenure when they moved to the Big 12 would be very difficult and decided to move on.

UCF? 11-13 against the P5 in the last 10 years.

Houston? 10-9 against the P5 in the last 10 years.

True, but their resources and recruiting will also increase greatly. You saw how it helped Cincinnati, TCU and Utah when they moved into power conferences. So I always felt that comparing the schedules of a G5 and a P5 was severely flawed. Would Cincinnati have a 9-4 record with West Virginia's schedule? Possibly, if you they had the Big 12 money and resources. Unlike West Virginia, Cincinnati is in the middle of an elite recruiting hotbed. Also you're missing the point of the original post. The four new Big 12 schools have strong football cache compared to the Four Corner schools. Bowl records really don't matter considering many players don't play and it is more or less an exhibition, and records against P5 when you're a G5 kind of proves the point. Those are pretty good records when your school is working on a 6 to 7 million dollar per year budget compared to a 40 million dollar budget.


Also from all reports Luke Fickell was a Big Ten guy so he likely left because it was a top Big Ten job. He actually signed an extension last year it just so happened that the Wisconsin job opened up. Cincinnati excelled when they moved into a conference like the Big East and even though it's stronger Cincinnati will likely excel in the Big 12 now that they can recruit Ohio with a P5 tag and resources, the same goes for Houston and UCF. But I think that the new schools will be fine because unlike most G5 schools they attempted to act like a P5 school and have a strong foundation to build on.

 

[dayooper]

True, but their resources and recruiting will also increase greatly. You saw how it helped Cincinnati, TCU and Utah when they moved into power conferences. So I always felt that comparing the schedules of a G5 and a P5 was severely flawed. Would Cincinnati have a 9-4 record with West Virginia's schedule? Possibly, if you they had the Big 12 money and resources. Unlike West Virginia, Cincinnati is in the middle of an elite recruiting hotbed. Also you're missing the point of the original post. The four new Big 12 schools have strong football cache compared to the Four Corner schools. Bowl records really don't matter considering many players don't play and it is more or less an exhibition, and records against P5 when you're a G5 kind of proves the point. Those are pretty good records when your school is working on a 6 to 7 million dollar per year budget compared to a 40 million dollar budget.


Also from all reports Luke Fickell was a Big Ten guy so he likely left because it was a top Big Ten job. He actually signed an extension last year it just so happened that the Wisconsin job opened up. Cincinnati excelled when they moved into a conference like the Big East and even though it's stronger Cincinnati will likely excel in the Big 12 now that they can recruit Ohio with a P5 tag and resources, the same goes for Houston and UCF. But I think that the new schools will be fine because unlike most G5 schools they attempted to act like a P5 school and have a strong foundation to build on.

Everything in college athletics is coach related. If you find and keep top coaches, you will do well. Alabama was not as an elite program before Saban. OSU has dropped a little since Meyer left. Florida, FSU, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Michigan are all traditional football schools and can’t do squat without a great coach. Texas hasn’t had a great coach since when and they haven’t done anything in how long?

Even the non blue blood schools that have had a bit of success over the past decade have done so with a coach that fits their culture and stays. Okie State, Mich State all has/had great success (MSU winning the Big10 and even making the playoffs) but how long does it last? MSU is starting to struggle without Dantonio and how will Okie St do when Gundy calls it quits?

I really like Cinci and hope they do well. They do have challenges, though. While I understand that Cincinnati is kind of a separate entity apart from the rest of Ohio, they will never replace or even come close to OSU as top dog in the state. They are stuck in between the Big10 and SEC regions and are entering a league that just lost their top dogs as far as name recognition and draw.

The biggest issue Cinci has to overcome is how will they replace Fickle (arguably the best coach they have ever had). If they can replace him, they will do very well. If not? No amount of recruiting hotbeds and income will help and they will find the going much tougher in the Big12 than the AAC.

 

[TheCatsLair]

Everything in college athletics is coach related. If you find and keep top coaches, you will do well. Alabama was not as an elite program before Saban. OSU has dropped a little since Meyer left. Florida, FSU, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Michigan are all traditional football schools and can’t do squat without a great coach. Texas hasn’t had a great coach since when and they haven’t done anything in how long?

Even the non blue blood schools that have had a bit of success over the past decade have done so with a coach that fits their culture and stays. Okie State, Mich State all has/had great success (MSU winning the Big10 and even making the playoffs) but how long does it last? MSU is starting to struggle without Dantonio and how will Okie St do when Gundy calls it quits?

I really like Cinci and hope they do well. They do have challenges, though. While I understand that Cincinnati is kind of a separate entity apart from the rest of Ohio, they will never replace or even come close to OSU as top dog in the state. They are stuck in between the Big10 and SEC regions and are entering a league that just lost their top dogs as far as name recognition and draw.

The biggest issue Cinci has to overcome is how will they replace Fickle (arguably the best coach they have ever had). If they can replace him, they will do very well. If not? No amount of recruiting hotbeds and income will help and they will find the going much tougher in the Big12 than the AAC.

I agree, I look at Cincinnati as being in a similar situation as Michigan State in Michigan. The difference is Cincinnati has done well without Ohio State and the Big Ten. Still, name recognition aside, the Big 12 signing a huge deal with great exposure and putting a team in the national championship game negates a ton of that issue. Coaching hasn't been an issue at Cincinnati, during that 20 year stretch they have had Mark Dantonio, Brian Kelly, Butch Jones and Luke Fickell. Even Scott Satterfield is a really good coach, he had Louisville ranked in the Top 25 last season. The Big 12 will be interesting to say the least. It is the only "blue collar" P5 conference.

 

[Rufus]

Cincinnati has a lot working against it. If you look at football historically, it’s not a top program. The Bearcats were founding members of the MAC and played MAC level football for decades. In fact, Miami (Ohio) is still to this day an annual rivalry game and UC plays every other year at Miami’s small MAC stadium.

UC has a weak Olympic sports program. One of the worst, if not the worst, in the P5. They have had great basketball teams, but outside of that and a recent stretch in football, they have no legacy.

Fans in the state of Ohio don’t really care about UC outside of the immediate Cincinnati area. Granted, they had the most interest the last few years, but only because Ohio State’s darling Luke Fickell was the coach. He’s gone now. Ohio State will never see UC as competition. In fact, you never even see the teams play home and home. Once in awhile, OSU sends UC money to come play at the Shoe just like MAC teams, but that’s it. OSU basketball never plays at UC.

Now having said all of that, none of it matters. UC won because they are in the Big 12 now. They caught lightning in a bottle with Luke Fickell and ended up in the best conference they ever could hope for. Maybe they can improve competitively with more money. Maybe not. It really doesn’t matter because UC is a winner in the game of conference realignment and that’s all that matters.

 

[dayooper]

I agree, I look at Cincinnati as being in a similar situation as Michigan State in Michigan. The difference is Cincinnati has done well without Ohio State and the Big Ten. Still, name recognition aside, the Big 12 signing a huge deal with great exposure and putting a team in the national championship game negates a ton of that issue. Coaching hasn't been an issue at Cincinnati, during that 20 year stretch they have had Mark Dantonio, Brian Kelly, Butch Jones and Luke Fickell. Even Scott Satterfield is a really good coach, he had Louisville ranked in the Top 25 last season. The Big 12 will be interesting to say the least. It is the only "blue collar" P5 conference.

Michigan and Michigan State a very unique dichotomy in the state. U of M is the flagship school and the most recognized brand nationally (and internationally as well) MSU has more alumni living in Michigan. Only 25% of the student population at Michigan is actually from the state of Michigan while just short of 75% of MSU students are instate. In the large suburban populations of SE Michigan, MSU has more fans than Michigan does. Almost all of MSU alumni would never root for Michigan and vice versa. We are rivals to the core.

I could be wrong, but I would guess that there isn’t the hatred between OSU and Cinci. I would go further and say that many Cinci alumni are also OSU fans and many OSU alumni/fans don’t put Cinci on their radar. Honestly, after Michigan, I couldn’t tell you who is OSU’s rivals. I don’t think it’s Cinci, though.

As far as coaches go, you have had some good coaches, but they all have gone on to bigger things. In fact, every one has gone on to either the Big10, SEC or Notre Dame. You have to keep those coaches and not let them get away.

 

[dayooper]

@TheCatsLair I think you should be excited and predicting you could compete for the Big12 championship/more! I would if I were in your shoes. I believe Cinci does belong in the Big12, more so than many schools steady in the P5.

 

[Slasher]

I think the new schools going to the Big 12 will be in for an awakening as the competition will be much harder week in and week out. Don't get me wrong, the AAC was a good football conference, but clearly a step down from the P5 conferences. Part of the reason Cincinnati was so successful is that they didn't play many P5 teams. Look at the comparison of 2 schools we know well that had almost identical Sagarin ratings and ranks although one had a worse record:

Cincinnati ranked #48, Sagarin rating of 74.73, record 9-4, schedule rank = 73
West Virginia ranked #49, Sagarin rating of 74.44, record 5-7, schedule rank = 11

If Cincinnati played WVU's schedule do you think they would have finished the season at 9-4?

Sagarin schedule rank over past 10 years:

Cincinnati = 80.3 (toughest = 67)
West Virginia = 25.8 (toughest = 8)

Some other metrics:

Cincinnati record over the past 10 years against current P5 schools excluding the new additions to the Big 12: 11-12

Cincinnati bowl record over the past 10 years: 2-6

Fickell knew that repeating his performance at Cincinnati over his tenure when they moved to the Big 12 would be very difficult and decided to move on.

UCF? 11-13 against the P5 in the last 10 years.

Houston? 10-9 against the P5 in the last 10 years.

This is a super lazy narrative. G5 schools are typically on the short end of the stick when it comes to games against P5. Most of them are on the road and typically they're schools with huge fanbases/resources because you're a buy game.

Who did Cincinnati play in that 11-12 record?
@ Arkansas, Indiana, @Indiana, @NotreDame, UCLA, @UCLA, @Ohio State (x2), @Michigan, @Purdue, Purdue, @Illinois

Bowl games: Boston College (W), Virginia Tech (W), Georgia (L), Alabama (L), Louisville (L)

So Cincinnati played 9 true road games and had 3 home games. They've played at the two B1G heavyweights at Notre Dame and at Arkansas. How many teams win a lot of those games?

In bowls they played Georgia and Alabama, beat BC and VT and lost to Louisville with no coaches.

 

[UConnJim]

True, but their resources and recruiting will also increase greatly. You saw how it helped Cincinnati, TCU and Utah when they moved into power conferences. So I always felt that comparing the schedules of a G5 and a P5 was severely flawed. Would Cincinnati have a 9-4 record with West Virginia's schedule? Possibly, if you they had the Big 12 money and resources. Unlike West Virginia, Cincinnati is in the middle of an elite recruiting hotbed. Also you're missing the point of the original post. The four new Big 12 schools have strong football cache compared to the Four Corner schools. Bowl records really don't matter considering many players don't play and it is more or less an exhibition, and records against P5 when you're a G5 kind of proves the point. Those are pretty good records when your school is working on a 6 to 7 million dollar per year budget compared to a 40 million dollar budget.


Also from all reports Luke Fickell was a Big Ten guy so he likely left because it was a top Big Ten job. He actually signed an extension last year it just so happened that the Wisconsin job opened up. Cincinnati excelled when they moved into a conference like the Big East and even though it's stronger Cincinnati will likely excel in the Big 12 now that they can recruit Ohio with a P5 tag and resources, the same goes for Houston and UCF. But I think that the new schools will be fine because unlike most G5 schools they attempted to act like a P5 school and have a strong foundation to build on.

Look, it's great that Cincinnati got a ticket out of the AAC to the Big 12, but you are not correct.

First, we'll start with spending. Cincinnati is like UConn - high institutional subsidies. In FY 2020 and FY 2021, Cincinnati had institutional subsidies of $30.4 million and $27.1 million respectively. And, that is with underfunding Olympic sports. So, the $20 million increase in revenues from the Big 12 and the increase in travel costs will still leave Cincinnati requiring institutional subsidies. It's not clear how much additional funds are going to be available for investing unless they continue the high subsidies.

We have two recent examples of schools moving from the G5 to P5, Utah and TCU and one example of a school that moved to the Big 12, West Virginia. All three were doing well before moving conferences. Their first 2 season conference records? Utah: 4-5 and 3-6. TCU: 4-5 and 2-7. WVU: 4-5 and 2-7. Expect some rough first seasons.

And you say the 4 new adds to the Big 12 have more "football cache" than the Four Corner schools? Here are the all time football winning percentage ranks and all-time top 25 rankings:

Four Corners:
24. Arizona State (17)
27. Utah (11)
44. Colorado (20)
56. Arizona (7)

Four Big 12 adds:
34. BYU (19)
52. UCF (5)
63. Houston (15)
74. Cincinnati (8)

When I look at the list of schools, I would rank the top 4 football schools as Arizona St., Utah, BYU, and Colorado which is 3 of the 4 Corner schools.