That’s probably not true, but that’s the perception. Meanwhile, the Pac-12 has been so irrelevant in terms of putting teams in the national title race recently that the assumption nationally is that Pac-12 teams can’t reach the same level as the best from other leagues. This is especially true if some former Pac-12 schools join. So perhaps it’s the perfect time for a rebrand. Anyone who has watched the league in the past few years knows it has become one of the most schematically diverse conferences. The later years of the Big 12 are associated with wide-open offenses (usually from the Air Raid tree) and very little defense, but that’s an unfair characterization now. (As a Kansas State fan pointed out when he got mad about something I said regarding Texas and Oklahoma on Pardon My Take, the members of the old Big 8 have been together much longer, but that’s irrelevant to everyone except maybe Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Oklahoma State fans.) The biggest brands in those early years of the Big 12 were Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska and Texas A&M, and all of those schools are or will be gone. The Big 12 is a relatively new (for college football) brand that began play in 1996. So treating it like an entirely new league might be the best plan. If the leagues were to merge or one were to take from the other, the new product really wouldn’t resemble what we think of as the Big 12 or as the Pac-10/12. Joseph makes a good point about rebranding. At this point, a lot of entities are exploring a lot of options. What makes this so interesting is that when Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff makes the same address at Pac-12 media days, he could say the same thing and also be telling the truth. Nothing is imminent, but we’re working hard to make sure that we position the Big 12 in the best possible way on a go-forward basis.” “People understand the direction of the Big 12, and we’re exploring those levels of interest. “I think it’s fair to say I’ve received a lot of phone calls, a lot of interest,” Yormark said Wednesday at Big 12 media days. But the obvious downside of that is that short of a full merger - which would create a 22-team league - some schools would get left by the wayside depending on which league took control. 3 behind the Big Ten and SEC in terms of per-school revenue. I do think some manner of consolidation between the two leagues would help create a conference that could forge a new media rights deal that would land at No. BYU, Iowa State, Houston, Kansas State, TCU and Texas Tech all feel capable of putting high quality teams on the field on a regular basis. But the Big 12 feels as if it has a deeper middle. Both leagues have programs ( Oregon and Washington/ Oklahoma State, Baylor, Cincinnati, UCF) that seem capable of regularly being top-10 caliber with the right leadership. The lineup the Big 12 expects to have after Oklahoma and Texas leaves feels like a more fun, more entertaining league than the lineup the Pac-12 (Pac-10 again?) would have, assuming no other changes besides USC and UCLA leaving. Would a “rebranding” of the conference (ditch the name Big 12, which has been through the wringer in realignment) as a more nationwide conference offer any more appeal to the Utah, Colorado, or Arizona schools? - Joseph The product in football and basketball for the “new” Big 12 has been great on the field and should continue to be. The vibe I hear from commentary in the Pac-12 about schools joining the Big 12 is a step down in perception. (Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for length and clarity.) The Big 12, according to new commissioner Brett Yormark, is “open for business,” and you have questions…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |