hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 6, 2011 11:27:29 GMT -5
I'm surprised there wasn't a thread about this already, but apparently, TCU isn't coming to the Big East afterall, opting for the more regionally appropriate, Big "12."
They were talking about it on the lunchtime sports show just now. I missed the very beginning, but the hosts -- local hacks, admittedly -- are talking like the new move to the Big 12 is a done deal.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,200
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 6, 2011 11:44:36 GMT -5
I'm surprised there wasn't a thread about this already, but apparently, TCU isn't coming to the Big East afterall, opting for the more regionally appropriate, Big "12." They were talking about it on the lunchtime sports show just now. I missed the very beginning, but the hosts -- local hacks, admittedly -- are talking like the new move to the Big 12 is a done deal. It's discussed in the Pitt/SU to the ACC thread. Another example of a university president talking out of both sides of his mouth, but in truth, this makes way more sense for TCU than the BE. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,741
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 6, 2011 11:59:47 GMT -5
Not sure it's a done deal, but three points:
1. TCU is still liable for the $5 million exit fee.
2. Competition wise, it would be unlikely that TCU could ever compete for a BCS bowl bid inthe Big 12 than it could in the Big East. With Texas, OU, TTech, etc. ahead of them, TCU could be another Baylor in short order.
3. If I'm SMU, I'm calling John Marinatto as we speak.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 7, 2011 11:14:09 GMT -5
I think it's almost comical how these "severance fees" are almost blanketly dismissed as unimportant in inconsequential. "Oh ... 5 million ... not problem." Yeah, I know that it will probably, ultimately get covered by the new conference, one way or another. But still, isn't it somewhat disturbing that such pools of money are whimscally passes around, with little or no thought? I'm not arguing the logic, and I'm sure the revenues from a more successful conference will dwarf those one time penalties. But still ...
Also, to me, the Big 12 isn't reall the one holding the cards, so to speak, but they are the ones who will push the boulder off the edge of the cliff. From everything I've heard, they can't even decide how many teams they want. 10, 12, 14 ... 16? All have been discussed, but nothing seems more likely than the other. You know that the SEC wants 14 or 16. At least we've narrowed it down that much. We know that the Pac 10 wants 12 or 16. Likewise, it's pretty clear that the Big 10 wants 12 or 16. But the "Big 12" ... no one has a clue. Such is the life when the inmates run the asylum, as the saying goes. Texas, in this case, is only one vote, but like my dad said, his vote counts for one more than half the total votes. What I don't see is why the other teams that have some pull, don't see that and take the bull by the horns and make their own decisions. If ... big if ... but if the reports that the Pac 10 would take Ok and Ok State and that the SEC would take Missouri are accurate, then if I'm in their shoes, I'm out of there for greener pastures. Then Texas would be forced to do their chunk of the work. Seeing as how they are getting more than their share of the money, I think that's only fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 7, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -5
|
|
