This was posted by a supposedly insider, MSMoose, on the Cincy 247 board:
The Day After!
After a rather lengthy dinner and post dinner chat, I have a few updates for you from last evening.
Areas where the Big 12 institutions will focus when reviewing expansion candidates will be;
Strength of the institutions athletic department. More precisely, financials, leadership and staff, institution and private support, achievments, facilities, strategic plan, marketing, athletic academic support and success, cost of attendance.
Fan base size. More precisely the logistical makeup of the fan base (it’s reach), it’s cultural makeup, it’s willingness to support, it’s financial support, it’s national makeup. Finally, the alumni makeup, where are they, do they travel, demographics, etc.
Media market. More precisely an institutions local market, regional market, and national market.
Institutional reputation. More precisely, accomplishments, national and international recognition, staff makeup, funding, endowment, private support, research reputation, etc.
Academic strength. More precisely the measurements of an institutions academics per its independent divisions. For instance, an institutions medical school is ranked high with much success, but their engineering school is not.
The Big 12 has essentially created (3) lists of candidates for expansion;
The first list are those institutions who meet most or all the Big 12 membership criteria, need time to grow (2-5 years), and become P5 institutions. You can think of these institutions as those who have sufficient athletics funding, Tier 1 research institutions, academic success, athletic culture, and membership to the Big 12 would raise their status sooner than later.
The second list are those institutions who have athletic culture, however would not be considered as full member. These institutions could be institutions with football culture, but lack full athletics culture, or fail to meet specific Big 12 criteria in the form of Research and or Academics.
The third list are institutions that meet some of the Big 12 membership criteria, need time to grow (5-8 years), and become P5 institutions. These are institutions with high growth potential, membership to the Big 12 will allow these institutions in 5-8 years, to be P5 type institutions and still grow.
Institutions like Cincinnati and UCONN make the first list. While institutions like Boise State or UCF make the second list. Institutions like Memphis or Temple make the third list.
These lists are important in terms of negotiations, because if the Big 12 decides 4 is the right number for expansion two levels of candidates may be asked to join. So for a institution on the first list, the institution may propose a lesser time frame for the institutions transition to full membership. Where a institution on the second list, may have a transition period, however at a reduced full membership amount. Finally, a institution on the third list may be forced to offer concessions to the Big 12 for membership. Keep in mind the ball is the institutions hands when it comes to enticing the Big 12 for membership, however the Big 12 also must keep the big picture in mind.
Western based expansion does not generate short term or long term benefits, unless one considers partial membership such as football only. The money is not there when you talk to the network folks, which as we know is hurting the PAC 12 now, and long term. That said, membership to Boise State, and or BYU could be enticing, and profitable by brand for the Big 12.
Long term Eastward expansion is the desire of most Big 12 members. Institutions like Cincinnati and UCONN are great institutions, which with Big 12 membership will become quality long term P5 members. Institutions like UCF and Memphis have great potential, although they lack Big 12 Academic qualities.
Institutions unlike Cincinnati will have to present proposals showing not only their Athletic plans, but their Institutional plans in terms of Academics, Research, Endownment, etc.
Right now, I believe list 1 candidates Cincinnati and UCONN are 11 and 12 after discussions last night. I know I said Memphis as 12 prior, but last night changed my mind considerably. Then after 11 and 12, you have list 3 institutions like UCF and Memphis versus list 2 institutions BYU and Boise State. Ultimately, if the Big 12 President’s are not confident with list 3 candidates proposals, they can fall back on list 2 candidates who help them now.
I will post more in a few days, I have meetings in New York to attend to.
Go Bearcats!
All institutions who desire candidacy will need to make a formal proposal to the Big 12. Interviews with the Big 12 (Expansion Committee, I will call it) will follow. The Big 12 BOT will then discuss candidates via teleconference and also have access to contact candidates on their own. The Big 12 BOT may then decide to negotiate with specific institutions, or they may offer proposals to specific institutions. A lot depends on the institution proposals, and which direction the Big BOT chooses to proceed with.
The Big 12 is looking for a 60-90 day period to complete this work. At the same time, expansion will also affect how the Big 12 creates divisions, scheduling, etc. so a lot of factors are in play. Scheduling will also have a negative affect on BYU, in trying to terminate numerous scheduling agreements in such a short period of time. BYU has so many issues to overcome, my colleagues and I don't see any possibility of them succeeding.
Gotta run, but just want to pass along something I heard today. I can't corroborate this, however I will try my best during my travels to do so.
I am told Big 12 Consultants presented an alternative to the LHN, that would prove quite lucrative to the Big 12, assuming expansion to key markets and 14 members is agreed upon. Whether the network is linear or not, I do not know.
Stay tuned.