Skip to content

Sorry BYU, but Big 12 is sticking with 10

NCAA Football - Oklahoma vs Texas - October 8, 2005

BYU head coach Bronco Mendenall may have to keep on waiting for any call to come from the Big 12. That is because the Big 12 apparently has no interest in even discussing expansion, for now at least.

According to Brett McMurphy of, the Big 12 has had no talk about expansion in recent months. This comes as little surprise given the solid place the conference appears to be settling into after the multiple rounds of musical chairs in conference realignment the past few years and with the move into the new College Football Playoff era and the age of autonomy. This stance on conference membership has not changed in two years.

“Expansion is one thing we’re not talking about,” West Virginia Athletics Director Oliver Luck said to McMurphy. And would the conference bother with the discussion?

The Big 12 has found a way to survive just fine by adjusting the way schools handle media rights. Conference scheduling is easy with a full round-robin style format. The Big 12 has learned that a conference championship game is nice, but is not a requirement to remain among the power conferences. Unless a school from another power conference decides to leave its conference and asks for the Big 12 for consideration, the pool of attractive and worthwhile options for the Big 12 are just not out there. For now, the conference is fine looking for ways to work with other conferences as well.

One of the big unknowns though remains just how the College Football Playoff selection committee will operate, specifically how they view the worth of a conference championship game when it comes time to determine which four teams are chosen to compete for the national championship. Odds are the lack of a conference championship game could end up being a mild hurdle for some Big 12 contender at some point, but it does not appear as though that will be enough of a factor to keep the Big 12 out of the championship picture if a worthy candidate is in the mix. However, if at some point the conference does feel the lack of a championship game is enough of a factor holding the Big 12 back from the championship stage, that discussion will surely pop up at least in passing.

The Big 12 is not going to expand just to expand. Furthermore, the Big 12 is not likely to expand just by one school, even if just for football membership. That will leave BYU evaluating other options for the time being.

Permalink 33 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big 12 Conference, BYU Cougars, Independents, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
33 Responses to “Sorry BYU, but Big 12 is sticking with 10”
  1. 8to80texansblog says: Jun 11, 2014 12:31 PM

    Translation: Patterson and Texas said no.

  2. jkulha86 says: Jun 11, 2014 1:07 PM

    The Big 12, why not change the name back to Southwest Conference?

  3. mogogo1 says: Jun 11, 2014 1:18 PM

    Nothing weirder than the Big 12 having 10 teams while the Big 10 has 12 and will soon have even more than that.

  4. mcjon22 says: Jun 11, 2014 1:23 PM

    Should have grabbed Florida State and Clemson when they had the chance.


    Oklahoma and Texas should have bolted for the PAC 12 when they had there chance.

    I don’t see the Big 12 being able to bring in a big name program anytime soon, if ever.

  5. jkulha86 says: Jun 11, 2014 1:26 PM

    FSU and Clemson would’ve made no sense in the BIG 12, and Oklahoma wasn’t going to move without Oklahoma State moving also. Louisville would’ve made some sense for the Big 12, but now they’re entering the ACC.

  6. thefiesty1 says: Jun 11, 2014 1:26 PM

    DeLos has left the building but he has not left Patterson or Bowlsby out of ear shot. Someday someone with a reasonable mind (12 teams and conference championship game) is the best thing for everyone.

  7. chunkala says: Jun 11, 2014 1:38 PM

    Will this BYU story ever end? They missed their chance with their ridiculous demands. Case closed, until some major seismic event happens to college football.

  8. musketmaniac says: Jun 11, 2014 3:18 PM

    I miss all east football. The Big 12 is better than the big east. but the big east wasn’t all Eastern Football.

  9. scottmad says: Jun 11, 2014 3:56 PM

    BYU just needs to shut it down…they had a decent run but that institution needs to focus its resources on the Church.

  10. dougwantstoramble says: Jun 11, 2014 4:18 PM

    Scotmad, BYU is a religious institution. Thus, flocking the sheep in anyway possible is their goal. Do you really thing they would give up football?

  11. planecrashguy says: Jun 11, 2014 5:26 PM

    I think part of this is anti-LDS sentiment in Bible-Belt areas of the league, particularly Texas. Sad really. BYU black-listed in both the B12 and P12 for religious reasons.

  12. andynormile says: Jun 11, 2014 6:08 PM

    If it doesn’t expand soon the Big 12(10) is gonna get left behind

  13. bigdawg24 says: Jun 11, 2014 7:25 PM

    I am sooooo glad Mizzou is out of the Texas 10 and in the SEC!

  14. iwishwvuwouldbeatbama says: Jun 11, 2014 10:40 PM

    Its so funny that all the Texas fans think the league revolves around them. Funny they are the fourth best team in In Texas now behind A&M, Baylor, and Tech. TCU is nipping at there heels! You guys talk and act like your Bamma? TOO FUNNY!

  15. ajarkoski says: Jun 12, 2014 12:09 AM

    Sitting and watching the football world pass you by is not smart. Look what sitting on your hands to the former Big East. Maybe Baylor and Oklahoma St thinks about SEC. Or Kansas St and West Virginia move on. Unless this is a smokescreen or they change their decision not to expand at least to 12 team, I think the Big 12 will not be apart of the future of college football.

  16. coolhorn46 says: Jun 12, 2014 1:28 AM

    I’m not a fan of the Big XII, and I wasn’t even when Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, and agricultural were in it.

    I don’t think UT and OU are in the Big XII for the long run, but they’re in it now, and all things considered, and given what the conference has gone through, it’s pretty stable compared to the last few years.

    Does that mean every team in the XII is happy? Nope, and here’s a clue…I doubt every team in any conference is happy. Now, to the question of expansion…who is out there that the Big XII can add that makes any competitive and financial sense? The easy answer?…nobody. West Virginia’s on an island and needs a travel partner, but the only one that made sense, Louisville, is headed to the ACC. There are some schools out there that, with Big XII membership, might could become big time, but that’s betting on the come, and I don’t see any other conference, save possibly the ACC, doing that. Why should the Big XII? BYU? Please…what would they add to the Big XII? Seriously…I see no benefit to adding the Cougs.

    Hayden Fry, after taking the Iowa job, said coaches should always want to coach at a place whose name begins with “The University of…” The same holds true with Big XII expansion, and none of those schools are out there right now.

    By the way, it’s not Texas’ conference. UT has been down in football ever since Mack Brown went into a funk after losing the championship to ‘Bama…and it’s gonna take Charlie Strong some time to get the ship righted. As for Steve Patterson, he had nothing to do with the conference deciding not to expand. He’s been way too busy trying to get things fixed in Austin. I’m sure he will involve himself in expansion matters, either adding to the Big XII or UT and some other schools moving to another conference, when the time is right. The time is NOT right right now.

  17. txstatebobcats1868 says: Jun 12, 2014 10:55 AM

    Even though it looks like they have no chance for an invite, I bet it would be interesting to see the rivalries that could evolve with the other religious schools like Baylor and TCU already have..
    like BYU vs TCU and BYU vs Baylor… I would be willing to bet that would draw some eyes.

  18. txstatebobcats1868 says: Jun 12, 2014 10:57 AM

    To further expand on my last comment, as being raised Catholic, I enjoy watching the Irish whip up on the cougars of byu… something tells me I’m not the only christian that would enjoy yearly games of these religious universities battling it out on the gridiron

  19. uffdatx says: Jun 12, 2014 10:59 AM

    I don’t believe it is for religious reasons the PAC12 doesn’t want BYU. Any top conference, including the PAC12, would love to have Norte Dame and last I checked they are a religious school. Granted they are more flexible about competing on Sundays. I believe it is more of a political thing. BYU is very conservative and Stanford and Cal are very liberal, and liberals don’t like to play with those who don’t unconditionally accept and agree with their points of view. Most of the Big12 schools are fairly conservative. They are looking at the bottom line and adding BYU doesn’t move the financial needle far enough to justify their addition to the conference.

  20. dmvtransplant says: Jun 12, 2014 11:41 AM

    @ ajarkoski

    Sitting and watching the football world pass you by is not smart. Look what sitting on your hands to the former Big East.


    A Big East team just beat Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl.

  21. 8to80texansblog says: Jun 12, 2014 2:34 PM

    Is that fair to give the Big East credit for that? I don’t believe that UCF ever played a game with a Big East patch on the jersey….

  22. musketmaniac says: Jun 12, 2014 3:59 PM

    coolhorn, we do feel like were on a bit of an island, Louisville would have been a great dance party. Mountaineer fan are grateful to be in big 12. But we all know it’s not the ideal location for us. I think the league should expect bigger things from us this year. It’s time for us to step up.

  23. coolhorn46 says: Jun 12, 2014 5:24 PM

    I realize it doesn’t make geographic sense, but I like that the XII added WVU. I think they bring a lot to the conference, and I would love to see the Big XII revisit the decision not to pursue Louisville. I know the Cards are headed to the ACC, but talk doesn’t hurt, and IF the Cards could be added, BYU would make more sense as the 12th team.

  24. amosalanzostagg says: Jun 12, 2014 8:23 PM

    The Big 12 is not a destination conference for a myriad of reasons.

    (1.) It is a Texas (the State, not the University) centric conference with the TV households in Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. TV drives the bus
    now days.

    (2.) UT and OU drive the conference TV ratings wise. Nobody east of the Sabine river could care less about a Baylor TCU contest, much less Kansas Iowa State.

    (3.) The PAC 12 would take UT and OU in 2 seconds IF

    (A.) The LHN is under PAC-12 procedures and guidelines, and
    (B.) OU can get away from the Oklahoma legislature stricture of having both Oklahoma schools in the same conference (OU and OSU).

    (4.) The absence of a conference network. “View on demand” is here and is only going to get bigger in the next five years. Deloss saw this a decade ago. That is why he
    developed the LHN.

    (5.) TV drives revenue. The conferences in the Eastern and Central time zones will
    dominate. Mountain and Pacific will rule their time zones, but lose valuable TV
    households and exposure with 7 pm PT kickoffs when parties and Saturday nighttime activities are at full bore at 10pm on the east coast. Games become background noise rather than an event. That is why the PAC-12 is entertaining 11 am
    kickoffs to compete with the B1G, the ACC and the SEC for butts on the couch or at the sports bar stool.

    BYU made the choice to go independent. They may have to just live with their
    decision. The best scenario that I can see for the PAC-12 is to have Texas, OU, Iowa State, AND BYU be extended offers to join.

    Don’t laugh with the Iowa State selection. Iowa State is an AAU school that both
    the B1G and the PAC-12 look at for membership. BYU has 30,000 students and a world wide exposure. Texas and OU give the PAC-12 new TV markets.

    That would give the PAC-12 3 major programs out of 4 that are National in scope
    and National in TV households. (USC, Texas, BYU and ND all could have their own
    packages. Texas is only one that pulled the trigger and BYU is LDS driven. USC is under the guidance of the PAC-12. ND has football only with NBC.)

    Enjoy college sports now because these are the good old days. You won’t recognize
    college sports in a mere five years..


  25. coolhorn46 says: Jun 12, 2014 11:40 PM

    A.A. Stagg, we haven’t always agreed on things, but this time, I absolutely agree with everything in your post above.

    I think OU and UT are headed west as soon as some other matters are taken care of, and I think Steve Patterson will be a little more flexible where the LHN is concerned, as long as it doesn’t cut into UT’s revenue. It should also be remembered that ESPN has a huge say in what happens with the LHN too.

    I can see the PAC being interested in Iowa State, but I think KU or Tech would be an easier choice for them, and as for BYU, they’ve already had the chance to add them and said no thanks. Bring OSU along with OU and you’ve solved the Oklahoma legislative problem.

    I think relative to realignment, things will stay pretty quiet for the next three years, but I agree that five years from now, the landscape will look a whole lot different.

  26. amosalanzostagg says: Jun 13, 2014 3:24 PM


    The PAC-12 already nixed Tech and OSU as additions. The PAC-12 said the academics with both schools are “sub par” and they are not even being considered. This was conveyed by the PAC-12 to Texas President Bill Powers when Texas played UCLA on the West Coast several years ago.

    Texas would have to eliminate the LHN or have the $15 million per year payment from ESPN be given to the PAC-12 conference to be distributed among all it’s members. The real sticking point is outright ownership of broadcast content, past, present and future. Texas owns LHN broadcast right for perpetuity, and I don’t see Texas assigning the rights to the PAC-12.

    Although an AAU institution, Kansas is not what the PAC-12 has in mind in TV penetration.
    Both Kansas schools could deliver the Saint Louis and Kansas City TV markets, but Iowa State gives them the same two markets with direct TV access to the upper Midwest, Chicago being paramount.

    The two schools the PAC-12 really wanted was Texas A&M and Missouri, both AAU schools
    to go with Texas and OU. Couple that with Texas refusing to subordinate the LHN to conference control and Texas A&M saying it did not want to go to the PAC-12, and the Big 12
    lost two great institutions in Missouri and A&M and replaced them with inferior (programs,
    not the quality of the schools) additions in WVU and TCU. Neither generated a marked
    increase in TV markets.

    The SEC’s gain in A&M and Missouri paid immediate dividends to the SEC. It gave the SEC
    the Texas and Saint Louis TV markets and helped secure the SEC Network. Within 5 years it is projected to generate in excess of over $40 million PER school per year for SEC member
    institutions. A&M and Missouri paid for their admission from day one.

    The only schools that could compliment the SEC right now would be the addition of OU and OSU. Not Texas, not the Kansas schools. Iowa State and WVU are the best candidates for the
    B1G, given locations. When realignment rears it’s ugly head again, Texas could be on the outside looking in.


  27. jjsooner says: Jun 15, 2014 1:02 PM

    Well the Big 12 may yet still fall apart. Who knows? FSU and Louisville would have been a perfect fit. Go back to 12 teams. Have a CCG and reap the rewards. And they thought 23 million per team was alot? Try 27-30 million per team with these 2 quality additions. No brainer/slam dunk.

  28. amosalanzostagg says: Jun 15, 2014 5:24 PM


    Sorry to bust your bubble, but FSU already turned down the Big 12. Clemson laughed at Texas when Texas approached both FSU and Clemson to join the Big 12.

    When the FSU president announced that he was going to “entertain” discussions, the University Senate (comprised of University professors and administrators) told the University President that they would ask for his immediate resignation.

    The reason? University Departments and Administrators felt a move to the Big 12 was to an “academically inferior” conference.

    You have to remember, Texas approached the ACC to join that conference because the revenue structure was identical to the Big 12. When the conference said “Thanks, but no thanks!”, Texas tried to”poach” Clemson and FSU. That move only miffed off the entire
    conference and reinforced the reality that Texas could care less about the Big 12.

    First, the B1G, then the PAC-12, finally the ACC.

    That is why the Big 12 is NOT a destination conference by quality, top tier programs.

    You can thank Deloss for your current conference situation.


  29. coolhorn46 says: Jun 15, 2014 5:33 PM

    Gotta disagree with you on UT being left out in the cold.

    IF the Horns decide to make a move, they will have options. I wouldn’t be too quick in ruling out the PAC. I do agree that UT would need to make some concessions as far as the LHN is concerned, but I imagine the PAC would meet UT halfway to get them and OU into the conference. OU is no more tied at the hip to OSU than UT and agricultural were, so OU could make a move without OSU if it becomes necessary.

    The SEC would gladly take UT and OU. UT gives that conference pretty much all of the Texas tv market, something it doesn’t have with agricultural.

    Understand, I’m NOT saying a move to either conference is either imminent or guaranteed. I’m only saying that IF UT wants to make a move out of the XII, the Horns won’t lack for destinations.

    All of that being said, UT’s in a good place right now with the XII. The conference is profitable for all of its’ members, most of whom seem relatively satisfied with the status quo, and UT prefers staying where they are, as long as that’s feasible. While there aren’t any great expansion targets right now, IF expansion becomes necessary, who’s to say who might be available five years or so down the road. I have a sneaky suspicion that once Big XII stability is accepted, some other schools will see what conference teams are bringing in, and decide that the XII is NOT a bad option to consider. Realignment is far from over…just quiet for the time being.

  30. amosalanzostagg says: Jun 15, 2014 7:18 PM


    Respectfully, You need to do more homework. The brutal truth on the Big 12 and Texas
    is that the Big 12 is not a destination conference.

    OU and OSU are tied at the hip by the Oklahoma legislature. They have to be in the same conference. That sticking point is one of the reasons that kept them out of the PAC-12.

    Texas doesn’t have the votes for consideration in the SEC. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, both Mississippi schools, Kentucky and Vanderbilt are adamant in not having Texas. Forget Arkansas, A&M and Missouri even thinking of supporting Texas. That is 11 out of 14 schools.

    The move by A&M to the SEC already GAVE the SEC the Texas market. A&M’s move helped secure the SEC Network. A&M and Missouri paid for themselves the first year in the conference. A&M and Missouri will be earning in excess of $40 million a year from the SEC by the end of this decade based solely on their move.

    The B1g and the SEC do not need the University of Texas. They already have what is necessary from the State of Texas, TV markets and recruits.

    No, the best move will be if the University of Texas humbles itself and ditches the LHN
    to the control of a conference but Texas will not give up $15 million a year from ESPN to ANY conference control. The real sticking points are if Texas leaves the Big 12 before it implodes, it’s TV revenue remains with the Big 12, it doesn’t follow them. The second sticking is the ownership of the Texas brand. Texas is not going to give up ownership
    of all it’s past, present and future sport’s broadcast product (TV, social media, internet or radio) to a conference. That was why the LHN was formed as a revenue source for Texas.

    For better or worse, Texas has tied it’s future to a regional conference with no exposure
    on either coast.

    The very latest from the PAC-12 is that they are very comfortable with 12 schools. Texas has an admission problem in that conference as well. Both Arizona schools, both Washington schools, both Oregon schools Utah and Colorado (Remember them?) do NOT want Texas since they would more than likely be assigned to quadrant play with Texas on a regular basis. That’s 8 out of 12 teams. With “View on demand” becoming the next vogue aspect of college sports, the PAC-12 really doesn’t need the University of
    Texas, just PAC-12 alums signing up for “view on demand.”

    The main thing that has killed the Big 12 is the lack of a true conference network.
    The B1G, the PAC-12 and the SEC have theirs, the ACC will have their’s in 2016 at the earliest.

    Watch as conferences like the B1G, PAC-12, and the SEC are making all their respective
    football stadiums have full wi-fi access. Will Texas allow other conference members to even develop wi-fi for their respective stadiums when playing the University of Texas
    since Texas considers any game in which the Longhorns as property of the LHN? The simple answer is no.

    Enjoy college sports now, these are the good old days.


  31. coolhorn46 says: Jun 16, 2014 7:03 AM

    Where you and I disagree is in how we look at things. You look at them now A.A. and I don’t totally disagree with some of your points.

    You say I haven’t done my homework, but I’ve done much more than the average lay fan, and that’s what leads me to my viewpoint, not wishful thinking.

    I’ve read posts by fans on various sites who, for one reason or another, don’t care for UT, buy everything that’s said about them, and predict their imminent demise. Sorry, but that’s just not going to happen. I’m not saying UT will be intransigent regarding the LHN, but the “brand” as you call it is just too popular for any major conference to turn their back on it.

    The power in the SEC, and I suspect in the PAC as well, rests with the commissioner. IF UT approached a commissioner, pick one, and indicated a willingness to talk about realigning, those talks would be held, and if a deal was struck, UT would get the requisite number of votes to make a move.

    Understand this…I’m NOT saying UT is going to initiate any back channel talks. They’re not in a bad situation as is, and while I agree that the Big XII isn’t a destination conference now, that may not be the case five or ten years down the road. I do agree that UT is not willing to test the G-O-R, so they’re gonna stay in the Big XII for at least its’ duration. UT never has stood in the way of a Big XII conference network…that was the recently departed TAMU, and if member schools wanted to pitch in their third tier rights for a network, UT would go along, as long as the LHN isn’t affected. Members don’t want that though…they’re making a lot more money marketing their own third tier rights, and there-in is one reason the Big XII is much more stable and could become a destination conference. Everybody makes a lot of money.

    The conference is not going to expand unless it needs to because of the new playoff arrangement, and that doesn’t seem to be the case. The conference certainly isn’t gonna expand with any schools that don’t bring anything to the table financially, and right now, there aren’t any of those schools out there.

    You say the PAC is happy at twelve, and I have no reason to doubt you. You shouldn’t doubt me that the XII is happy at ten teams, and perfectly prepared to move forward with that number. UT is in a conference, and the LHN isn’t threatened. I’ve said realignment isn’t finished, and I don’t think it is. However, UT isn’t making any moves just to make a move. ANY move would have to make financial sense to the University of Texas, because they’d certainly bring something to the table for any conference they might join. Call it quid pro quo.

  32. amosalanzostagg says: Jun 18, 2014 9:43 AM


    The SEC commissioner works for the SEC schools. He does what the schools tell him to do. To be a NATIONAL conference, you have to have NATIONAL appeal. The Big 12 doesn’t have that simply because it doesn’t have a conference network and the reality that it is a regional conference at best,straight up the center of the country. No west coast or east coast exposure. (Don’t tout WV as east coast, it barely has a pulse TV ratings wise.)

    The B1G,the SEC, the PAC-12 and even the ACC have or will have conference networks by 2016. Where is the Big 12? Notice, all four have massive east coast and/or west coast exposure. Again, where is the Big 12?

    Ten teams in a Texas(the State, not the school) centric market is built to stagnate. I don’t see any premiere, high volume schools being wooed to join the Big 12 simply because most of the movement as already occurred.

    Watch Thursday’s USSC ruling on TV. College sports are going to be impacted.


  33. skylerwilcox22 says: Sep 30, 2014 5:35 PM

    The Big 12 Conference says a 10-team conference with no conference championship game is enough for their teams to gain exposure to be considered for the college football play-off. In order to keep up with the ever-evolving landscape of college football, the Big 12 must think of expansion. They shouldn’t look any further than BYU.

    The Big 12 philosophy, according to the conference’s website, states that “competitive excellence, scholarship, and sportsmanship are all equal components.” 8 straight winning seasons, 9 consecutive bowl game appearances, and a national championship in 1984 alone qualify the BYU football program as “competitive.” The BYU basketball program has 9 consecutive post-season berths, an arena capacity of over 20,000, and 2 NIT championships. These accomplishments are “excellence.” Along with it’s other athletic successes, the university and it’s unique national fan base believe in an honor code, promoting “scholarship and sportsmanship.”

    BYU is unlike any other university in America. No other school in the country can provide the “competitive excellence, scholarship, and sportsmanship” with a following that will only increase revenue and exposure for the conference.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!