CBS gave up the provision that restricted the SEC from broadcasting another game during the CBS game of the week, which the SEC needed to create its own network, so the SEC got what it needed from CBS during the latest renegotiations.

But CBS's contention that TAMU and Mizzou did not add to the value of CBS's contract looks pretty ludicrous now. What game would have been the game of the week if not this one?

Again,

(09-14-2013 03:26 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

CBS gave up the provision that restricted the SEC from broadcasting another game during the CBS game of the week, which the SEC needed to create its own network, so the SEC got what it needed from CBS during the latest renegotiations.

But CBS's contention that TAMU and Mizzou did not add to the value of CBS's contract looks pretty ludicrous now. What game would have been the game of the week if not this one.

Again,

Any other college football game.

This year has been good for it, but remember A&M and Missouri means fewer Florida-Alabama, LSU-Georgia, etc games. That balances out to extra for ESPN, but with CBS only getting one game a week anyway, it's debatable that Missouri/A&M benefits them much over the life of the contract.

(09-14-2013 05:38 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  This year has been good for it, but remember A&M and Missouri means fewer Florida-Alabama, LSU-Georgia, etc games. That balances out to extra for ESPN, but with CBS only getting one game a week anyway, it's debatable that Missouri/A&M benefits them much over the life of the contract.

Right. If there were no Bama-TAMU this year, for instance, CBS might have had the SCar-UGA game moved to this weekend.

Teams may be good in individual years, but A&M and Missouri are middle tier programs in the SEC. Adding two more middle tier programs doesn't add much value to CBS.
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, LSU and Tennessee are the 1st tier programs. All have MNCs since 1980 and multiple top 5 finishes (at least 4 for all of them).
A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina are the middle tier. Among them Missouri has the only top 5 finish (2007) since 1980.
UK, Vandy, Ole Miss and MSU are the bottom tier.

CBS gets only 1 game. As pointed out above, 2 new middle tier teams mean less matchups among the top tier.

(09-14-2013 03:26 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  But CBS's contention that TAMU and Mizzou did not add to the value of CBS's contract looks pretty ludicrous now.

ESPN got what they needed from CBS to start their network, but you can be sure CBS got something in return.

As for the value of TAMU, it was a smart contention for CBS to make, and it probably saved them a few bucks. No cost to them for being wrong. CBS is in a fantastic position, getting to cherry-pick the best SEC game every week. I don't hear them complaining.

We bring the state of TX's TV sets.

That's all you need and then some.

(09-15-2013 08:56 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  We bring the state of TX's TV sets.

That's all you need and then some.

(09-15-2013 08:56 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  We bring the state of TX's TV sets.

That's all you need and then some.

So is Texas (the university) at all worried that aTm upstaged them, or will Texas always be Texas regardless?

(09-15-2013 09:45 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 08:56 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  We bring the state of TX's TV sets.

That's all you need and then some.

So is Texas (the university) at all worried that aTm upstaged them, or will Texas always be Texas regardless?

Texas will always be Texas and A&M will be just fine

Texas A&M to the SEC has changed the dynamic for both the SEC and for football in Texas.

1) Houston is now a SEC city. With A&M and LSU fans here in Houston (the biggest city in Texas and the fastest growing big city in the US), the Big XII is an increasingly distant second here. The SEC is now a strong second elsewhere in Texas. For television networks, its more than a market, its eyeballs actually watching. The SEC product is more valuable because of it. If CBS doesn't wish to pay extra for it, someone else will.

2) UT has made some boneheaded decisions that have really harmed their former position as the undisputed football leader in Texas. I'm going to assume that Big XII decisions are really just UT's decisions. Letting A&M go was mistake number one (they would have stayed but for the LHN). Refusing to add Louisville along with West Virginia was mistake number two (and this was UT's decision) - if they had added Louisville, they might have gotten Notre Dame like the ACC did. Now there is no one for them to take that really helps their product. Adding TCU instead of Houston was also the wrong decision, as it added a private school (that doesn't really add a lot of fans) and it ceded Houston to the SEC. Finally, they got petty and refused to schedule A&M. So now, Texas doesn't even get to play A&M and challenge the accepted theory that the best program in Texas right now is Texas A&M. It won't look good on Thanksgiving when TAMU is playing LSU on national TV and is watched by millions and UT plays... TCU.

Missouri was a 'shift add'. Meaning that just subtract the Mizzou viewers from the Big XII and shift the to the SEC. TAMU was a game changer. Not only does the SEC get TAMU's viewers, but due to the A&M's increased competitiveness and the better matchups, it increases the number of viewers beyond simply what A&M's viewership was in the Big XII.

(09-15-2013 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Texas A&M to the SEC has changed the dynamic for both the SEC and for football in Texas.

1) Houston is now a SEC city. With A&M and LSU fans here in Houston (the biggest city in Texas and the fastest growing big city in the US), the Big XII is an increasingly distant second here. The SEC is now a strong second elsewhere in Texas. For television networks, its more than a market, its eyeballs actually watching. The SEC product is more valuable because of it. If CBS doesn't wish to pay extra for it, someone else will.

2) UT has made some boneheaded decisions that have really harmed their former position as the undisputed football leader in Texas. I'm going to assume that Big XII decisions are really just UT's decisions. Letting A&M go was mistake number one (they would have stayed but for the LHN). Refusing to add Louisville along with West Virginia was mistake number two (and this was UT's decision) - if they had added Louisville, they might have gotten Notre Dame like the ACC did.

I dont see how the Big 12 adding Louisville would have lured ND to the Big 12 or even made their position stronger for ND. Everything else you said makes a lot of sense.

Isn't CBS's point of view that since the game they broadcast is a national broadcast adding markets to the SEC doesn't do much for them?

(09-15-2013 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm going to assume that Big XII decisions are really just UT's decisions.

Texas is a popular bad guy in this, but I've never felt it felt the facts.

The schools that left, were leaving regardless. Colorado was PAC-12 bound regardless and Missouri would have been Big Ten bound if they could have. That combined created enough instability that Nebraska was leaving (really, them and Texas didn't disagree with anything all that big despite the media portraying them otherwise). A&M left because the SEC was a chance to raise its national profile (in the state of Texas it was fine, but before realignment ask your average fan what was the difference between Tech and A&M and most wouldn't have an answer; I know I wouldn't have) and Missouri wasn't staying put after all that movement.

For expansion, what little we've gotten out of the Big 12 talks seem to suggest it was the non-Texas schools that wanted another Texas school to keep recruiting strong. If it was Texas's choice, it may well have been Louiville and West Virginia.

For the A&M series, if Texas agreed to play it out of conference, that means no flexibilty in their schedule at all. They already play 9 conference games. Odds are two non-conference games had to be one and dones. They choose to let the tradition evolve instead and keep flexibility rather than completely lock down their schedule. A&M had more flexibility with 8 conference games.

The original big 12 was a great league, right up with big 10 and sec. I think if texas would have played fair or team partner the big 12 might not have lost any members. Instead the big 12 was just full of divisions with no unity. Problem 1 goes back to not having a 5-1-2 format right off the bat, so OU/neb could be keep as a yearly game. Than texas not wanting equal revenue and creating the LHN instead of a big 12 channel doomed the league. I'm not sold the big 12 would have lost any members if texas didn't want to be texas. The big 10 could landed missouri but they might have gone with rutgers if nebraska would have stuck in the big 12 for team 12. IF texas was a solid big 12 supporter, i'm not sure nebraska would have jumped at the big 10. Clearly, the big 10 wasn't a huge fan of missouri, so they might have gone east for pick 12 and things could have stabilized in the big 12, big 10 and sec at 12 teams. Sure, the pac 10 might have made a play for colorado and utah but the big 12 could have jumped to 14 with byu/utah combo too if they wanted to box out the pac 10. Or just replace colorado with byu. Guess it goes back to texas wanting to be treated differently which ko'd the big 12 by scaring the other members.

As for what texas can do to fix things now. I think a pac 20 concept is the best move for them with it basically just begin a football only setup of 2 ten team divisions. I would get the core base of Texas, texas tech, OU, OK state, KU and K state to bolt the big 12, makes the politics easy. As for the last 2 teams, i would bring in houston, to counter the sec advantage in the city + keep the texas pols happy and X. IT really doesn't matter who X is, baylor, TCU, New mexico, boise, BYU, Iowa state, UNLV, etc. I'm not sure another team in texas is needed with texas, texas tech and houston + oU hits the dallas market.

(09-16-2013 08:51 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  Isn't CBS's point of view that since the game they broadcast is a national broadcast adding markets to the SEC doesn't do much for them?

Yes. I will further guess that CBS supported its position with ratings data showing that SEC/CBS game ratings were already very high in Texas markets before TAMU joined.

The addition of A&M and Missouri did not add any additional games for CBS, it did for ESPN. So why should CBS pay more?

(09-16-2013 09:16 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The original big 12 was a great league, right up with big 10 and sec. I think if texas would have played fair or team partner the big 12 might not have lost any members. Instead the big 12 was just full of divisions with no unity. Problem 1 goes back to not having a 5-1-2 format right off the bat, so OU/neb could be keep as a yearly game. Than texas not wanting equal revenue and creating the LHN instead of a big 12 channel doomed the league. I'm not sold the big 12 would have lost any members if texas didn't want to be texas. The big 10 could landed missouri but they might have gone with rutgers if nebraska would have stuck in the big 12 for team 12. IF texas was a solid big 12 supporter, i'm not sure nebraska would have jumped at the big 10. Clearly, the big 10 wasn't a huge fan of missouri, so they might have gone east for pick 12 and things could have stabilized in the big 12, big 10 and sec at 12 teams. Sure, the pac 10 might have made a play for colorado and utah but the big 12 could have jumped to 14 with byu/utah combo too if they wanted to box out the pac 10. Or just replace colorado with byu. Guess it goes back to texas wanting to be treated differently which ko'd the big 12 by scaring the other members.

As for what texas can do to fix things now. I think a pac 20 concept is the best move for them with it basically just begin a football only setup of 2 ten team divisions. I would get the core base of Texas, texas tech, OU, OK state, KU and K state to bolt the big 12, makes the politics easy. As for the last 2 teams, i would bring in houston, to counter the sec advantage in the city + keep the texas pols happy and X. IT really doesn't matter who X is, baylor, TCU, New mexico, boise, BYU, Iowa state, UNLV, etc. I'm not sure another team in texas is needed with texas, texas tech and houston + oU hits the dallas market.

#1. It was a mistake not keeping OU/Nebraska, but that was OU's decision. They didn't want to be at a competitive disadvantage.
#2. Noone but Nebraska and Texas were even interested in a Big 12 network. LHN deal hadn't even been bid when Nebraska and Colorado left.
#3. TEXAS was the one who proposed equal revenue sharing after Colorado and Nebraska left and it was done BEFORE Missouri and A&M left. In fact, A&M was screaming and crying for getting an unearned share of the exit fees, but Texas and OU thought it was unethical (the unequal revenue sharing was an "earned" revenue, not anything fixed like what A&M wanted of the exit fees). The unequal revenue sharing of the Big 12 was more equal than the Pac 10 or Big East. And the proponents of the original unequal revenue sharing were Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado and Missouri, the 4 schools that left, along with Texas, OU and Kansas.

Your conclusions are all wrong because your facts are totally off.

The Big 12 could have stayed together if:
A) Colorado didn't want to go to the Pac where most of their alumni were;
B) Nebraska didn't get a better offer from the wealthy Big 10 who was looking to expand;
C) A&M had more success in the Big 12 and wasn't so desperate to try something different along with their effort to distinguish their perceptions outside of Texas from the Texas Techs and Houstons; and
D) Missouri didn't get scared because no one was interested in them in 2010 despite their pretty public begging for the Big 10.

(09-16-2013 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:51 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  Isn't CBS's point of view that since the game they broadcast is a national broadcast adding markets to the SEC doesn't do much for them?

Yes. I will further guess that CBS supported its position with ratings data showing that SEC/CBS game ratings were already very high in Texas markets before TAMU joined.

A conference has 6 of the top 12 teams and they will do pretty well in TV ratings everywhere in the country.