Why not Big 14 instead of Big 12?

[MikeWaters]

What are the economics of the Big12 adding BYU and Utah?

On the negative side, it means two more mouths to feed.

What are the positives?

[Indy Coug]

More negatives: very unbalanced conference scheduling.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

More negatives: very unbalanced conference scheduling.

You would play 6 divisional foes and 2 non-divisional foes. I get the argument. But 5 and 3 is unbalanced as well if you ask me.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What are the economics of the Big12 adding BYU and Utah?

On the negative side, it means two more mouths to feed.

What are the positives?

Positive:

Greater region of penetration.
Allows for additional bowl tie-in to bowls in the regions of new teams.
Greater conference size increases the chance that two teams are chosen for the BCS.

[jay santos]

I don't know Big XII that much, but I assume everyone in the north wants to play in Texas and have access to the Texas recruiting market. Adding two would decrease chances to do that.

Big XII revenues/12 compared to Big XIV revenues/14

I highly doubt the latter could ever beat former on that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't know Big XII that much, but I assume everyone in the north wants to play in Texas and have access to the Texas recruiting market. Adding two would decrease chances to do that.

Big XII revenues/12 compared to Big XIV revenues/14

I highly doubt the latter could ever beat former on that.

How about vindictiveness against the Pac 10 and preventing the Pac 10 from having decent teams to expand to?

I would assume BYU and Utah would both be in the North. Which two teams would join the south? Kansas and KSU?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What are the economics of the Big12 adding BYU and Utah?

On the negative side, it means two more mouths to feed.

What are the positives?

Why not 16, instead of divisions have 4 quadrents of 4 that roatate into two divisions every other year.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

How about vindictiveness against the Pac 10 and preventing the Pac 10 from having decent teams to expand to?

I would assume BYU and Utah would both be in the North. Which two teams would join the south? Kansas and KSU?

Kansas wouldn't want to be in the South, then they would have to play Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech. Bye bye BCS.

Winning the North is slightly harder than winning the MWC most years. This year similar to winning the Sun Belt.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest

Kansas wouldn't want to be in the South, then they would have to play Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech. Bye bye BCS.

Winning the North is slightly harder than winning the MWC most years. This year similar to winning the Sun Belt.

Colorado and Nebraska are down. KSU too. If those programs tick up, then facing them, plus Kansas and Missouri, that's a tough road.

OU is really up since Stoops took over, and TU as well with Mack.

But it's not always been the case.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Colorado and Nebraska are down. KSU too. If those programs tick up, then facing them, plus Kansas and Missouri, that's a tough road.

OU is really up since Stoops took over, and TU as well with Mack.

But it's not always been the case.

Colorado isn't coming back under Hawkins so there is at least a couple more years. Something tells me that Pelini will start using the need his own players line next year when Nebraska sucks.

If you have a decent top 25 type team the North is a cake walk for the next few years, as both Kansas an Missouri proved.