(06-24-2014 02:12 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the best part about it is now not only are SEC SEC SEC teams and their fans running around shouting SEC SEC SEC, but now that Alabama and Kentucky that are in the SEC SEC (2 out of 14 schools by the way) have gotten big media deals we can have the fans of the ACc Acc acc running around screaming SEC SEC SEC as well!!!

nothing makes a conference look better than touting the accomplishments of teams in other conferences (that eyed members of the ACc Acc acc and still might be) and or touting the accomplishments of teams in your conference that happened before they were a member

No one is praising the SEC but if you can't give a team credit for a great deal, something is wrong with you. In Louisville, we hate UK more than anyone. At the end of the day, they are still chasing us in everything but Rifle and basketball! lol Good for them.

(06-24-2014 02:12 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

Quote:Neither I nor the majority of B12 posters here claim that the Big 12 is going to be the richest league when the B1G and SEC get bumped up in the future. However there ARE a lot of people omitting the value of the t3 tv rights and using that to imply that the B12 is weaker than it really is.

No one is saying the Big 12 is "weaker". We just think, in the grand scheme of the things, the tier 3 TV portion is overstated and not as significant for teams not named Texas and Oklahoma.

Plenty of people have said the Big 12's tv is weaker/doomed/etc. It's been a recurring theme on the board here since at least 2010-2011 with a hiatus when the FSU rumors heated up but returned after the acc gor.

Quote:

Quote:How much teams make from their league arrangement is relevant to realignment discussions so this relevant to the discussion on this board. Money or the current lack of it has been a huge factor in realignment and will confine to be. Getting a true apples to apples snapshot of how each league handles tv rights is in the center of the discussion.

I really think only one team moved for money and that is Maryland. It wasn't about the money with others and Maryland wasn't the Big Ten's first choice.

Money was big for Maryland, Utah, Rutgers, TCU, WVU, and was the primary reason that the Big 12 ran into trouble in 2010 when a badly undervalued FOX contract was still in effect. It had a huge impact on Mizzou flirting with the B1G which started a chain reaction of schools looking. Ultimately the networks showing that the tv deal would still be strong is what got UT to recommit. The potential loss of CU, NU, and MU gave them concern about the tv deal and was the entire basis for looking.

It also had a lot to do with the FSU rumors (both B1G and B12) and other things that may not have reached fruition.

(06-24-2014 03:16 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 02:12 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 01:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

Quote:Neither I nor the majority of B12 posters here claim that the Big 12 is going to be the richest league when the B1G and SEC get bumped up in the future. However there ARE a lot of people omitting the value of the t3 tv rights and using that to imply that the B12 is weaker than it really is.

No one is saying the Big 12 is "weaker". We just think, in the grand scheme of the things, the tier 3 TV portion is overstated and not as significant for teams not named Texas and Oklahoma.

Plenty of people have said the Big 12's tv is weaker/doomed/etc. It's been a recurring theme on the board here since at least 2010-2011 with a hiatus when the FSU rumors heated up but returned after the acc gor.

Quote:

Quote:How much teams make from their league arrangement is relevant to realignment discussions so this relevant to the discussion on this board. Money or the current lack of it has been a huge factor in realignment and will confine to be. Getting a true apples to apples snapshot of how each league handles tv rights is in the center of the discussion.

I really think only one team moved for money and that is Maryland. It wasn't about the money with others and Maryland wasn't the Big Ten's first choice.

Money was big for Maryland, Utah, Rutgers, TCU, WVU, and was the primary reason that the Big 12 ran into trouble in 2010 when a badly undervalued FOX contract was still in effect. It had a huge impact on Mizzou flirting with the B1G which started a chain reaction of schools looking. Ultimately the networks showing that the tv deal would still be strong is what got UT to recommit. The potential loss of CU, NU, and MU gave them concern about the tv deal and was the entire basis for looking.

It also had a lot to do with the FSU rumors (both B1G and B12) and other things that may not have reached fruition.

I guess Texas is "out of the loop" regarding where things are going both then and now? Are they just now part of the "inner circle"? Why would Texas trust ESPN if they were trying to stab them in the back by moving Texas A&M to the SEC? What has changed from the Big 12 that blew up and the current Big 12? Did ESPN lie to Nebraska?

(06-24-2014 04:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 03:16 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Money was big for Maryland, Utah, Rutgers, TCU, WVU, and was the primary reason that the Big 12 ran into trouble in 2010 when a badly undervalued FOX contract was still in effect. It had a huge impact on Mizzou flirting with the B1G which started a chain reaction of schools looking. Ultimately the networks showing that the tv deal would still be strong is what got UT to recommit. The potential loss of CU, NU, and MU gave them concern about the tv deal and was the entire basis for looking.

It also had a lot to do with the FSU rumors (both B1G and B12) and other things that may not have reached fruition.

I guess Texas is "out of the loop" regarding where things are going both then and now? Are they just now part of the "inner circle"? Why would Texas trust ESPN if they were trying to stab them in the back by moving Texas A&M to the SEC? What has changed from the Big 12 that blew up and the current Big 12? Did ESPN lie to Nebraska?

At the time (talking summer of 2010) there was some concern about how much the tv contract would be harmed by losing 2 out of the 3 following schools:

Colorado
Missouri
Nebraska

Without one or both of the 2 largest markets that isn't in Texas or without the giant Cornhusker brand it was a concern that the TV payout and exposure would be diminished. Once the TV partners showed up on Saturday or Sunday of that week in June 2010 and let it be known that the tv value was there, we saw UT recommitted within 48 hours.

The concern was the tv deal for UT and the other parts of the Texoma 4 had offers contingent on UT's moving west according to comments by Texas Tech's President. So money did have a huge impact on realignment in 2010.

(06-24-2014 03:16 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Money was big for Maryland, Utah, Rutgers, TCU, WVU, and was the primary reason that the Big 12 ran into trouble in 2010 when a badly undervalued FOX contract was still in effect. It had a huge impact on Mizzou flirting with the B1G which started a chain reaction of schools looking. Ultimately the networks showing that the tv deal would still be strong is what got UT to recommit. The potential loss of CU, NU, and MU gave them concern about the tv deal and was the entire basis for looking.

It also had a lot to do with the FSU rumors (both B1G and B12) and other things that may not have reached fruition.

I'm sure the money was a "plus" but WVU and TCU left more for stability than anything else when the Big East was crumbling before their eyes when Pitt and Syracuse left. Same thing for Rutgers and anyone else in the Big East looking for a life boat. Utah going from the Mountain West probably had more to do with prestige, BCS auto-qualification among other things with money only being only a bonus.