2018 OT Tourney (1st Round) - Conference Networks vs. Facilities Arms Race

[TyphonInc]

This I don't believe.
What killed the Big 12 was all the schools (that could) trying to do what was best for themselves without regard for the others. Be it TV, movement, whatever.
A&M was trying to get to the SEC. Mizzou to the Big Ten. Texas to the Big Ten even before the XII happened.
Had they all put the same energy into the league (partnership) they were in, it might still be what it was. Instead, we have what we have.

+1, Texas just happened to be the most successful at being greedy.

[Hoss]

Well, I suppose if by "greedy" you mean acting to ensure their universities didn't get left behind in what would could be a non-P5 conference, then I guess Colorado and Nebraska are guilty as charged. ATM had issues with the LHN that lead to bailing out, but I suppose that could be interpreted as them being greedy as well. Somehow. 

Missou has wanted to bolt since forever and would have no matter what else occurred, but they were replaceable. 

[FearlessF]

Texas killed the big12

laughing OL that this simple post was edited

[betarhoalphadelta]

Missou has wanted to bolt since forever and would have no matter what else occurred, but they were replaceable.

The biggest problem the Big 12 has is that nobody is replaceable...
...because there's nobody to replace them with.
Nobody is going to leave the SEC or B1G, or PAC, for the B12. The SEC and B1G are huge moneymaking conferences. The PAC needs to figure out its money situation, but it's a stable conference and the AZ schools [the only schools for which it makes any geographic sense absent CO/UT] are not likely to leave the PAC for the B12.
Unless the ACC gets decimated and you have multiple schools looking for a home, nobody in the ACC is going to voluntarily leave the ACC for anything except the B1G or SEC. They're not going to catch the falling knife by trying to revive the B12. 

So who is the B12 going to take? CSU? Boise State? Try to find a way to shoehorn BYU in? 
Nobody they want is trying to join.

[Entropy]

laughing OL that this simple post was edited

I wrote more, but wanted to be "nice" today.  =)

[Entropy]

The biggest problem the Big 12 has is that nobody is replaceable...
...because there's nobody to replace them with.
Nobody is going to leave the SEC or B1G, or PAC, for the B12. The SEC and B1G are huge moneymaking conferences. The PAC needs to figure out its money situation, but it's a stable conference and the AZ schools [the only schools for which it makes any geographic sense absent CO/UT] are not likely to leave the PAC for the B12.
Unless the ACC gets decimated and you have multiple schools looking for a home, nobody in the ACC is going to voluntarily leave the ACC for anything except the B1G or SEC. They're not going to catch the falling knife by trying to revive the B12.

So who is the B12 going to take? CSU? Boise State? Try to find a way to shoehorn BYU in?
Nobody they want is trying to join.

why join a conference that would break up at the snap of Texas' fingers..

[Hoss]

The biggest problem the Big 12 has is that nobody is replaceable...
...because there's nobody to replace them with.

Nobody they want is trying to join.

Today, I might agree. In 2010 when the league still had Nebraska, ATM and Colorado in the fold, Missou was replaceable. It would have cost them some points in the St Louis TV market, but maybe you make that up with a strategic pick from outside the P5. That is maybe less a statement about the attraction of the Big 12 than one about the value of Missou, but the end result is the same. 

[847badgerfan]

Had everyone stayed except Mizzou, assuming they finally got what they wanted (into the B1G), I think Arky may have considered moving back into the fold with its old SWC mates.

That's about it though. If not, then perhaps Utah would have been a good add.

[Hoss]

It would have been TCU. Or SMU. Or UTEP. Or Austin Senior High School, before Arkansas or Utah. 

[utee94]

Some of you are trolling.

The rest are complete idiots.

That's about all that needs to be said here.

[Hoss]

Fake news!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll vote for the one that at least sort of helps even the playing field.

Don't each of these somewhat accomplish that?
For the most part, the networks have evenly fattened the pockets of conference mates. And we seem so far removed from the facilities arms race heyday (which P5 school doesn't have 2-4 shiny and massive buildings central to football these days?) that the old boys are simply tidying up what they already had (paying for fancier new versions to replace the fanciness that had become slightly out of date) while the new money is catching up in a big way (replacing dinginess with new-age fanciness).
There's no building a helmet can construct these days to "change the game" versus other helmets or to uphold a heavy advantage versus the non-helmets. So all new growth, on average, narrows the gap rather than widening it.
That doesn't mean there aren't still arms races. The new arms races seem to be about other things -- as a Michigan fan, I think that assistant salaries and the size/quality of football experts on staff to sit in desks and do film-watching/spreadsheet- or analytics-magic are part of this. I also think trips abroad could become part of this.
We should also note that not every A.D. equally returns their football revenue to football. Some are giving large fractions back to non-revenue sports. Which is almost a form of charity. Not technically, as these are supposedly non-profit entities, but if you were to compare, e.g., the extent to which the Big Ten funds track&field, softball, and swimming facility construction versus that of the SEC, I'd expect a significant difference (in both raw terms and in terms of the fraction of gross revenue diverted to non-revenue construction).