(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on.

I think your evaluation of the situation is accurate, but I'm just not sure that Texas would choose the SEC even in the face of a strengthening Aggie problem. I think they would continue to refuse to play A&M and try to burnish further their past accomplishments. Oklahoma on the other hand will go where they can earn the most and I wouldn't rule out either the Big 10 or SEC. They would very much like to be AAU and the Big 10 would have to look very attractive to them for that reason (and the fact that Nebraska would await them there). On the other hand they need their Southern recruiting ties to remain viable. So I would say that their decision would track along those choices to be made.

I could actually see Texas join the ACC in an arrangement like that of Notre Dame before they would join the SEC. They might really consider it if T.C.U. and Baylor made the move with them as #s 15 & 16 as full members. But what I can't see is Texas moving to any conference where their LHN would either be lost or could not be morphed into another ESPN property.

Like I said before, LHN, Baylor, TCU and Tech trap UT in the B12.

The only realistic escape scenario I see is the PAC.

They would allow LHN to be morphed into one if their regional PAC channels and they would accept Tech and OSU as tagalongs for UT and OSU. Taking care of the public school little brother may be enough to justify abandoning the 2 privates but both will put up major law suits since both have spent lots of money on facilities under the assumption they were going to be in a power conference.

(05-11-2013 09:21 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 05:40 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  This type of instability cannot last, and it isn't just about having 10 members. The conference right now is overwhelming dependent on one state, and has two members that don't even share a border with another Big 12 state. It is on an entirely different, lower level than the ACC or PAC12 (the PAC12 has limited expansion options, but they are also immune to getting picked apart). And it isn't good enough at either football or basketball to make up for its other failings.

Right now, the Big 12 is clearly the #3/#4 conference, ahead of the ACC. That's reflected in the SEC's decision to partner with the Big 12 instead of the ACC on the Sugar Bowl deal. It has a great media deal, a GoR that ensures stability for years, and a great situation in the bowl/playoffs system.

Yes, the Big 12 is dependent on Texas, but then again Texas is wealthier than most countries in the world. It's a whole lot better of a state to be dependent on than, say North Carolina (ACC), and isn't the PAC also quite dependent on California?

As for what the Big 12 is good at, well, it has clearly been the second-best football conference in the BCS era, and the last three years it has been arguably the equal of the SEC.

The only reason i see to dump on the Big 12 is ... wishful thinking from fans of schools that want an invitation.

Actually...not many in the College Sports Media agrees with that statement...Arute, Brando etc. etc....but whatever makes you feel better.

As far as recruiting, the ACC, SEC & B1G are not dependant on 1 State:
ACC: Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia & North Carolina....all Top 12 States in regards to producing Football Talent with the monster of course being Florida.

SEC: Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and North Carolina...All Top 12 States

B1G: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Illinois...All Top 15 States in Producing Football Talent.

Big XII: Texas

Pac 12: California

As a matter of fact the SEC has a partnership with the ACC as well...so does the B1G & Notre Dame...Frank outlined the issues with the Big XII, it is correctable but it is there and it appears with the Bowl Tie-Ins the ACC-(Captiol One Bowl is about to be a B1G, SEC & ACC Deal) will have a better lineup Top to Bottom then the Big XII & Pac 12.

In the end it really doesn't matter because if you have a CFP Tie in which everyone of the P5 has then it all good.

Also, you might wanna check the Big XII Bowl Record before saying they are equal to the SEC...

A bit of a tangent, but Oklahoma is underrated for football talent. It usually produces 40-50 Div 1 signees a year and is in the top 20 states. TCU usually has 3 or so players on the roster from Oklahoma.

More directly to your point, I really don't think recruiting is or will ever be an issue for the Big 12. There is more than enough talent in Texas and the Midwest- that's the biggest reason TCU was able to become one of the best programs in the country despite major branding issues of being "non-BCS". If the Big 12 falters, it will be because of off the field issues/ pressures, not a lack of recruiting resource diversity.

Frog the other problem the Big12 has is a population problem. Compared to the other league they are in relatively small states which is why Florida is attractive. However, again I think CA is the better option. The Big12 could come into CA and immediately capture 40% of the state.

How? The Pac-12 schools represent the bluest of Blue areas of CA. The Bay Area and the West side of Los Angeles. Both the valley which is heavily agriculture and San Diego which is heavily military don't identify with these areas and do identify with the political/cultural model represented by the Big 12 and their schools. If the Big 12 did a launch and talked about the cultural fit of the instutions and the people who followed them: hard working, conservative people they would immediately pull 40% of the State.

Can you see a Pac-12 school with this kind of video or a Big-12 school.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=9K5N16dMs...r_embedded

(05-10-2013 04:02 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 03:47 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 03:32 PM)Groo Wrote:  Those who had a problem with the "inequity" left. Everyone else is looking at an estimated $22-25 million per year before tier 3 kicks in. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...nue-payout

Sorry, but $9 mill is pennies compared to what tier 3 rights are in a bundled network package (B1G, SEC). If Texas or WVU reportedly makes close to $9 mill for tier 3, what does Kansas make with their tier 3? $3 mill maybe? How many times will Kansas football be played on national tv in 2013? The point of the piece is about future earning potential as a conference, not current distribution. In a bundle of tier 3 content, even Indiana and Kentucky football gets to take a pretty girl to the prom too.

The projections don't include third-tier television rights, which the schools control and, in some cases, garner serious side money. (Texas and West Virginia are both reportedly over $9 million per year.)

Actually, I think Kansas is pretty high. An old thread said, $6 million and I've seen higher figures put online (don't know where to look for perfect figures though). That's mostly basketball probably though. Kansas State and Iowa State I'd imagine are a lot less. It would be a lot less still if Texas and Oklahoma were in the PAC-10, which is what probably would have happened without the Longhorn Network.

Prior to the LHN, Kansas easily led the Big 12 in Tier 3 revenue.

(05-10-2013 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 04:05 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:55 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:45 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  But even when Louisville was available, the same issues were facing the Big 12- no conference network to make adding "markets" significant, awkward potential divisions, doesn't make UT more likely to stay.

I think the Big 12 was fine with 10 back then, just as they are now because the issues are the same. The only difference is if FSU or ND became available- those are the only expansions I suspect they seriously considered. They were in a position to take advantage of a frameshift change in the landscape, but were not in a position to cause one, and in fact in think preferred the status quo.

Who knows what the last straw would have been for FSU and Clemson? Perhaps if Louisville had not been available, then it could have been just enough to tip the scales and cause a mass exodus of ACC southern football schools to the Big 12.

A Big 12 with any six of Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, NC State, Louisville, etc. would be very formidable and more than enough to offset Texas's gravitational influence.

That is true - but it presumes that the Big 12 could have pulled the likes of those schools. I think that FSU and Clemson rattled their swords a little and used the potential for an exit to the Big 12 to get the ACC to listen to them (and likely pick UL over UConn, for example) but I don't think there was ever a chance for a major exodus from the ACC to the Big 12 unless the SEC and B1G had both struck significant simultaneous blows to the ACC. I've seen some Big 12 posters on local message boards bemoan the Big 12's "lost opportunity" to get FSU and Clemson, but I think in the end the reason they didn't formally invite them is not just because UT said no, but because they knew via back-channel conversations that neither of them would leave the ACC.

In retrospect Phog I don't believe that ESPN was going to reward SEC expansion out of the ACC and I don't believe Slive wanted to destabilize what has been an extremely healthy environment for the SEC by destabilizing the "best" buffer the SEC had against Big 10 expansion into the South. Therefore F.S.U. and Clemson to the Big 12 was never a serious option in anyone's minds but some of the fans.

FSU's president gave a presentation in a board meeting on it. Clemson discussed it in at least 2 board meetings and had Swofford come speak to them at a 3rd. It was clearly seriously considered by lots more than fans. Doubt either was ever simply waiting for an invitation, but they were definitely evaluating it.

(05-11-2013 10:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on.

I think your evaluation of the situation is accurate, but I'm just not sure that Texas would choose the SEC even in the face of a strengthening Aggie problem. I think they would continue to refuse to play A&M and try to burnish further their past accomplishments. Oklahoma on the other hand will go where they can earn the most and I wouldn't rule out either the Big 10 or SEC. They would very much like to be AAU and the Big 10 would have to look very attractive to them for that reason (and the fact that Nebraska would await them there). On the other hand they need their Southern recruiting ties to remain viable. So I would say that their decision would track along those choices to be made.

I could actually see Texas join the ACC in an arrangement like that of Notre Dame before they would join the SEC. They might really consider it if T.C.U. and Baylor made the move with them as #s 15 & 16 as full members. But what I can't see is Texas moving to any conference where their LHN would either be lost or could not be morphed into another ESPN property.

If Texas goes to the ACC their football program would forever be second best to A&M. While I agree the Academic snobbery of College Presidents would push them in that direction, there will be a lot of big money boosters for whom that situation would not be acceptable.

Austin may fancy themselves a small sliver of CA inside Texas but at the end of the day they do reside in Texas and being second best at football so you can hobnob with the academic elite won't go over so well.

(05-11-2013 11:09 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Like I said before, LHN, Baylor, TCU and Tech trap UT in the B12.

The only realistic escape scenario I see is the PAC.

They would allow LHN to be morphed into one if their regional PAC channels and they would accept Tech and OSU as tagalongs for UT and OSU. Taking care of the public school little brother may be enough to justify abandoning the 2 privates but both will put up major law suits since both have spent lots of money on facilities under the assumption they were going to be in a power conference.

The Pac won't allow unequal revenue sharing anymore than the SEC will. Cal and UCLA are in the bluest sections of CA which many on the right would call socialists. Do you think Texas would keep the revenue from LHN when USC doesn't keep the revenue from the southern CA PAC-12 Network.

(05-11-2013 12:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era

That's your opinion, but the point is that a lot of people had the opinion that the Big 8 was the best or second-best football conference of the 1970s and 1980s -- Nebraska and/or Oklahoma were top 5 almost every year, and the Big 8 is still the only conference to ever have 3 of its teams finish 1-2-3 in the final AP poll -- and even with that much football success (which is more than the Big 12 has had), JR's description "Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers" for the top dogs applies just as much to the Big 8 as the Big 12.

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But the issue will be while these schools all make more than they have can they remain competitive in a market where they will be outpaced by two of the power conferences significantly, and nudged out by the other two? Will Oklahoma and Texas permit that to happen to their programs? Will Kansas or West Virginia? Those are the questions that Frank did not ask. I'll readily admit that Texas will probably keep pace with the others anyway, but I'm not so sure OU can.

I think OU might agree with you on that point, and that's why they were eager to seek out the Pac-12 two years ago while UT was content to sit on its mountain of cash. OU might make a move when their next window of opportunity opens up even if UT isn't interested in joining anyone else's league. Next time, if UT still isn't interested in a move to the Pac, OU might look to join the SEC.

College football audience is more national. Footprint isn't doing the AAC much good. Big 12 ratings this past year were just behind the Big 10 and well ahead of Pac 12 and ACC. Its about brands, not markets. Markets are nice to have, but not essential. Ask Notre Dame which is in a basketball crazy state with limited football talent, in a small metro area, with overall less fan support within that state than 1 or 2 other schools, and does just fine.

(05-11-2013 09:13 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:46 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address.

Agreed. And so does the ACC, which slightly beneath the surface has a fractured culture between football and basketball schools.

Nope. That's another made up lie in the world of ACC haters led by the dude. There's never been anything publicly said by any of these schools that indicate a fractured culture.

Teams actually left the Big 12 because of the unfair treatment towards Texas. Hell the SEC has a network. The Big Ten has a network. The Pac-12 has a network. The ACC is getting a network. Texas has a network. LOL

You don't have to be an ACC "hater" to recognize that some ACC schools (primarily in the Carolina/VA core) care a lot more about basketball than football, while others (primarily those added between 1990 and 2005) care a lot more about football than basketball. There are enough schools with each culture to create the critical mass needed to constitute a camp within the conference (unlike say in the SEC, where Kentucky cares more about basketball but everyone else focuses on football) and hence conflicts of interest. This distinction is frequently made in the media so there must be a lot of haters out there, LOL.

As for Texas, I don't see any unfairness in the Big 12 arrangement. Texas is a far bigger market draw than are schools like Iowa State and TCU, so why shouldn't Texas get more? Those other schools still make out like bandits because they piggy-back on Texas's (and Oklahoma's) football brand appeal.

Yes, a prime motivation for Nebraska's departure was their resentment about Texas's power. But likewise, a motivation for Maryland's departure from the ACC was long-simmering resentment over Carolina dominance of ACC politics. I grew up in Maryland and recall constant grumbling by Terps fans about Carolina controlling everything and screwing Maryland over.

Of course some schools care more about basketball and others care more about football. My 1st grader could have told you that.

By your definition the Pac-12 is fractured because USC and Oregon are football schools and UCLA and Arizona are basketball schools.

Oh the SEC is fractured too. Kentucky is basketball and Alabama is football.

Look, if you're unable to read my post - a post in which i specifically mentioned how Kentucky and the SEC differ from the ACC, and explained the concept of "critical mass" - then please don't bother to reply. It's just more inane pro-ACC empty rhetoric.

(05-11-2013 11:25 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on.

I think your evaluation of the situation is accurate, but I'm just not sure that Texas would choose the SEC even in the face of a strengthening Aggie problem. I think they would continue to refuse to play A&M and try to burnish further their past accomplishments. Oklahoma on the other hand will go where they can earn the most and I wouldn't rule out either the Big 10 or SEC. They would very much like to be AAU and the Big 10 would have to look very attractive to them for that reason (and the fact that Nebraska would await them there). On the other hand they need their Southern recruiting ties to remain viable. So I would say that their decision would track along those choices to be made.

I could actually see Texas join the ACC in an arrangement like that of Notre Dame before they would join the SEC. They might really consider it if T.C.U. and Baylor made the move with them as #s 15 & 16 as full members. But what I can't see is Texas moving to any conference where their LHN would either be lost or could not be morphed into another ESPN property.

If Texas goes to the ACC their football program would forever be second best to A&M. While I agree the Academic snobbery of College Presidents would push them in that direction, there will be a lot of big money boosters for whom that situation would not be acceptable.

Austin may fancy themselves a small sliver of CA inside Texas but at the end of the day they do reside in Texas and being second best at football so you can hobnob with the academic elite won't go over so well.

Not many Longhorns on the east coast (real ones) but I have a little herd of them just up the road from me here in MS. OMG! Just thought about it. Maybe it's a clandestine plot by UT to spy and scout the SEC for a future move!!!

(05-11-2013 11:09 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Like I said before, LHN, Baylor, TCU and Tech trap UT in the B12.

The only realistic escape scenario I see is the PAC.

They would allow LHN to be morphed into one if their regional PAC channels and they would accept Tech and OSU as tagalongs for UT and OSU. Taking care of the public school little brother may be enough to justify abandoning the 2 privates but both will put up major law suits since both have spent lots of money on facilities under the assumption they were going to be in a power conference.

Powers suggested something like that to Larry Scott in 2011, but what Powers wanted was UT keeping LHN and taking a full share of Pac-12 revenue, and Scott could never have sold that to the Pac CEOs. (USC and UCLA would have said, why can't we start our own network, or sell our own TV rights to Fox, and keep the money for ourselves instead of sharing it with Wazzu and Utah.) No surprise that Powers would ask for so much considering the leverage he has from all the $$$ ESPN has given UT. The basis for a workable deal would be more like UT keeping its LHN money while taking a smaller share of Pac TV money, and airing both PTN and LHN on cable systems in Texas, with the PTN channel in Texas and Oklahoma having OU/OSU/TTU programming for its regional portion.

But, again, UT doesn't need to move, no matter what deal the Pac-12 offers. They can get everything they want for themselves without ever joining the Pac-12, or the SEC, or the Big Ten. Who knows, their next move might be to ask their Big 12 partners for a Notre Dame deal, and tell them, if the Big 12 doesn't give us this deal, we'll go to the ACC for the same deal that Notre Dame has.

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

(05-10-2013 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 04:05 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:55 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:45 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  But even when Louisville was available, the same issues were facing the Big 12- no conference network to make adding "markets" significant, awkward potential divisions, doesn't make UT more likely to stay.

I think the Big 12 was fine with 10 back then, just as they are now because the issues are the same. The only difference is if FSU or ND became available- those are the only expansions I suspect they seriously considered. They were in a position to take advantage of a frameshift change in the landscape, but were not in a position to cause one, and in fact in think preferred the status quo.

Who knows what the last straw would have been for FSU and Clemson? Perhaps if Louisville had not been available, then it could have been just enough to tip the scales and cause a mass exodus of ACC southern football schools to the Big 12.

A Big 12 with any six of Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, NC State, Louisville, etc. would be very formidable and more than enough to offset Texas's gravitational influence.

That is true - but it presumes that the Big 12 could have pulled the likes of those schools. I think that FSU and Clemson rattled their swords a little and used the potential for an exit to the Big 12 to get the ACC to listen to them (and likely pick UL over UConn, for example) but I don't think there was ever a chance for a major exodus from the ACC to the Big 12 unless the SEC and B1G had both struck significant simultaneous blows to the ACC. I've seen some Big 12 posters on local message boards bemoan the Big 12's "lost opportunity" to get FSU and Clemson, but I think in the end the reason they didn't formally invite them is not just because UT said no, but because they knew via back-channel conversations that neither of them would leave the ACC.

In retrospect Phog I don't believe that ESPN was going to reward SEC expansion out of the ACC and I don't believe Slive wanted to destabilize what has been an extremely healthy environment for the SEC by destabilizing the "best" buffer the SEC had against Big 10 expansion into the South. Therefore F.S.U. and Clemson to the Big 12 was never a serious option in anyone's minds but some of the fans.

Let's face it. If the SEC had truly wanted Virginia Tech and North Carolina the only way they could have potentially shaken them loose would have been by first taking F.S.U. and Clemson to destroy the ACC's football chops (prior to the N.D. announcement of course). In order to qualify for the big playoff money the other schools of the ACC with football interest would have been forced to weigh their options.

Two years ago the rumor was that the SEC would go to 16 with Texas A&M and Missouri from the West and Clemson and Florida State from the East (an ESPN rumor). Then the so called "gentlemen's agreement was first voiced" and all of that changed. FOX made major strides and that may have altered ESPN strategies as well.

But after FOX made its moves and the Big 10 started talking expansion strategy it became very clear that a solid ACC was the in the best interest of both ESPN and the SEC.

If the Big 12 chooses to expand the power 5 will be at an end of raiding each other for additions. If they do not that speculation (and possibility) of a future raid against the Big 12 by the other power 4 will linger. Expansion now for the Big 12 would be the best possible news for Cincinnati, South Florida, Connecticut, B.Y.U. and others.

I think failure to expand by the Big 12 at this point is truly a sign of Texas having desires for some other kind of affiliation.

Excellent summary!
Dodds has said that Texas would not go west.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...NQ#t=1322s

As long as there is a LHN, the only options that Texas has is to remain in the Big 12 or to ask for a Notre Dame type agreement with the ACC. As long as the Big 12 stays at 10 teams, the Longhorns have options and don't have to be in a hurry.
BTW there are several that have believed that Slive, Swofford and ESPN have been in cahoots to maintain the status quo in the whole of the Southeast, and to guarantee ESPN'S access to the premier football conference and the best basketball league ever assembled.

(05-11-2013 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 12:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era

That's your opinion, but the point is that a lot of people had the opinion that the Big 8 was the best or second-best football conference of the 1970s and 1980s -- Nebraska and/or Oklahoma were top 5 almost every year, and the Big 8 is still the only conference to ever have 3 of its teams finish 1-2-3 in the final AP poll -- and even with that much football success (which is more than the Big 12 has had), JR's description "Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers" for the top dogs applies just as much to the Big 8 as the Big 12.

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But the issue will be while these schools all make more than they have can they remain competitive in a market where they will be outpaced by two of the power conferences significantly, and nudged out by the other two? Will Oklahoma and Texas permit that to happen to their programs? Will Kansas or West Virginia? Those are the questions that Frank did not ask. I'll readily admit that Texas will probably keep pace with the others anyway, but I'm not so sure OU can.

I think OU might agree with you on that point, and that's why they were eager to seek out the Pac-12 two years ago while UT was content to sit on its mountain of cash. OU might make a move when their next window of opportunity opens up even if UT isn't interested in joining anyone else's league. Next time, if UT still isn't interested in a move to the Pac, OU might look to join the SEC.

College football audience is more national. Footprint isn't doing the AAC much good. Big 12 ratings this past year were just behind the Big 10 and well ahead of Pac 12 and ACC. Its about brands, not markets. Markets are nice to have, but not essential. Ask Notre Dame which is in a basketball crazy state with limited football talent, in a small metro area, with overall less fan support within that state than 1 or 2 other schools, and does just fine.

Yes, and this is a key point the "market and footprint" folks keep missing. From a TV point of view, the most important thing is a program's national appeal, not whether every single TV set in their "market" is tuned in. What makes Notre Dame valuable isn't that they "own" the South Bend/suburds of Chicago market, it's that they are popular all over the country. For schools like Alabama, their brand name is also national, such that when they play, they tend to draw a good audience everywhere, not just in Alabama.

However, there is one aspect where "market" dominance does matter: in local revenues, which are still the biggest revenues the top schools have. For example, LSU draws enormous interest in Louisiana. This enables it to earn about $50 million a year - far more than it gets from SEC media and bowl money - from local sources like 90,000+ fans paying top dollar for tickets, personal seat licenses, parking, concessions, luxury suites, etc.

It's this massive local money that allows schools like LSU to build the best facilities and thus helps them land the top recruits, which then helps win lots of games, making them popular national TV draws. It is a positive-reinforcement cycle. But it has nothing to do with "market size" per se, as schools like Temple and Houston prove.

(05-11-2013 03:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's this massive local money that allows schools like LSU to build the best facilities and thus helps them land the top recruits, which then helps then win lots of games, making them popular national TV draws. It is a positive-reinforcement cycle. But it has nothing to do with "market size" per se, as schools like Temple and Houston prove.

It does have to do with market size, it's just that LSU's market is Louisiana, not just Baton Rouge.

If Louisiana (4.6 million people) only had the population of Alaska (about 700,000 people), LSU wouldn't generate anywhere near as much income as it does now.

Market size does matter, when the market is properly defined.

What also matters is market penetration, i.e., the percentage of support/viewership/etc. a team has within that market. Large market size and low market penetration (like Temple) means that market size is negated. But small market size (e.g., Alaska) doesn't work for big-time sports either, even with a high percentage of market penetration.

(05-11-2013 03:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's this massive local money that allows schools like LSU to build the best facilities and thus helps them land the top recruits, which then helps then win lots of games, making them popular national TV draws. It is a positive-reinforcement cycle. But it has nothing to do with "market size" per se, as schools like Temple and Houston prove.

It does have to do with market size, it's just that LSU's market is Louisiana, not just Baton Rouge.

I get that. You can't have a "market" that consists of nobody or just a small smattering of people in the Alaskan wilderness and sell large amounts of tickets, etc. But, 4.6 million isn't much either. Louisiana is a small state, and a low-income one to boot. If NBC or CBS launches a new national TV show, they don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether it is a smash in the "critical" Louisiana market, LOL. During presidential elections, our 8 electoral votes don't typically draw tons of attention from the candidates.

If the issue is one of market size x penetration, the danger around here on this forum has, far and away, been from those who emphasize the size and not the penetration. As schools like LSU show, your market size can be quite small but if you penetrate the hell out of it you can be big-time. In contrast, the "New Big East" thought it would be rolling in dough from media companies because it allegedly had a "footprint" that encompassed massive Texas, Florida, and Northeast corridor "markets". We saw how that worked out.

(05-11-2013 03:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's this massive local money that allows schools like LSU to build the best facilities and thus helps them land the top recruits, which then helps then win lots of games, making them popular national TV draws. It is a positive-reinforcement cycle. But it has nothing to do with "market size" per se, as schools like Temple and Houston prove.

It does have to do with market size, it's just that LSU's market is Louisiana, not just Baton Rouge.

I get that. You can't have a "market" that consists of nobody or just a small smattering of people in the Alaskan wilderness and sell large amounts of tickets, etc. But, 4.6 million isn't much either.

It is for a college football market that is pretty much dominated by just one team. That's a lot more people than Oklahoma or Nebraska. That's about as many people as Alabama, which has 2 SEC teams. There are many northeastern, midwestern, and western markets that have more people, but pro sports take up much more of the market in those places than in the south. The percentage of NFL-only fans in Louisiana (that follow the Saints but don't follow LSU) is much smaller than, say, the percentage of NFL-only fans in Colorado or Maryland.

LSU popularity has also spilled into eastern Tejas, which is one of the many reasons the A&M add was so powerful.

(05-11-2013 03:56 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  LSU popularity has also spilled into eastern Tejas...

Yes, Houston has an enormous LSU alumni base, and the state of Texas even makes money off it by selling Texas license plates that have the LSU logo on them, LOL.

(05-11-2013 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's this massive local money that allows schools like LSU to build the best facilities and thus helps them land the top recruits, which then helps then win lots of games, making them popular national TV draws. It is a positive-reinforcement cycle. But it has nothing to do with "market size" per se, as schools like Temple and Houston prove.

It does have to do with market size, it's just that LSU's market is Louisiana, not just Baton Rouge.

I get that. You can't have a "market" that consists of nobody or just a small smattering of people in the Alaskan wilderness and sell large amounts of tickets, etc. But, 4.6 million isn't much either.

It is for a college football market that is pretty much dominated by just one team. That's a lot more people than Oklahoma or Nebraska. That's about as many people as Alabama, which has 2 SEC teams. There are many northeastern, midwestern, and western markets that have more people, but pro sports take up much more of the market in those places than in the south. The percentage of NFL-only fans in Louisiana (that follow the Saints but don't follow LSU) is much smaller than, say, the percentage of NFL-only fans in Colorado or Maryland.

LSU benefits from being in and contributes to a state with a much deeper football culture than in states like Colorado and Maryland. In Louisiana, as in much of the south, you have a true three-level (high school, college, NFL) football culture that redounds to the benefit of all of them. It creates a general frenzy around football that permeates the culture not just in the fall but year-round. It also helps the 4 other FBS schools in Lousiana and some IAA programs as well.