Ready For This? Fla St. & Clemson To Big 12? A Big East Killer?

[PlummMeanGreen]

I know...this is "OUR" day to high 5 and celebrate North Texas entrance to a nice, cozy CUSA but this is just more NCAA craziness coming from the Mountain West Conference message board:

http://cemetery-hill.com/

[shaft]

Umm...how would two schools leaving the soon-to-be 14 team ACC kill the Big East?

[UNT90]

IF this happens, what has basically occurred is the BCS going from the big 6 conferences to the Big 5 conferences. The Big East will be relegated back to MWC and CUSA level.

Just more money for the big boys to split among themselves.

The basically strained out the undesireable programs in the Big East.

[Mark Gommesen]

You had to expect that the BIG 12 to expand, but I am a bit surprised that they would be looking at Clemson or Florida State. Certainly could start another round of musical chairs.

[MeanGreenTeeth]

Bogus. There is no reason for teams to leave the ACC for the Big XII. True, the football is much better in the Big XII, but the ACC markets are much much better. The Big XII has UT and that is, from a $ perspective, the only big player it has. UT is doing okay for itself so has no reason to leave, but I see no reason for ACC schools to join a bunch of small market teams. Remember, this is all about $$$, not sports...

[Rudy]

I don't think tu and uo want anymore competition.

[Green Mean]

Bogus. There is no reason for teams to leave the ACC for the Big XII. True, the football is much better in the Big XII, but the ACC markets are much much better. The Big XII has UT and that is, from a $ perspective, the only big player it has. UT is doing okay for itself so has no reason to leave, but I see no reason for ACC schools to join a bunch of small market teams. Remember, this is all about $$$, not sports...

These things run in cycles, Right now the Big 12 is better and they're usually top heavy with Texas and Oklahoma but when Miami and Florida State have their ducks in a row they're easily football heavyweights on the same level as Texas and OU.. After those 4 traditional football powers I can't really say the Big 12 is that much better if it all usually. Right now they may have an edge but in most cases I think they're pretty equal in football in my opinion.

[glick1980]

Bogus. There is no reason for teams to leave the ACC for the Big XII. True, the football is much better in the Big XII, but the ACC markets are much much better. The Big XII has UT and that is, from a $ perspective, the only big player it has. UT is doing okay for itself so has no reason to leave, but I see no reason for ACC schools to join a bunch of small market teams. Remember, this is all about $$$, not sports...

And the Big12 gets alot more in TV money than the ACC does.

[Eagle1855]

I don't think tu and uo want anymore competition.

They've added TCU and WVU, which are both better football programs than A&M, Colorado, and Mizzou.

In my opinion, losing Nebraska was the biggest blow to the Big 12.

The Big East is going to be fine. If anyone should be worried about the ACC taking teams from the Big East, it should be Conference USA. Because history shows that it's going to be our new conference home that gets raided.

[PlummMeanGreen]

They've added TCU and WVU, which are both better football programs than A&M, Colorado, and Mizzou.

In my opinion, losing Nebraska was the biggest blow to the Big 12.

The Big East is going to be fine. If anyone should be worried about the ACC taking teams from the Big East, it should be Conference USA. Because history shows that it's going to be our new conference home that gets raided.

And probably another reason CUSA's Commish Banowsky gets his seemed wish for CUSA to keep expanding to handle any more lost teams. One has to wonder when all this conference jumping will come to an end. I would still see Memphis of the Big East as one of the first the ACC would want over anyone in CUSA at this point, though. I don't see FIU or FAU as a replacement to Fla. St. any time soon.

If the Big East did implode in time, I could see SMU and UH going to the MWC (since both would not want to revisit CUSA), but having one helluva' travel budget hit. Both of their SWC backgrounds gives them a step ahead of the rest of us in scheduling some of their former SWC schools as OOC games, though. I wonder what would happen if North Texas asked some of those for a home and home because you know UH or SMU won't go to their places unless they come back to theirs, too (whether that be at Reliant or the remodeled Cotton Bowl stadium which just announced another multi-million re-do). All of this does get a bit complicated at times.

GMG!

Edited May 5, 2012 by PlummMeanGreen

[Eagle1855]

If the Big East did implode in time, I could see SMU and UH going to the MWC (since both would not want to revisit CUSA), but having one helluva' travel budget hit.

No more than they will incur in the Big East, where they'll play conference games from coast to coast.

It's all insanity. Someone should have stepped in and worked all this out with the programs before allowing all this media market-driven madness to destroy rivalries and reason.

[PlummMeanGreen]

No more than they will incur in the Big East, where they'll play conference games from coast to coast.

It's all insanity. Someone should have stepped in and worked all this out with the programs before allowing all this media market-driven madness to destroy rivalries and reason.

Luv' Ya Blue! I attended a Houston Oiler game or 2 where UH now plays its home games. It was called Jepphesen Stadium back then, though. Then the Oilers temporarily moved to Rice Stadium and then the Astrodome, but you would probably know all that.

Eagle1855, the main difference being the Big East revenues they will supposedly get would offset those Big East travel schedules easily. In the MWC, there would not be such revenues.

The NCAA is just all messed up right now with its money-driven line of thinking. Don't know if it will ever stop before they ruin their product in the minds of the college football fan.

GMG!

[forevereagle]

The ACC buyout is 20 million now, if memory serves. I don't think it is going to be that attractive to pay that out to go to the Big 12.

[MeanGreenTeeth]

Wow. I didn't realize the Big 12 had a much bigger TV deal than the ACC. Surprising since the ACC covers a much larger population.

[GL2Greatness]

Bogus. There is no reason for teams to leave the ACC for the Big XII. True, the football is much better in the Big XII, but the ACC markets are much much better. The Big XII has UT and that is, from a $ perspective, the only big player it has. UT is doing okay for itself so has no reason to leave, but I see no reason for ACC schools to join a bunch of small market teams. Remember, this is all about $$$, not sports...

yea Oklahoma is a real "small market program"

they have only played in the second most BCS games of any team and they are only the 8th most profitable team in college sports and have been to more MNCs than any other team in D1-A football

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/blog/_/name/assael_shaun/id/7889475/kansas-state-most-profitable-athletic-department-2010-11-file

and all those "small market programs" have 4 of the top 10 most profitable programs in college sports while the ACC has 4 less than that which equals ZERO

the last line in reply just sums up how little you actually know....you say it is about dollars which is correct, but you have no clue what makes those dollrs happen.......100% of a "small market" is better than .01% of a huge market that doesn't care or show up or pay for merchandies

These things run in cycles, Right now the Big 12 is better and they're usually top heavy with Texas and Oklahoma but when Miami and Florida State have their ducks in a row they're easily football heavyweights on the same level as Texas and OU.. After those 4 traditional football powers I can't really say the Big 12 is that much better if it all usually. Right now they may have an edge but in most cases I think they're pretty equal in football in my opinion.

of the 8 teams still in the origonal Big 12 5 have played in a BCS game and 4 have won one add in TCU and WVU and that is 7 out of 10 that have played in a BCS game and 6 out of 10 have won one or more

of the 14 current and future ACC teams 8 have played ina BCS game, but only three have won one

so that is 60% of teams in a conference with a BCS win and 70% with BCS participation VS 21.4% that have won one and 57.1 that have played in one

the current 8 members of the origonal Big 12 have been to 15 BCS games

all the 14 teams in the ACC have been to 23

if you add TCU and WVU to the Big 12 totals (like counting 14 teams for the ACC) then the Big 12 is 20 appearences for 10 teams VS 23 for 14 teams

the origonal 8 remaining Big 12 teams have been to 6 MNCs counting all 14 ACC teams it is 6 as well and both would be 2-4 and of the current ACC teams only FSU has been 3 times VS 4 for OU and 2 for Texas

so based on the above the Big 12 current and future is still a much deeper and better overall football conference for the long haul and if FSU especially was to leave the Big 12 would be even better and Clemson would still bring 1 BCS appearence with them as well and take one from the ACC

The ACC buyout is 20 million now, if memory serves. I don't think it is going to be that attractive to pay that out to go to the Big 12.

the ACC currently gets somewhere around 13 million per year and adding two schools might get them to 15 million and that is for all 3 tiers of tV rights

the Big 12 is currently at 17 million for two tiers with their first tier deal set to expire in 2015-2016 and even if their first tier deal only is equal to their new second tier deal they would go up 3 million per team and their first tier deal will be way better than their second tier deal simply because that is how it works

so FSU could pay off that 20 million in 5 years or less and that is without signing a third tier deal.....KU gets 8 million for theirs, KSU gets something like 3 million, Tech and OU are about to make deals and Florida gets 7.45 million per year for theirs

so if FSU could even get KSU money for theirs they would pay off the move in two years or less

if the BE breaks up what you will see happen is teams from the CUSA and probably a couple from the MWC and maybe a few scattered here and there will join to form up a new conference

teams like Tulane, Rice, UTEP, and Tulsa are not going to pass on the chance to join back up with SMU and UH and other teams like Louisville and others that might be left out from a BE break up and stay in the CUSA which is looking more and more like the new move up league

Tulane, LaTech, Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP, SMU, UH, Memphis, ECU, USM would be chomping at the bit to get back together/dump the baggage they have now and reform a new conference

the question would be how spread out they would want it and what some teams in the MWC might want to do with the possibility some of the top MWC teams leaving the MWC and some of the mid level teams in the CUSA moving into their spots if the conference goes for a true east to west foot print

the 14 teams above would be pretty compact, it coule easily break down with USF, UCF, ECU, USM, Louisville, Cincy, and Memphis and then Tulane, LaTech, Tulsa, Rice, UH, SMU, UTEP

play the 6 teams in your own division, and 2 from the other for 8 in conference and 4 OOC with a championship, travel would nto be terrible especially interdivision and there are some similar matchups in academics and a nice mix of public and private and several states having more than one team and Texas having the max that works of 4 with the two major metros covered

[MeanGreenTeeth]

yea Oklahoma is a real "small market program"

they have only played in the second most BCS games of any team and they are only the 8th most profitable team in college sports and have been to more MNCs than any other team in D1-A football

http://espn.go.com/e...nt-2010-11-file

and all those "small market programs" have 4 of the top 10 most profitable programs in college sports while the ACC has 4 less than that which equals ZERO

the last line in reply just sums up how little you actually know....you say it is about dollars which is correct, but you have no clue what makes those dollrs happen.......100% of a "small market" is better than .01% of a huge market that doesn't care or show up or pay for merchandies

What on earth are you talking about? Oklahama is a small market. The metroplex alone is about 75% larger than the entire state of Oklahoma. I'm not sure what profitability or football success has to do with the size of the market. I never said they didn't make a lot of money, but I don't think they bring a whole lot from a "National" TV perspective. Note that the PAC-12 rejected OU because they didn't bring enough value (at least not enough to justify bringing OSU along). I think that is pretty good empirical evidence of what value OU brings to a national television deal.

[MeanGreenTeeth]

Population gets you in the door and sets a threshold value. That is why the BE is looking at a floor of 8. That is also why both CUSA and SB had make media market adds and why the MWC not geting into Texas hurts them if they remain a separate TV deal from the CUSA. Once you have markets then it is a function of penetration in those markets, overlap, saturation, and names. With Football driving the media $$, the ACC and their less than compelling names and lack of major marque match ups hurt them. They have the national eye in basketball but the BE has proven that that only goes so far. Then add to it a very crappy TV deal and locked in 3rd tier rights and they are WAY down the list in revenue generation.

Yeah, I get it. I just didn't realize those schools pulled so poorly. I really have no idea how big college football is in places like Massachusetts I guess. I also thought the Big XII was the definition of market overlap, but I guess college football just draws much better here.

[GL2Greatness]

What on earth are you talking about? Oklahama is a small market. The metroplex alone is about 75% larger than the entire state of Oklahoma. I'm not sure what profitability or football success has to do with the size of the market. I never said they didn't make a lot of money, but I don't think they bring a whole lot from a "National" TV perspective. Note that the PAC-12 rejected OU because they didn't bring enough value (at least not enough to justify bringing OSU along). I think that is pretty good empirical evidence of what value OU brings to a national television deal.

you must be brain dead...OU is a national power and has been for decades....I guess you consider Alabama a small market program as well

as for the PAC it is the other way around....UT and OU did not feel like handing off their national value to 14 other teams that bring a whole lot less than they do in a 16 team conference

why hand out money you bring to the table to 14 other mouths when you can only hand that out to 8 or 10 others in a 10 or 12 team conference.....the same lesson the top teams in the ACC are learning now which is why they are looking at the Big 12

for those that were apparently born after 1990 it was OU that sued the NCAA to get out of the NCAA controlling all the media for football because OU knew they were giving money away for their popularity nationally to teams that bring nothing to D1-A football

also for those that are fans of a program that relies on conference distributions, conference TV money (even if small), and student fees for the vast majority of their athletics budget take a look at the 90+ million that OU athletics brings in every year and then look at their ticket sales, their student fees (if any), their conference TV money, and their conference distributions then you can scratch your head where the other 40 million for a "small market team with no national following" comes from and maybe when you wake up you will realize it is from people all across the country buying OU merchandise to wear because they like to support and be associated with a long term winner

the lack of knowledge and reality sometimes showed on this forum is laughable

and PS the metromess may be larger in population than the entire state of Oklahoma, but if you compare OU support, OU merchandise sales, and OU game attendance in the metromess to other schools in the metromess maybe you will again gain an understanding of what a national following means

things like Craig Miller and corby supporting OU even though neither ever went to school there and both actually went to metromess schools

Edited May 5, 2012 by GL2Greatness

[Green Mean]

GL2G,

Miami and FSU are down now but in their prime they are on the same level as UT or OU. I also forgot about VA Tech which seem to go to the BCS Bowl a lot but can't win. As I said that lately the Big 12 is much greater in football but from a historical perspective and how things run in cycles it is foolish to think that the Big 12 is superior than the ACC...I just don't see it.

[MeanMag]

you must be brain dead...OU is a national power and has been for decades....I guess you consider Alabama a small market program as well

as for the PAC it is the other way around....UT and OU did not feel like handing off their national value to 14 other teams that bring a whole lot less than they do in a 16 team conference

why hand out money you bring to the table to 14 other mouths when you can only hand that out to 8 or 10 others in a 10 or 12 team conference.....the same lesson the top teams in the ACC are learning now which is why they are looking at the Big 12

for those that were apparently born after 1990 it was OU that sued the NCAA to get out of the NCAA controlling all the media for football because OU knew they were giving money away for their popularity nationally to teams that bring nothing to D1-A football

also for those that are fans of a program that relies on conference distributions, conference TV money (even if small), and student fees for the vast majority of their athletics budget take a look at the 90+ million that OU athletics brings in every year and then look at their ticket sales, their student fees (if any), their conference TV money, and their conference distributions then you can scratch your head where the other 40 million for a "small market team with no national following" comes from and maybe when you wake up you will realize it is from people all across the country buying OU merchandise to wear because they like to support and be associated with a long term winner

the lack of knowledge and reality sometimes showed on this forum is laughable

and PS the metromess may be larger in population than the entire state of Oklahoma, but if you compare OU support, OU merchandise sales, and OU game attendance in the metromess to other schools in the metromess maybe you will again gain an understanding of what a national following means

things like Craig Miller and corby supporting OU even though neither ever went to school there and both actually went to metromess schools

You do take a lot of time to respond to the unintelligent ramblings on this board. You're welcome to leave anytime the hilarity becomes too much for you to overcome. Not kidding either. I wouldn't be sad to see you leave unless you buy tickets or watch unt sports. But nothing you've ever posted has indicated you've ever watched a unt game.

Basing an argument on ticket personalities is flimsy. And your post is much too long to get your point across, so let me do it for you.

Ou is a nationally recognized and watched school. I don't know where any poster gets any other idea. It's about to be even larger when the conference expands and they are showing big 12 games in the east coast region. If ou is a small market team, show me a large market team.

[GL2Greatness]

GL2G,

Miami and FSU are down now but in their prime they are on the same level as UT or OU. I also forgot about VA Tech which seem to go to the BCS Bowl a lot but can't win. As I said that lately the Big 12 is much greater in football but from a historical perspective and how things run in cycles it is foolish to think that the Big 12 is superior than the ACC...I just don't see it.

we are discussing entire conferences not the "top teams" of each conference

so just go ahead and ignore where 5 out of 8 of the original Big 12 teams have been to a BCS game and 4 out of 8 have won at least one and that 7 out of 10 in the new big 12 have played in one and 6 have won at least one

while in the ACC 6 out of 14 have played in one and 3 out of 14 have won one...and ignore that all the BCS games Miami played in were while they were in the Big East, but I am crediting those to the ACC

also ignore where 8 teams in the original Big 12 have as many MNC appearances as 14 teams in the ACC and that is counting the 2 Miami BE appearances and a VT BE appearance and removing the NU Big 12 MNC appearance

so over the entire history of the BCS it is clear that the Big 12 has performed much better as a conference top to bottom and even at the very top

and the ACC with a very recent three tier TV deal and a conference championship getting less money than the Big 12 with an older first tier deal and no third tier deals included and no CCG again shows that the networks view the Big 12 as a stronger conference worth more on the market and the big 12 will still make more TV money even when the ACC adds two more schools and still not including any third tier deals and with no CCG

so you and a few others may feel that way about the Big 12 VS the ACC, but the TV money and the BCS numbers fail to support that in any way shape or form

[MeanGreenTeeth]

you must be brain dead...OU is a national power and has been for decades....I guess you consider Alabama a small market program as well

as for the PAC it is the other way around....UT and OU did not feel like handing off their national value to 14 other teams that bring a whole lot less than they do in a 16 team conference

I'm sorry I'm so ignorant...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/217799/20110921/oklahoma-big-12-pac-12-david-boren.htm

http://chickashanews.com/sports/x1126803829/OU-fans-react-to-Big-12-decision

[MeanMag]

I'm sorry I'm so ignorant...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/217799/20110921/oklahoma-big-12-pac-12-david-boren.htm

http://chickashanews.com/sports/x1126803829/OU-fans-react-to-Big-12-decision

No one news paper has a monopoly on slanted opinion pieces written by upstart 20 something interns looking for angles to meet their word quotas. The mere 80000 plus seat stadium and sellout crowds can show you that ou reaches many more people than a lot of other teams do in d1.

[GL2Greatness]

I'm sorry I'm so ignorant...

http://www.ibtimes.c...david-boren.htm

http://chickashanews...Big-12-decision

your sources are a sports site no one has ever heard of and the Chickasaw news opinion piece I guess you could not find a supporting article from bleacher reports?

again believe what you want to believe, but the fact that you referred to OU as a small market program says all that needs to be said

even if OU did not bring the value to the PAC as you are saying the fact is that as of now the teams in the Big 12 with an old first tier deal and no third tier rights included are making about a million less per year currently than the teams in the PAC and that is including all their three tiers of rights and that is excluding that many PAC teams had to spend money out of their payouts to buy back third tier rights so they could sign the new deal

the Big 12 teams excluding third tier deals and excluding money they are getting from MU and TAMU make 17 million per year with their first tier deal expiring in a couple of years

the PAC teams make 18 million this year and their deal scales to 25 million by the end of the deal

so if you include the 8 million that KU makes right now today for their third tier rights in with 17 million that means that KU right now today makes the same money that the PAC teams will be making in 12 years from now

with UT they are making 17 million + 15 million (IMG gets 5 million of the 20) so UT is making 32 million right now today which is more than the PAC teams will make in 12 years

KSU has a 3 million third tier deal so they are today making 2 million more than PAC teams are making.....again excluding payouts from MU and TAMU and excluding that many PAC teams had to buy back their third tier rights

the Big 12 just signed a 9 million per team second tier deal with Fox and their first tier deal is only worth 6 million per team with ESPN and is over in 2015-16 and they have another deal with FSN for 1.95 million per team that ends this year......so they get 16.95 (17 million) and they have a deal coming up this year and a first tier deal in a couple of years which is long before 2022-2023 then the PAC deal is up and long before all but the BE deals are up with the BE deals mostly up this year and being negotiated

so again even if the Big 12 gets the same money for their first tier deal in 2015 as they got for their second tier deal this year they will still be doing very well when you include third tier rights and no one thinks that the Big 12 first tier deal will be the same or less than their new second tier deal so the Big 12 teams will be well ahead of the PAC teams even when the PAC teams are topping out at 25 million per team in 2022-23

so while someone at the WTF times and the Chickasaw News might be math challenged like you, but fortunately for OU fans their AD and the UT AD are not mathematically challenged and they know how to value their media rights instead of giving that value away to many more begging bowls in a 16 team conference.....which helps explain why the current Big 12 had 4 of the top 10 most profitable athletics programs in the country and the ACC had none and the PAC had one in the top 19

also the Big 12 had 6 teams in the NCAAs this year while the PAC had one team so the Big 12 will be splitting that money by 10 teams (8 since TAMU and MU will not get theirs) while the PAC will be splitting theirs by 12 and if the 4 teams form the Big 12 had been added to the PAC this year then UT would have been the only additional NCAA big which would be two bids split by 16

the Big 12 usually puts more teams in bowl games as well and WVU and TCU are taking lesser TV payouts the first few years as well

so again OU and UT know how to value a long term conference affiliation VS a short term gain of very very little real money....and that is again not even counting the money that UT and OU would have had to give up to go to the PAC because the Big 12 would not have folded the remaining teams would have reformed it and taken those distributions as well

so UT and OU will do much better financially in the short term and especially in the long term as members of the Big 12 and all the "rumors" point to the fact that FSU and Clemson would do much better if they were lured to the Big 12 as well

WFTnews and the Chickasaw BFEer aside

[MeanMag]

your sources are a sports site no one has ever heard of and the Chickasaw news opinion piece I guess you could not find a supporting article from bleacher reports?

again believe what you want to believe, but the fact that you referred to OU as a small market program says all that needs to be said

even if OU did not bring the value to the PAC as you are saying the fact is that as of now the teams in the Big 12 with an old first tier deal and no third tier rights included are making about a million less per year currently than the teams in the PAC and that is including all their three tiers of rights and that is excluding that many PAC teams had to spend money out of their payouts to buy back third tier rights so they could sign the new deal

the Big 12 teams excluding third tier deals and excluding money they are getting from MU and TAMU make 17 million per year with their first tier deal expiring in a couple of years

the PAC teams make 18 million this year and their deal scales to 25 million by the end of the deal

so if you include the 8 million that KU makes right now today for their third tier rights in with 17 million that means that KU right now today makes the same money that the PAC teams will be making in 12 years from now

with UT they are making 17 million + 15 million (IMG gets 5 million of the 20) so UT is making 32 million right now today which is more than the PAC teams will make in 12 years

KSU has a 3 million third tier deal so they are today making 2 million more than PAC teams are making.....again excluding payouts from MU and TAMU and excluding that many PAC teams had to buy back their third tier rights

the Big 12 just signed a 9 million per team second tier deal with Fox and their first tier deal is only worth 6 million per team with ESPN and is over in 2015-16 and they have another deal with FSN for 1.95 million per team that ends this year......so they get 16.95 (17 million) and they have a deal coming up this year and a first tier deal in a couple of years which is long before 2022-2023 then the PAC deal is up and long before all but the BE deals are up with the BE deals mostly up this year and being negotiated

so again even if the Big 12 gets the same money for their first tier deal in 2015 as they got for their second tier deal this year they will still be doing very well when you include third tier rights and no one thinks that the Big 12 first tier deal will be the same or less than their new second tier deal so the Big 12 teams will be well ahead of the PAC teams even when the PAC teams are topping out at 25 million per team in 2022-23

so while someone at the WTF times and the Chickasaw News might be math challenged like you, but fortunately for OU fans their AD and the UT AD are not mathematically challenged and they know how to value their media rights instead of giving that value away to many more begging bowls in a 16 team conference.....which helps explain why the current Big 12 had 4 of the top 10 most profitable athletics programs in the country and the ACC had none and the PAC had one in the top 19

also the Big 12 had 6 teams in the NCAAs this year while the PAC had one team so the Big 12 will be splitting that money by 10 teams (8 since TAMU and MU will not get theirs) while the PAC will be splitting theirs by 12 and if the 4 teams form the Big 12 had been added to the PAC this year then UT would have been the only additional NCAA big which would be two bids split by 16

the Big 12 usually puts more teams in bowl games as well and WVU and TCU are taking lesser TV payouts the first few years as well

so again OU and UT know how to value a long term conference affiliation VS a short term gain of very very little real money....and that is again not even counting the money that UT and OU would have had to give up to go to the PAC because the Big 12 would not have folded the remaining teams would have reformed it and taken those distributions as well

so UT and OU will do much better financially in the short term and especially in the long term as members of the Big 12 and all the "rumors" point to the fact that FSU and Clemson would do much better if they were lured to the Big 12 as well

WFTnews and the Chickasaw BFEer aside

Harry, are paying this guy to have a word quota? At least Plummer is a unt fan.