1. Your statement is incorrect. The conference composition committee was already in place. President Boren from Oklahoma was/is Chair of that committee. The public announcement following the meeting was the the quorum of conference leaders, on recommendation from the committee, have authorized Commissioner Bowlsby to vet candidates and make a recommendation on which schools to invite.

(The key is what was not publicly announced, and even without sources, one can reasonably come to the following conclusion. Data on whether to expand was presented in the meeting back in the beginning of June. Numbers were presented at that meeting indicating that an expansion to 12 teams with an 8 game conference schedule and CCG would raise the conference's chance of placing a team in the playoff by close to 15%--which, not to make things too percentage heavy, equates to over a 24% increase over remaining at 10 with no CCG. That was also three times higher of an increase than just adding a CCG while remaining at 10 conference schools.

So the data was clear: add a CCG and expand to at least 12 teams, but no conference network. Easy to publicly announce the addition of a CCG and no network. But you don't announce expansion until after the new members are signed, sealed, and delivered. So, as publicly announced, the data consultants were asked to bring additional info to the July meeting that the process of elimination dictates could only be school-specific, expansion candidate analytics. It stands to reason that, at least in the case of several schools, this data was presented in July to reaffirm the generalized data presented in June. BYU was one of these schools and Big 12 media are reporting that our numbers are at the top of every category in consideration.)

2. Expansion is only considered for two reasons: 1) financial gain, and 2) strength. This is no different with the Big 12. And a way to create the perception of strength is to ensure that strong programs are demonstrating interest in joining the club. The first media notice from Dave McCann that Holmoe would release a statement occurred less than a half hour after the Big 12 Presidents shocked EVERYONE by announcing they were going to actively seek expansion. It took at least 20 hours for the second school to also release a statement. An official statement is not like sending out a tweet. It is parsed over by multiple PR and MR officials before being allowed to go public. And yet it was public in less than an hour. The Big 12 was able to be affirmed as holding a position of strength in the college landscape because an already P5 level program was the first to express official interest.

3. Holmoe was not releasing a statement. He was asked a direct question about football-only and he answered it. And he answered it, again, in a way that placed the Big 12 in a position of strength. Not demanding anything. Not creating any perception of drama. "We will consider anything the Big 12 thinks is best" was the mantra of his answer to the question.

4. It's all a media relations game at this point. How can the Big 12 capture and maintain the narrative leading up to an announcement? How many times has Holmoe, of his own volition, contacted a major media entity to talk about Big 12 expansion? Even in 2011, never. Even in every media since, next to nothing. We got one interview during halftime of the Oregon State game in 2011, and that was the only expansion related interview we got. Now he is calling up folks to openly (as possible) talk about it. Why? To capture and maintain the narrative. #instructions