Does anyone in the NYC metro area give a damn about Rutgers, except maybe an Italian "ala familigia" or two in Northern Jersey? Even so....the Big 10 sells this to advertisers as potential viewers.
Oklahoma President Says Big 12 Should Look Toward Expanding, LINK!
- Thread starter CaptainSidneyReilly
- Start date
Does anyone in the NYC metro area give a damn about Rutgers, except maybe an Italian "ala familigia" or two in Northern Jersey? Even so....the Big 10 sells this to advertisers as potential viewers.
Take off your ACC glasses for a minute. Pull out a map. Color in the ACC states and Texas. Now, tell me Texas wouldn't be an island.
I also said Texas would come with at least one other team. Take that U.S. map and color in the Big Ten states. Then add Texas and Kansas. Or Texas and Oklahoma. Or Texas and Kansas and Oklahoma. See the difference?
Do you think, given a choice, that Texas would rather play schools like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc in their division (maybe adding Notre Dame too?), retaining a Midwestern flavor they are used to, with potential cross divisional and conference championship games against traditional powers such as Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State, or... play games against Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest, Va Tech, etc.?
Plus, adding Texas and Oklahoma or Kansas or both would exponentially add to the Big Ten money. Staying in the Big 12, with the limited options to add schools that really can move the meter in terms of dollars may not make as much sense financially.
I'm not saying it will happen. People make decisions based on many factors. But, IMHO this makes the most sense.
I'm curious to your reasoning and interested to hear why you think Texas fits best in the ACC.
I never said that the ACC was a good geographic fit for Texas, just pointed out your flawed reasoning that Texas would not be a good geographic fit for the ACC but somehow the same is not true for the Big Ten.
Texas is not really a good geographic fit for any conference outside of the Big 12. The next best fit would be the SEC. As a Pitt fan, I would gladly welcome them into the ACC, but as a realist I know that it is not likely to happen, and neither is Texas going to the Big Ten.
Put down the crack pipe.
So you think Oklahoma can move anywhere without OK State, Kansas without Kansas State and Texas will have immense pressure to bring along Texas Tech and possibly Baylor.
Even if Texas and Kansas could join the Big 10, why would Texas want to be in a conference with their closest league mate an 11 hour drive away along with schools in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois in their division. Put the same logic towards Texas joining the ACC!
Next ESPN has been told by the Mouse to reign in their spending(had to overspend for the NFL and NBA) so they can't give the Big 10 a massive contract, NBC also doesn't have the money or desire to make a big offer to the Big 10, CBS is already tied to the SEC so that leaves Fox. Now Fox is willing to overpay for rights and they'll most likely do that for the Big 10 but are they willing to spend the money a 20 team Big 10 would demand? Fox will overpay for the full contract for the 14 team Big 10, that along with their Pac12 contract gives them enough inventory to push up the fees charged to cable companies for OTA Fox, FS1, FS2 and BTN,
I think it fits in academically better in the ACC vs SEC. I think it's preference is an East Coast audience. I'm sorry but the ACC footprint in the East is much better than the B1G's. In my mind the only chance the B1G has is if their 3 Eastern schools start dominating the Conference...which isn't likely.
I agree the ACC is a better fit academically than the SEC. But is the Big Ten just as good a fit academically? And while academics are part of the equation for some conferences, this is still a sports conference. Plus Texas is much closer in culture to the big state schools in the Big Ten, than the private schools in the ACC.
That same immense pressure A&M faced when they left for the ACC? Those teams could probably find a home in an expanded PAC (who is also limited in good choices for expansion if they want to keep up). It wouldn't be ideal, but it would still be in a P5(4?) conference.
Put Texas in the ACC and the closest drives are over 13h and 14 hours. That's even farther to drive.
Last edited:
I'm not saying the B1G isn't an option. I just don't feel it is a better one. We can agree to disagree on that point. The truth is...the only opinion that matters is Texas's. Unfortunately, that is true for every team in the Big 12.
It makes the most sense to you because YOU want Texas in the Big Ten. But back in realityland, it makes little sense to suggest that Texas is a good geographic fit for the Big Ten. Also, implying that they culturally fit in well with the Midwest is really stretching it.
I would like to see them in the ACC, and I can build a comparably crazy argument for that to possibly happen, but in the end it is not likely.
It makes less sense to suggest Texas is a good geographic fit in the ACC.
Implying they culturally fit in better with the ACC is a huge stretch as well.
I'm not saying it will happen, and I'm sure they would just as soon stay in the Big 12. I just don't see stability in the conference, and I don't see a way for it to keep up with the other conferences, given the players left. So, if they decide the Big 12 is not the long term solution, what remaining options make the most sense? We can agree to disagree. I've laid out my arguments for discussion, so far, all I'm getting is you're wrong, but no one has made a case why the ACC is better.
Here's the problem with your argument:
This is your first mistake. These conferences are locked in for 10+ years due to the GORs. No, it's not as simple as hiring a couple of lawyers, paying a few bucks, and getting out of it. Nowhere near as simple. Poaching a team from another conference is useless because you don't get their TV rights for the term of the GOR.
The Big 12 payout per team is comparable with other conferences. They are behind the SEC and Big Ten, and even with the ACC and Pac 12. They do have less of an upside, specifically with a network, due to their small geographic area. That's not enough to support your argument that the Big 12 falls apart.
Texas has its own network, which they won't be able to take to the Big Ten or other leagues. It's going to take a lot, more than you realize, to get Texas to give it up. Plus, Oklahoma has a faux network with Fox Regional.
The SEC makes the most sense. Failing that, the Pac 12 makes more sense, which is evidenced by the fact that Texas tried to join the league twice. The ACC and Big Ten make the least sense for Texas.
The information that's come out recently shows cracks in the armor, and it wasn't accidental. Whether they can resolve their differences remains to be seen.
Obviously the GORs are an issue. However, hypothetically, if 2-3 teams bolt for the Big Ten (including the big fish Texas, and possibly Oklahoma), does that start the dominoes falling whereby the remaining teams see the handwriting on the wall and rather than try to replace those teams, the better teams try to find a new home (e.g. The Pac/SEC)? If the conference ends up dissolving, the GOR issue goes away. Not easy, a gamble, but possible?
The programming on LHN is leftovers anyway. What if the BTN said we own the content, but any school can broadcast content that we pass on, as long as it's on their own network? With the Internet, eventually it's going to be more about you choosing what to watch, and not be tied to a broadcast schedule. There's enough content out there for a conference network to choose what they want, and still have enough events and local shows to be broadcast/streamed on a school specific channel working in partnership.
The SEC makes sense, except for the fact that's where A&M went, and the academics are horrible.
And it's a little known fact that Texas approached the Big Ten back in the 90's, but at that time the conference had a moratorium on expansion after bringing in Penn State caused such consternation among AD's and coaches. Things have obviously changed, but it's not out the realm of possibility there is still interest under the right set of circumstances.
No, it doesn't. The "information" that came out is that one AD wants to add 2 schools. That is not anywhere close to "cracks in the armor."
No. This is you just grasping for straws to find a way to convince yourself that your theory will work. You don't understand the issue. Your 2-3 teams leaving isn't going to happen, because nobody wants them. Why? Because they can't bring their TV rights. If Texas left for another conference, that conference couldn't televise Texas's games, because the Big 12 would still hold those rights due to the GOR. It would be pointless for another conference to add Texas/Oklahoma/whoever without the TV rights.
The content on LHN is not the issue. The problem is the $15 million dollars Texas makes. You are going to have a hell of a time convincing Texas to give that up.
No, the BTN can't sub-out content as you describe, for two reasons. 1) Fox owns half the BTN. That content is contracted with Fox for exclusive use on the BTN. That is because of reason: 2) The BTN has contracts with cable companies for the BTN. Those cable providers charge their customers a monthly fee for BTN. When you take that exclusive content off BTN, now you just devalued the contract you have with the cable providers. Again, this is just you making up things in your head that are at odds with reality.
Incorrect. Texas discussed joining the Pac 10, not the Big Ten. The Big Ten looked at Kansas and Missouri, not Texas. Again, this is something you made up in your head.
Boren coming out and talking about adding teams after the party line has been no expansion, AND admitting adding teams means more money from TV based on their contracts, something the conference denied, is not just chit chat. BTW, he's the university President, not the AD. And he's the former governor. Politicians don't bring up something like this, bucking the conference talking points, without a reason. Could be as simple wanting to light a fire under the commissioner. But it was no accident.
The GOR is a big issue, I do not deny it. I presented one scenario where it's possible to get around. I could present others, but that's not the point.
Regarding subbing out content. You can structure your contracts however you want. If, for example, the conference allowed schools to have their own networks, but that the conference network had first dibs on any content, they could do that. Say Texas has a swim meet against Oklahoma. The conference channel declines to broadcast it (they can't broadcast everything). The right to broadcast that could be conferred to the schools network. Similar to first tier, second tier rights, etc.
Yes, Texas would have to give up the LHN in its current form. That doesn't mean the dollars are lost. The value of new B1G (or PAC) contracts adding Texas and other schools plus allowing them a school network using the above scenario might make it a wash or exceed it. That's for the number crunchers.
Do your research. Texas actually approached the SEC first, but the SEC had no interest in raising academics and Texas didn't want to align with schools not on par in that realm. Then they went to the PAC. That didn't happen, and they approached the Big Ten, and they had their moratorium on expansion at that time. This was early to mid 90s. I believe this was a year or two before the SWC broke up and became the Big 8. Obviously there were discussions with the PAC again a few years ago.
I find it interesting that on one hand people are saying there's no way realignment involving Texas could happen, and then turn around and say if they're going anywhere it's the PAC or ACC.
But healthy debates are fun, if you can present facts and viable hypotheticals. We can always agree to disagree. Getting input from other viewpoints is always interesting, IMHO. That's why I asked for why people thought the ACC was a better fit for Texas.
I respectfully disagree, UTexas is unique in Texas with Alumni Money Supporters that have great influence with Legislature and JUDGES and know it for a fact. If anything, more like KU & KSU, and OU & OKSU may poll a UVA/VT Deal. However, UTexas will do what it wants to do and when it wants to do it, just like A&M did and no one stopped them?
Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech ends up in another Power Conference could happen even if Texas left by itself for another Power Conference.
The move to another Power Conference is more likely to happen at another Big-12 School not Texas, just like CU, A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska did when it left the Big-12.
The fact are that every School in the Big-12 remaining at 9 right now, knows it needs Texas! But Texas knows it too! I still think based on history, the move will come from 1 to 4 to 6 other schools leaving the Big-12 to other Power conferences, like 4 to Pac-12, and 2 to Big Ten, but not first Texas alone by itself.
Once some Schools leave the Big-12, then Texas starts looking what it wants to do and how and when?
Texas was not able to stop CU & Mizzou, A&M and Nebraska from leaving is my point, and if others want to leave due to Texas Dominance necessary for the Big-12 to survive, they will before Texas burns and crashes the conference.
In that case, if Texas is looking for just One Power conference for itself I can see the ACC is the one with 134 Schools and 1 Related with Notre Dame, and Sofford will accommodate Texas on its terms far more than SEC or B!G or Pac-12? Swofford has proven that with ND!
HailtoPitt is exactly on point, and those ACC Glasses you claim he looking through, include the Eyes of Notre Dame way in the middle of Big Ten Country that has rejected the B1G! The Eyes of Texas would listen to ND, just as HailtoPitt points out your Big Ten Glasses may be in the clouds as well, especially ND prefers to travel south in All Sports rather play in the Heart of the Big Ten, that is a reality today, and not a Pipe Dream and those Clouds may be in your Coffee?
The ACC offers UTexas without question a Top 3 spot in the ACC and ND would love to be exposed in Texas and the South and Northeast far more since it has rejected Big Ten Exposure already because it is right there anyway?
Additionally, the Big Ten is not even in the South right now, but you make up Lala Land ways it can be, and then says HailtoPitt has ACC Glasses?
I can accept that and Where have you been? I have been waiting for the Calvary to arrive with logic, language, and latitudes!
LINK:
Do you think the "Carolina mafia" is going to allow Texas and ND to come in and do as they please? Granted ND has their usual sweetheart deal, but as a partial member. Both schools come in full time, you think they're not going to be expected to toe the line like in any other conference?
See, this is why you argument is so bad. What you just said is factually inaccurate. The Big 12 does not get more money for more teams. This is Boren's actual quote:
“The contract says that our main television contract … if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally,” Boren said. “So everybody’s share stays the same. If it’s ‘X’ dollars, it stays ‘X’ dollars."
What that means is, they just get the same amount of money they do now. The Big 12 teams get $20 million a year from TV. If they add more teams, then they still get $20 million per team. They don't get more. It just stays the same.
That's a huge problem, because teams from P5 teams won't come for that. They already get that kind of money in their own leagues. They don't have any incentive to leave, because the Big 12 can't offer more money.
http://newsok.com/boren-big-12-should-strive-for-12-team-league/article/5429694
You can't just make up a theoretical scenario. The scenario has to conform to the realities of the real world.
No, you can't. The contract is already written and signed. None of what you can say can be done, because the BTN/Fox contract is already set up. Even if they add more teams, they still can't change who owns the content. The only thing they could do is negotiate for more money. What you are suggesting has to happen at the beginning, before the contracts is set up.
Plus, you don't take into account that ESPN holds the Tier 1 rights, and BTN has Tier 2 & 3. Those games can't crossover.
Again, Texas has no rights to add because of the GOR. Texas also gets to keep all of the LHN money, whereas they have to split BTN money.
Yeah, I did do my research. You apparently didn't do yours. Post some links that prove your point.
That's not what you asked in your other post. You said the Big Ten made the most sense for Texas. If we are talking about what would make the most sense, just theoritically, then Pac12 makes the most sense. In the real world, it's not going to happen at all.
So, you're saying Texas is afraid of the competition as an excuse not to move to the Big Ten. Tell them that and see what kind of response you get. I dare you. LOL
I lived in Austin when the Big XII was raided and UT's interest in the ACC was very real. The ACC works for Texas because 1) in the ACC they could keep LHN while B1G schools would never agree to that. 2)Texas is a much better fit culturally with most of the ACC schools than they are with any B1G school (even if they took Kansas and/or Oklahoma. 3) Recruiting. 1st of all Texas kids aren't trying to sign on to play for a school that's playing away games in Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois etc. Texas recruiting would seriously be hurt as kids would choose A&M and other SEC schools over UT based on conference opponents. Texas also would much rather play conference games in the recruiting hotbeds of Florida and Georgia in hopes of getting an in with those kids while at the same time not having to join a conference that is academically inferior (SEC).
Excellent point, but in my opinion that was when the ACC was at 9 Schools, now it has 15, I think the days of Carolina are coming to an end, the next Commissioner will not be from Carolina.
Maryland over it partially, ULOU/PITT/CUSE/ND/BC joined by UVA/VT/MIAMI/FSU is more old Big East. Add in CLEMSON/GT and UNC/DUKE/NCS/WAKE no longer have the clout!
I lived in Austin when the Big XII was raided and UT's interest in the ACC was very real.
I agree, have a Nephew on Faculty and he has told me the same thing!
The ACC works for Texas because 1) in the ACC they could keep LHN while B1G schools would never agree to that.
Yep!
2)Texas is a much better fit culturally with most of the ACC schools than they are with any B1G school (even if they took Kansas and/or Oklahoma.
#2 Is Correct!
3) Recruiting. 1st of all Texas kids aren't trying to sign on to play for a school that's playing away games in Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois etc. Texas recruiting would seriously be hurt as kids would choose A&M and other SEC schools over UT based on conference opponents. Texas also would much rather play conference games in the recruiting hotbeds of Florida and Georgia in hopes of getting an in with those kids while at the same time not having to join a conference that is academically inferior
(SEC).
Hat Trick #3
Thanks!OK, this has some more thought behind it, I appreciate that. I do take issue with one thing... your selective use of conference opponents. I could just as easily say that recruiting would be hurt playing away games in New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Oh, and ND is in Indiana, a state you listed as a detriment to recruiting. So I guess having Notte Dame on the schedule is a hindrance?
Last edited:
Ummmmm that's because you don't have an ACC network. So while that's good for Texas, it sucks for the conference. And if you do get a conference network, do you think the other schools will allow them to keep it, as you assume the B1G wouldn't? And does that mean if ND comes in as a full member, they can demand to keep their NBC deal too, separate from an ACC network? Or are you assuming their will be no network?
And to your credit, as I stated, never underestimate the power of the Big Ten Commissioner and the money to attract even ND and Texas, and i stans by it, that supports your own posts.
My point is ND for the past 2 Decades has rejected Big Ten and still prefers to be Independent in all sports but enjoyed Big East and likes the ACC even more and for first time agreed to playing 5 ACC Teams, these are verified actions and agreements, and contracts, and shows greater cooperation with the ACC and at the time rejecting the the Big Ten.
However, no question the Big Ten wants to look south as well towards UVA, UNC, GT, Kansas and Texas, so i am not disagreeing with you on those points.
Yet, much depends on how it all starts and who starts it because that is what causes actions and reactions by each conference?
Does OU & 3 other Big-12 leave for Pac-12? Or does SEC grab them? almost everything you discussed above. I do not agree with everything you said either and i try to read and follow and seek out some hints from what some Sports lawyers her at times?
All i know for sure the NCAA and Power Conferences are in for some big changes due to Court Cases and each Conferences making moves on what they will pay the Athletes. Moreover, no one thinks the College Playoffs will stay at 4 Team Selections for more than 4 to 6 years. Additionally, 5 Power Conferences do not make sense when 4 or 6 makes better sense. Furthermore, PAC-12 wants central time Zones to make more money and needs more Team. Big-12 just hs 5 States and most Schools in it know Texas is the Biggest Fish & power in it, and has a say more than any other. Finally, Expansion is not over or Reorganization, or Realignment, and like you say, Big Money in the Big Ten has brought Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers and they may not be finish if Conferences go to 16, 18, and 20 Teams?
As stated, I agree with some of your comments but others I respectfully disagree, but that does not make me right either! So, Keep posting!
THE ARTICLE WITH MORE DETAILS WHAT THE OU PRESIDENT ACTUALLY SAID:
Oklahoma president wants Big 12 to consider re-expanding to 12 schools:
As long as the Big 12 has less teams than the other Power Five conferences, there will be people talking about the conference expanding. On Wednesday, it was Oklahoma president David Boren's turn.
"I'm an advocate of living up to our name," Boren said. "I was an advocate of it when we saw Louisville go other places and other things. I like being 12 rather than 10. I like that as long-range stability for the conference. Is it urgent? No.
"We should [expand] if we can find the right partners. Something we should strive for while we have the time, stability." Boren also pointed out that the Big 12's television deal will stay the same proportionally if the conference expands. In other words, each school would continue to get the same amount of money annually should the Big 12 add two more schools due to the pro rata clause in the contract.
Where the difference comes would be the money from the College Football Playoff. The Big 12 would get the same money from the CFP, but would then be splitting it between 12 schools instead of 10.
Of course, Boren only represents one of the 10 schools in the conference and not all agree with his idea about expanding, something that Bob Bowlsby made sure to point out while talking to the Dallas Morning News.
"We talk about membership at every meeting," Bowlsby said. "I think our presidents individually have their own opinions on things. President Boren expressed his today.
"I have not got the indication that the majority of our presidents feel that way. I get the feeling that nothing has changed since we last discussed it." And, again, nothing will change as long as the Big 12 stays at 10 schools.
LINK:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...oma-president-prefers-the-big-12-has-12-teams
Oklahoma president wants Big 12 to consider re-expanding to 12 schools:
As long as the Big 12 has less teams than the other Power Five conferences, there will be people talking about the conference expanding. On Wednesday, it was Oklahoma president David Boren's turn.
"I'm an advocate of living up to our name," Boren said. "I was an advocate of it when we saw Louisville go other places and other things. I like being 12 rather than 10. I like that as long-range stability for the conference. Is it urgent? No.
"We should [expand] if we can find the right partners. Something we should strive for while we have the time, stability." Boren also pointed out that the Big 12's television deal will stay the same proportionally if the conference expands. In other words, each school would continue to get the same amount of money annually should the Big 12 add two more schools due to the pro rata clause in the contract.
Where the difference comes would be the money from the College Football Playoff. The Big 12 would get the same money from the CFP, but would then be splitting it between 12 schools instead of 10.
Of course, Boren only represents one of the 10 schools in the conference and not all agree with his idea about expanding, something that Bob Bowlsby made sure to point out while talking to the Dallas Morning News.
"We talk about membership at every meeting," Bowlsby said. "I think our presidents individually have their own opinions on things. President Boren expressed his today.
"I have not got the indication that the majority of our presidents feel that way. I get the feeling that nothing has changed since we last discussed it." And, again, nothing will change as long as the Big 12 stays at 10 schools.
LINK:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...oma-president-prefers-the-big-12-has-12-teams
Another Article:....
Big 12 expansion: Examining the pros, cons and candidates:
There's a valuable lesson when tracking conference realignment speculation in college sports: Believe the words in TV contracts more than the words coming out of people's mouths. Oklahoma president David Boren provided a reminder of that Wednesday when he mentioned at a university board of regents meeting that the 10-member Big 12 should "strive" for 12 members. According to the Oklahoman, Boren revealed that the Big 12's primary television contract does not hurt the conference from expanding in the way that has been portrayed for years.
"The contract says that our main television contract ... if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's 'X' dollars, it stays 'X' dollars." Ultimately, it may not make sense for the Big 12 to expand, especially if the conference is able to change an NCAA rule so a football championship game can be staged with 10 members. It's far from a given that the Big 12 thinks there are schools attractive enough right now to add. There is no Florida State lurking as a potential free agent in this round of realignment speculation.
Boren tends to be a loose cannon and his words are those of just one president. Remember, as always, be careful believing moving lips when discussing conference realignment. Still, in the mind of at least Boren, there's an underlying message being conveyed: "If you want to join our conference, keep investing in your athletic program because expansion is more viable than you might have thought."
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby confirmed to the Dallas Morning News and later told CBSSports.com that the Big 12's TV contract calls for pro rata increases or decreases based on the number of members. Bowlsby said he has no indication that the majority of Big 12 presidents support Boren's desire to reach 12.
"It's my sense that the majority are either unsure or not supportive of expansion at this point," Bowlsby told CBSSports.com on Thursday. "But David is a very influential member of our board and I think his comments will cause some to have pause and think about it again. David is obviously very politically savvy and insightful and very influential, so those are his thoughts on it and I'm certainly going to listen to them." It's important to note: Expansion would mean the Big 12 would have to share other league revenue 12 ways instead of 10. That means further dividing money from the College Football Playoff, other bowls and the NCAA Tournament -- real money some Big 12 schools won't want to lose without getting enough value in return from new members. Bowlsby said that the portion of divided Big 12 money represents about 40 percent of current conference revenue. The Big 12 announced last month that it distributed $252 million to its 10 members for the 2014-15 school year. "There are some places we could gain (financially) by being larger and some places we'd lose by being larger," Bowlsby said.
Reaching 12 members is "something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy," Boren said, according to the Oklahoman. "[We] can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should." Boren comes from the Oklahoma perspective of having to compete with Texas and its lucrative Longhorn Network. Even though the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network has struggled to get distribution, Texas is going to receive approximately $15 million per year until 2031.
Eventually, the Big 12, Texas and ESPN will have to tackle the Longhorn Network question again. Will it make sense financially for ESPN to do another deal with Texas? Would it make more sense for ESPN to roll the Longhorn Network -- which has more channel clearance right now than the Pac-12 Network -- into a Big 12 Network? Would Texas flirt again with joining the Pac-12? All of those are questions for many years down the road.
There are Big 12 schools taking notice of the anxiety some Pac-12 people are experiencing several years after expanding from 10 to 12. It's not all roses for the Pac-12, which fully owns the Pac-12 Network. Thus, the Pac-12 is distributing a lower percentage of its revenue to members than other major conferences pay to their schools. There's a line of thinking among some lower-budget Big 12 schools that the 10-member conference has incredibly helped their television exposure. Instead of playing some important football and basketball games on a conference network, some Big 12 schools are getting more attention than ever by playing on ESPN and Fox.
It's not lost on some Big 12 folks that its best football teams at the moment are Baylor ($86.9 million in reported 2013-14 athletic revenue) and TCU ($77.1 million), and not Texas ($161 million) and Oklahoma ($129.2 million). Now, that could obviously change if Texas and Oklahoma get their acts together again, as you would expect to eventually happen.
But the 10-team, round-robin model is working nicely to help the brands of some lower-tiered schools. The biggest reason to go to 12 teams would seem to be if the Big 12 can't stage a conference championship game with 10 and not having one continues to hurt the Big 12's playoff chances. When the Big 12 didn't collapse in 2010 and 2011 due to schools leaving, ESPN and Fox agreed to keep paying the conference the same amount without a Big 12 championship game.
"Because of the volatility that was in place at the time, TV partners said if you lose people, we'll give you pro rata down and if you gain people give pro rata up," Bowlsby said. "I think our TV partners might justifiably assert we ought to do (a championship game) without any uptick in money." Would expansion reopen the Big 12's TV contracts that are through 2025? "The answer is we would suggest that it does," Bowlsby said. "I don't know if our TV partners would agree with that."
Still, no one can predict what college sports will look like in a couple of years.
The Big Ten's next TV deal that further financially separates the Big Ten and SEC from everyone else could be a factor. Some of the anxiety felt within the Pac-12 could be a factor. CFP appearances or absences for particular conferences could be a factor. The changing landscape of legal obligations for schools to provide more benefits to athletes could be a factor.
Meanwhile, the performance and maturation of some athletic programs in the coming years could make some schools look more attractive to the Big 12. The Pac-12, ACC and Big Ten all expanded by adding programs that were viewed to be on the lower end of the spectrum in their new conference. Always remember this: Conference expansion has largely been about getting into new TV markets with heavy populations. Who are some of the very speculative candidates?
Link:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...g-12-now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-your-sports
Big 12 expansion: Examining the pros, cons and candidates:
There's a valuable lesson when tracking conference realignment speculation in college sports: Believe the words in TV contracts more than the words coming out of people's mouths. Oklahoma president David Boren provided a reminder of that Wednesday when he mentioned at a university board of regents meeting that the 10-member Big 12 should "strive" for 12 members. According to the Oklahoman, Boren revealed that the Big 12's primary television contract does not hurt the conference from expanding in the way that has been portrayed for years.
"The contract says that our main television contract ... if we grow from 10 to 11 or 11 to 12, their payments to us grow proportionally," Boren said. "So everybody's share stays the same. If it's 'X' dollars, it stays 'X' dollars." Ultimately, it may not make sense for the Big 12 to expand, especially if the conference is able to change an NCAA rule so a football championship game can be staged with 10 members. It's far from a given that the Big 12 thinks there are schools attractive enough right now to add. There is no Florida State lurking as a potential free agent in this round of realignment speculation.
Boren tends to be a loose cannon and his words are those of just one president. Remember, as always, be careful believing moving lips when discussing conference realignment. Still, in the mind of at least Boren, there's an underlying message being conveyed: "If you want to join our conference, keep investing in your athletic program because expansion is more viable than you might have thought."
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby confirmed to the Dallas Morning News and later told CBSSports.com that the Big 12's TV contract calls for pro rata increases or decreases based on the number of members. Bowlsby said he has no indication that the majority of Big 12 presidents support Boren's desire to reach 12.
"It's my sense that the majority are either unsure or not supportive of expansion at this point," Bowlsby told CBSSports.com on Thursday. "But David is a very influential member of our board and I think his comments will cause some to have pause and think about it again. David is obviously very politically savvy and insightful and very influential, so those are his thoughts on it and I'm certainly going to listen to them." It's important to note: Expansion would mean the Big 12 would have to share other league revenue 12 ways instead of 10. That means further dividing money from the College Football Playoff, other bowls and the NCAA Tournament -- real money some Big 12 schools won't want to lose without getting enough value in return from new members. Bowlsby said that the portion of divided Big 12 money represents about 40 percent of current conference revenue. The Big 12 announced last month that it distributed $252 million to its 10 members for the 2014-15 school year. "There are some places we could gain (financially) by being larger and some places we'd lose by being larger," Bowlsby said.
Reaching 12 members is "something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy," Boren said, according to the Oklahoman. "[We] can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should." Boren comes from the Oklahoma perspective of having to compete with Texas and its lucrative Longhorn Network. Even though the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network has struggled to get distribution, Texas is going to receive approximately $15 million per year until 2031.
Eventually, the Big 12, Texas and ESPN will have to tackle the Longhorn Network question again. Will it make sense financially for ESPN to do another deal with Texas? Would it make more sense for ESPN to roll the Longhorn Network -- which has more channel clearance right now than the Pac-12 Network -- into a Big 12 Network? Would Texas flirt again with joining the Pac-12? All of those are questions for many years down the road.
There are Big 12 schools taking notice of the anxiety some Pac-12 people are experiencing several years after expanding from 10 to 12. It's not all roses for the Pac-12, which fully owns the Pac-12 Network. Thus, the Pac-12 is distributing a lower percentage of its revenue to members than other major conferences pay to their schools. There's a line of thinking among some lower-budget Big 12 schools that the 10-member conference has incredibly helped their television exposure. Instead of playing some important football and basketball games on a conference network, some Big 12 schools are getting more attention than ever by playing on ESPN and Fox.
It's not lost on some Big 12 folks that its best football teams at the moment are Baylor ($86.9 million in reported 2013-14 athletic revenue) and TCU ($77.1 million), and not Texas ($161 million) and Oklahoma ($129.2 million). Now, that could obviously change if Texas and Oklahoma get their acts together again, as you would expect to eventually happen.
But the 10-team, round-robin model is working nicely to help the brands of some lower-tiered schools. The biggest reason to go to 12 teams would seem to be if the Big 12 can't stage a conference championship game with 10 and not having one continues to hurt the Big 12's playoff chances. When the Big 12 didn't collapse in 2010 and 2011 due to schools leaving, ESPN and Fox agreed to keep paying the conference the same amount without a Big 12 championship game.
"Because of the volatility that was in place at the time, TV partners said if you lose people, we'll give you pro rata down and if you gain people give pro rata up," Bowlsby said. "I think our TV partners might justifiably assert we ought to do (a championship game) without any uptick in money." Would expansion reopen the Big 12's TV contracts that are through 2025? "The answer is we would suggest that it does," Bowlsby said. "I don't know if our TV partners would agree with that."
Still, no one can predict what college sports will look like in a couple of years.
The Big Ten's next TV deal that further financially separates the Big Ten and SEC from everyone else could be a factor. Some of the anxiety felt within the Pac-12 could be a factor. CFP appearances or absences for particular conferences could be a factor. The changing landscape of legal obligations for schools to provide more benefits to athletes could be a factor.
Meanwhile, the performance and maturation of some athletic programs in the coming years could make some schools look more attractive to the Big 12. The Pac-12, ACC and Big Ten all expanded by adding programs that were viewed to be on the lower end of the spectrum in their new conference. Always remember this: Conference expansion has largely been about getting into new TV markets with heavy populations. Who are some of the very speculative candidates?
Link:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...g-12-now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-your-sports
Who Are The candidates:
BYU: The Cougars badly want to get into a Power Five conference for more money, exposure and scheduling help. BYU, owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, probably offers the largest potential audience for the Big 12. It might not be a cultural fit for the Big 12, though, such as BYU's policy of playing no games on Sundays.http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UCF/ucf-knights
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UCF/ucf-knights
Central Florida: This would get the Big 12 into Florida for games, although Texas and Oklahoma already recruit the state. Bowlsby has long suggested that if the Big 12 expands, it's going to go East for at least one member. UCF is in a state that's driven by Florida and Florida State, but the size of UCF's student body is big enough that it's growing its own fan base and could be a decent addition if UCF keeps winning in football.http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/COLOST/colorado-state-rams
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/COLOST/colorado-state-rams
Colorado State: The Rams are building a new on-campus football stadium with a price tag of around $200 million. Still, the stadium will seat 9,000 fewer fans than the Big 12's smallest (TCU) and Colorado State doesn't really capture the Denver TV market.http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/CINCY/cincinnati-bearcats
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/CINCY/cincinnati-bearcats
Cincinnati: The Big 12 would get into a large-market city and help solve the West Virginia travel problem. The Mountaineers are in no-man's land in the Eastern half of the country. But football drives college sports and right now the Bearcats' football program doesn't resonate in a pro sports city with the Reds and Bengals.
Houston: If Tom Herman is as good a head coach as he was as Ohio State's offensive coordinator, the Cougars could be winning big very soon while in a new stadium. Again, though, there's the concept of playing in big TV markets and the concept of capturing TV markets. But would the Big 12's schools really want another member from Texas?
Boise State: Competitively in football, Boise State makes all the sense in the world. The Broncos are a brand name by winning games. They also play in Idaho with a very small TV market.
Memphis: Like Cincinnati, adding Memphis would help solve the West Virginia travel problem. Memphis has a quality basketball program, has been improving in football, and is located in a decent (and new) TV market for the Big 12. Memphis president David Rudd apparently got Boren's memo and tweeted Wednesday: "Will be announcing new football & basketball facilities soon, stay tuned. Committed to competing at the highest level."
Boren's comments are just one president's opinion. Good luck getting the Big 12 to reach consensus without it turning into a circus. Still, the revelation that everyone's Big 12 TV money is guaranteed makes Big 12 expansion more viable than we once thought.
Link:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...g-12-now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-your-sports
BYU: The Cougars badly want to get into a Power Five conference for more money, exposure and scheduling help. BYU, owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, probably offers the largest potential audience for the Big 12. It might not be a cultural fit for the Big 12, though, such as BYU's policy of playing no games on Sundays.http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UCF/ucf-knights
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UCF/ucf-knights
Central Florida: This would get the Big 12 into Florida for games, although Texas and Oklahoma already recruit the state. Bowlsby has long suggested that if the Big 12 expands, it's going to go East for at least one member. UCF is in a state that's driven by Florida and Florida State, but the size of UCF's student body is big enough that it's growing its own fan base and could be a decent addition if UCF keeps winning in football.http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/COLOST/colorado-state-rams
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/COLOST/colorado-state-rams
Colorado State: The Rams are building a new on-campus football stadium with a price tag of around $200 million. Still, the stadium will seat 9,000 fewer fans than the Big 12's smallest (TCU) and Colorado State doesn't really capture the Denver TV market.http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/CINCY/cincinnati-bearcats
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/CINCY/cincinnati-bearcats
Cincinnati: The Big 12 would get into a large-market city and help solve the West Virginia travel problem. The Mountaineers are in no-man's land in the Eastern half of the country. But football drives college sports and right now the Bearcats' football program doesn't resonate in a pro sports city with the Reds and Bengals.
Houston: If Tom Herman is as good a head coach as he was as Ohio State's offensive coordinator, the Cougars could be winning big very soon while in a new stadium. Again, though, there's the concept of playing in big TV markets and the concept of capturing TV markets. But would the Big 12's schools really want another member from Texas?
Boise State: Competitively in football, Boise State makes all the sense in the world. The Broncos are a brand name by winning games. They also play in Idaho with a very small TV market.
Memphis: Like Cincinnati, adding Memphis would help solve the West Virginia travel problem. Memphis has a quality basketball program, has been improving in football, and is located in a decent (and new) TV market for the Big 12. Memphis president David Rudd apparently got Boren's memo and tweeted Wednesday: "Will be announcing new football & basketball facilities soon, stay tuned. Committed to competing at the highest level."
Boren's comments are just one president's opinion. Good luck getting the Big 12 to reach consensus without it turning into a circus. Still, the revelation that everyone's Big 12 TV money is guaranteed makes Big 12 expansion more viable than we once thought.
Link:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...g-12-now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-your-sports
I think someone doesn't realize just how far it is from Memphis to Morgantown. I mean you are talking about what, 700 to 800 miles? The only way that Memphis helps solve the West Virginia travel problem is in a "well they are both sort of off in that direction" kind of way.
If the Big-12 wants to stabilize and expand its TV Footprint it should move to 16 Teams and Renegotiate all TV Contracts including the College playoff TV Bowl Money as a condition and that in itself would solve all of its potential problems and result with its own Big-12 Network and within in it the Long Horn Network that is still suffering from Distribution problems.
Add these Schools and States and name it the Big16 Conference!
I would go after COMCAST located in Philadelphia as the Major TV Cable Provider that would willing to increase role in College Football and a Content Distributor! It won't solve all the Travel Problems in the Big-12 MidEast but would reduce it for WVU isolation, and would certainly lower the costs in Big-16 Southwest! It would force the Re-Negotiations of Playoff TV with FOX and ESPN that can work out other deals with percentages with COMCAST BIG16 Network. It would go from 5 state Footprint to 11 State Footprint in some of the Biggest Cable States. Finally, it will be the first conference to go to 16 Teams and take that name first and 12 Schools won't be enough for the future anyway.
Even more important, it would remove PAC-12 threats, along with SEC, and Big Ten and remain a Power Conference until a College Football For Profit League comes into creation and reorganizes the entire League and all 5 Power Conference to a better Geographical, Restored Rivalries, and Reduced Costs Re-organization of Big Four Power Conferences 20 Teams with 2 Divisions each for a total 80 team FBS League. Or Big Eight Power Conferences of 8 Conferences of 10 Teams. This would add another 15 Schools to Power Conferences in the end going from current 65 to 80! Other schools like UNLV, New Mexico, South Florida, UConn, San Diego State, Boise State, Navy, Army, Tulane, etc etc could be added later to Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC, and ACC!
The NFL went through such changes when it went from the NFL into the NFL/AFL Merger into an AFC/NFC Leagues as some Teams were paid to switch and then to 32 teams Expansions. They reorganized into standard Geographical Rivals, Reduced Standard Rosters & Practice Squads, and develop Salary Caps to keep Competitive Levels so all teams could win a Super Bowl and to especially grow Revenues far faster than growing costs to maintain a one to six club advantage over other clubs.
BIG-16 MidEast:
Central Florida-FLORIDA CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
UCincy-OHIO CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
East Carolina-NORTH CAROLINA CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
Memphis-TENNESSEE CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
Temple-PENNSYLVANIA CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
Kansas-KANSAS CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
KSU-KANSAS " " "
WVU-WEST VIRGINIA CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
BIG-16 SOUTHWEST:
BYU-UTAH CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
ISU-IOWA CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
OU-OKLAHOMA CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
OKSU-OKLAHOMA" "
Baylor-TEXAS CABLE SUBSCRIBERS
TCU-TEXAS " "
Texas Tech-" "
UTexas-" "
This is how I see it can resolve all Big12 problems and can expand Schools, Revenues, Networks, and reduce Travel Costs Per Schools.
Similar threads
