(10-30-2014 03:45 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:11 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:37 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It's not happening at this time. Live with it for now.

If anything is going to happen, it won't be until after football season. If the Big 12 champion makes the playoff, it might not happen anytime soon.

If anything happens, it won't happen until the current TV contract is up for renewal, and only if the conference can make more money by adding teams. Not before, and not unless that monetary condition is met.

I realize there are a lot of people who want to believe otherwise, since it gives their school hope that they can improve their current station in college football life. But the only way it will happen is if it makes the Big XII money. The playoff isn't at issue, since it will expand long before the Big XII will.

But if the Big 12 stands pat, there might not be a next TV contract because Texas and Oklahoma might bolt. The Big 12 will not keep pace with the B1G and SEC in TV money IMO. So I think they will have some decisions to make before they get to that point. That's not me wishful thinking -- just the reality of the state of college football and TV contracts. I personally don't think the Big 12 is well positioned to maximize their TV value once this contract is through because of demographic issues.

The argument could be made that expansion could make UT and OU more likely to bolt, if it dilutes the quality of the conference and gets rid of yearly games with traditional rivals.

The really aren't big demographic issues with the Big 12 if there is no conference network, IMO. The conference networks need broad footprints to make sense with the carriage fee model, but the national contracts with Fox and ESPN/ABC are more dependent on national branding than local TV #s. Fox and ESPN/ABC are paying for brand and nationally ranked teams, not footprint. As long as the level of play is maintained and there are compelling teams, the Big 12 Tier 1 and 2 monies will grow like the other conferences.

If the conference gets a network, or some other revenue source that monetizes regional interest, then a narrow footprint becomes an issue.

Well any rivalries with Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M vanished so that must have not been important. The first couple of years in conference one could say that WVU and TCU diluted play, but now have acclimated to the competition. You could be right that Texas or Oklahoma might threaten to bolt if they do not get their way. If true what a shame, as the power brokers already ran off some good programs and they are still bossing everybody around.

Do what we say or we will leave, nice partners.

They were simply never going to be able to replace Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M with 4 candidates of the same cache and market reach. West Virginia gives them 1. T.C.U. is fine, but they offer nothing that Texas didn't already deliver. And because there aren't 4 candidates that deliver what was taken away when the other 4 left there simply aren't any favorable expansion scenarios for the Big 12.

But, that is why the fantasy scenario of a Big 10 raid upon the ACC keeps its legs. It is the only thing that would allow the Big 12 to remain, to absorb schools that could deliver the cache and markets that were lost, and perhaps then some, and allow Texas to keep its own conference, thereby protecting other Texas schools.

What happens between the Big 10 and FOX in the next contract negotiation in a year or two will go a long way in determining whether that fantasy scenario has any chance of becoming reality.

It could be possible for ESPN to trim overhead and maximize profits by enabling the Big 10 to expand its markets in exchange for a very long term T1 deal. Then a few properties to the SECN would boost the value of that investment for the mouse and would make sense. Add the remainder to a converted LHN in a new diversified footprint for an expanded Big 12 and voila three profitable enterprises the only one that would not have shared expenses with FOX would be the SEC and the Mouse increases profits while reducing overhead. It sounds great, and it could work, but it is impossibly difficult to pull off and the probability of doing so is extremely low.

The far more likely scenario is that the Big 10 limps on as 10 team conference while earning good money, but not Big 10 level money, and eventually falling farther behind the SEC. Or, FOX buys into the PACN to increase their distribution and encourages the PAC to jazz up their offer to some of the Big 12 properties and away we go. But that last scenario is why ESPN went to great lengths to buy into Texas and Kansas. Without those two the PAC scenario just doesn't look plausible either. Or, we wait until closer to the end of the GOR when the monetary penalty for leaving is no longer so stiff and see what happens.

Personally, I don't believe that Texas and Oklahoma, or Kansas for that matter, will desire to remain painted into a box where their footprint is too small to sustain a network, where their T3 has been too generous to share with the other 7, and where there is no long term outlook that favors the kinds of moves that can add to the bottom line. I think each will work out their own moves later and that they will each try to take a buddy or two with them when they move. Forestalling additions simply keeps move options open for all without committing them to a move. It is a bonafide neutral position to maintain with regard to realignment. Being partly committed to FOX and partly committed to ESPN keeps their options open long term and their options short term closed. Time in this case gives each of the member schools the largess they need to work out contingencies and enhance or upgrade anything they need to maximize those contingencies. If nothing happens they are still stronger for it. If movement occurs they are not in a position of weakness or under time pressure to commit. But eventually, barring a Big 10/ESPN collaboration, I feel that the schools of the Big 12 will wind up with new digs. Where and who is anyone's guess.

We keep doing a rehash of this because that's what happens when an entity assumes a non committed strategy.

(10-30-2014 01:37 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'm dreading the thought of Bowlsby picking off 2-3 AAC members for the Big XII. Tulane put a lot of money into matching AAC standards (approx. $100M - which is a big amount for a G5 school), and if this goes through it will have neutralized the benefits of Tulane joining the AAC.

It will have hardly neutralized the benefits of AAC. Continued existence in C-USA after the last expansion had become untenable for Tulane for many reasons. It's significance would be a weaker AAC and 1 less spot for us.

(10-30-2014 02:27 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Yet, i think a school like boise could work since markets are over rated when it coming to TV ratings, see alabama vs auburn.

Just to back this up:

The 2010 Boise/VT game tied for ESPN's highest-rated college football game since 1994.

The 2012 Boise/Michigan State game got higher ratings than all but two games played that weekend.

Even last year's trainwreck of a season garnered better ratings than many P5 programs, including K-State, Wazzu, Cal, Maryland, Virginia, Wake Forest, Iowa State, and Kansas.

The numbers show that despite being in an "undesirable market," people want to watch Boise State football - especially in marquee games against P5 opponents, which we'd have on a yearly basis in the Big 12.

The conference is better than fine at 10 teams. A certain northwestern team will never get in with abysmal academics and lol-worthy graduation rates.

(10-30-2014 03:58 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:45 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:11 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:37 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If anything is going to happen, it won't be until after football season. If the Big 12 champion makes the playoff, it might not happen anytime soon.

If anything happens, it won't happen until the current TV contract is up for renewal, and only if the conference can make more money by adding teams. Not before, and not unless that monetary condition is met.

I realize there are a lot of people who want to believe otherwise, since it gives their school hope that they can improve their current station in college football life. But the only way it will happen is if it makes the Big XII money. The playoff isn't at issue, since it will expand long before the Big XII will.

But if the Big 12 stands pat, there might not be a next TV contract because Texas and Oklahoma might bolt. The Big 12 will not keep pace with the B1G and SEC in TV money IMO. So I think they will have some decisions to make before they get to that point. That's not me wishful thinking -- just the reality of the state of college football and TV contracts. I personally don't think the Big 12 is well positioned to maximize their TV value once this contract is through because of demographic issues.

The argument could be made that expansion could make UT and OU more likely to bolt, if it dilutes the quality of the conference and gets rid of yearly games with traditional rivals.

The really aren't big demographic issues with the Big 12 if there is no conference network, IMO. The conference networks need broad footprints to make sense with the carriage fee model, but the national contracts with Fox and ESPN/ABC are more dependent on national branding than local TV #s. Fox and ESPN/ABC are paying for brand and nationally ranked teams, not footprint. As long as the level of play is maintained and there are compelling teams, the Big 12 Tier 1 and 2 monies will grow like the other conferences.

If the conference gets a network, or some other revenue source that monetizes regional interest, then a narrow footprint becomes an issue.

Well any rivalries with Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M vanished so that must have not been important. The first couple of years in conference one could say that WVU and TCU diluted play, but now have acclimated to the competition. You could be right that Texas or Oklahoma might threaten to bolt if they do not get their way. If true what a shame, as the power brokers already ran off some good programs and they are still bossing everybody around.

Do what we say or we will leave, nice partners.

Once again, no one drove anyone off. They all left for their own reasons. CU and A&M had buyer's regret since 1996.

We will see how happy the Big XII remains when they start getting omitted from the CFB playoff. Everyone knows they are simply afraid of their top team losing the conference championship game, if they played one. Do not believe the committee doesn't see through this. Someone in the Big XII needed to finish 12-0.

(10-30-2014 06:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:58 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:45 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:11 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If anything happens, it won't happen until the current TV contract is up for renewal, and only if the conference can make more money by adding teams. Not before, and not unless that monetary condition is met.

I realize there are a lot of people who want to believe otherwise, since it gives their school hope that they can improve their current station in college football life. But the only way it will happen is if it makes the Big XII money. The playoff isn't at issue, since it will expand long before the Big XII will.

But if the Big 12 stands pat, there might not be a next TV contract because Texas and Oklahoma might bolt. The Big 12 will not keep pace with the B1G and SEC in TV money IMO. So I think they will have some decisions to make before they get to that point. That's not me wishful thinking -- just the reality of the state of college football and TV contracts. I personally don't think the Big 12 is well positioned to maximize their TV value once this contract is through because of demographic issues.

The argument could be made that expansion could make UT and OU more likely to bolt, if it dilutes the quality of the conference and gets rid of yearly games with traditional rivals.

The really aren't big demographic issues with the Big 12 if there is no conference network, IMO. The conference networks need broad footprints to make sense with the carriage fee model, but the national contracts with Fox and ESPN/ABC are more dependent on national branding than local TV #s. Fox and ESPN/ABC are paying for brand and nationally ranked teams, not footprint. As long as the level of play is maintained and there are compelling teams, the Big 12 Tier 1 and 2 monies will grow like the other conferences.

If the conference gets a network, or some other revenue source that monetizes regional interest, then a narrow footprint becomes an issue.

Well any rivalries with Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M vanished so that must have not been important. The first couple of years in conference one could say that WVU and TCU diluted play, but now have acclimated to the competition. You could be right that Texas or Oklahoma might threaten to bolt if they do not get their way. If true what a shame, as the power brokers already ran off some good programs and they are still bossing everybody around.

Do what we say or we will leave, nice partners.

Once again, no one drove anyone off. They all left for their own reasons. CU and A&M had buyer's regret since 1996.

West Virginia is going to benefit the B12, exposure wise, and with rivalries, given the time to develop them. WVU broadcasts reach Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, DC, and Philly. And there are a lot of WVU alums, and former West Virginians, in every one of those markets. That's a lot of eyeballs for the B12. WVU may not be the dominant team in the market. But we get our share, and it's not a small number either.

WVU-TCU is one B12 rivalry that's growing. WVU and TCU are the conference newcomers, and both games between us so far have both gone to overtime, with the visiting team winning both times. Saturday's game is THE game in the B12 at this point in the season.

Buyers regret isn't the right term. It implies we wanted the item to begin with.

We should have called Bob Bullocks bluff and never spent one day in the Big 12 just to pacify a TX politician.

(10-30-2014 09:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Buyers regret isn't the right term. It implies we wanted the item to begin with.

It is the right term. It means that CU could have joined the Pac when they were first invited in 1994, and A&M could have joined the SEC when the SWC broke up, but chose to go to the Big 12 instead and then regretted it.

(10-30-2014 01:32 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Here's a scheduling idea, should the Big 12 expand to 12 teams:

Go ahead and split into 2 divisions, but instead of playing all 5 schools in your division annually and the other 6 schools bi-annually, do the scheduling in 4 pods. In this example, I will use Cincinnati and Connecticut as the expansion teams, but you can replace them with any of the AAC schools rumored to be expansion candidates:

Cincinnati/Connecticut/West Virginia
Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Texas
Baylor/TCU/Texas Tech

In this scenario, you play the 2 teams in your pod annually and you play 2 teams from each of the other pods on a 2-out-of-3 years basis. This preserves the most important rivalries (I think Texas could live without playing Texas Tech 1 out of 3 years) and ensures that everyone gets a game in Texas annually.

That is a great idea.

When WVU was invited to the B12 I was a bit skeptical if they would fare well in that conference. They were not historically a great recruiting program. Today for probably the first time they are pulling in a Top 20 recruiting class and playing in the stout B12 puts them a step above Pitt and Syracuse and other ACC schools meandering in a 14 team power conference.

With the success of WVU the next logical move (if there is an opening) would be to pick up UConn which by the time there is an opening should have football back on track. They have a real solid brand and a $65 million dollar budget. UConn basketball is elite men's and women's. They have a state where they have 100% of the fan allegiance like WVU has.

Cincinnati may be between WVU and the other B12 schools but they don't have a statewide following. From some perspectives UC/UConn are about a wash in football comparing the stadiums and the fan support. UConn has better basketball and the intangibles as a land grant school/statewide presence.

(10-30-2014 10:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 09:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Buyers regret isn't the right term. It implies we wanted the item to begin with.

It is the right term. It means that CU could have joined the Pac when they were first invited in 1994, and A&M could have joined the SEC when the SWC broke up, but chose to go to the Big 12 instead and then regretted it.

We didn't choose it. We were politically blackmailed into it. The LT Govenor at the time was a Tech/Baylor grad and wanted to make sure his two schools were admitted. He told A&M we could either play ball and go to the B12 and he would get us votes for our new arena or we could go to the SEC and we would not only not get the arena but our funding would be slashed as well.

But that's football in Texas.

So it's not really fair to say we had a choice.

(10-31-2014 12:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 10:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 09:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Buyers regret isn't the right term. It implies we wanted the item to begin with.

It is the right term. It means that CU could have joined the Pac when they were first invited in 1994, and A&M could have joined the SEC when the SWC broke up, but chose to go to the Big 12 instead and then regretted it.

We didn't choose it. We were politically blackmailed into it. The LT Govenor at the time was a Tech/Baylor grad and wanted to make sure his two schools were admitted. He told A&M we could either play ball and go to the B12 and he would get us votes for our new arena or we could go to the SEC and we would not only not get the arena but our funding would be slashed as well.

But that's football in Texas.

So it's not really fair to say we had a choice.

Texas politics is insane. For A&M to move to the SEC, y'all needed an Aggie Governor and the Longhorns just shoving the LHN down the B12's throat by adding additional games to it and recruiting videos that would have been a very unfair advantage for them just for A&M to finally escape.

(10-30-2014 11:03 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  When WVU was invited to the B12 I was a bit skeptical if they would fare well in that conference. They were not historically a great recruiting program. Today for probably the first time they are pulling in a Top 20 recruiting class and playing in the stout B12 puts them a step above Pitt and Syracuse and other ACC schools meandering in a 14 team power conference.

With the success of WVU the next logical move (if there is an opening) would be to pick up UConn which by the time there is an opening should have football back on track. They have a real solid brand and a $65 million dollar budget. UConn basketball is elite men's and women's. They have a state where they have 100% of the fan allegiance like WVU has.

Cincinnati may be between WVU and the other B12 schools but they don't have a statewide following. From some perspectives UC/UConn are about a wash in football comparing the stadiums and the fan support. UConn has better basketball and the intangibles as a land grant school/statewide presence.

I was sort of with you until you said that. That's nowhere close to true, neither now nor looking into the future.

Also, statewide presence is hardly the factor that you really want if you are making this kind of argument. What you want is fan/donor support, I don't think it matters where it comes from. It's a bad comparison to say 'UConn owns their state, UC does not, therefore UConn is better'. For instance, if UC just had 30% of Ohio as support (they probably don't right now, just an example), they would be on equal footing with the entire state of Connecticut supporting UConn. So that's abysmal support for an argument. Notre Dame doesn't own a single state in this entire country, but I'd bet they have a key to any conference of their choosing.

I would certainly think it would be fair to say UConn has more support overall at the moment, but UC has been and continues to expand their reach into Ohio significantly, which is certainly something to watch. I certainly don't like arguing against UConn in any way because I think they'd make a very good addition to multiple conferences, but your support made no sense.

The B12 is smart in that they are taking total advantage on house money right now with the per team payout they are getting. It well known and admitted that they were overpaid and the conference knows in the next round of contract talks they will get much less. So really, they are riding the situation the best they can and not adding any other teams right now keeps the current payout what it is. The only way this changes is if a network were to tell them to add more teams and they will restructure their deal...but since they are already overpaid, this probably isn't going to happen. So Bowlsby is being honest when he says what he says. They know the storm is coming (lower team payout when new tv deal is made). The B12 see's the future and knows it probably doesn't look great, (B12 has the least amount of tv sets for market vs the other P5's and even the AAC) and they know they are totally Texas centric which in today's world of markets and region exposure is not good. I think they know one day the conference will be picked apart and so really, they are doing what they should right now...nothing and making the most of their current but not for long payouts from tv.

(11-02-2014 11:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  The B12 is smart in that they are taking total advantage on house money right now with the per team payout they are getting. It well known and admitted that they were overpaid and the conference knows in the next round of contract talks they will get much less. So really, they are riding the situation the best they can and not adding any other teams right now keeps the current payout what it is. The only way this changes is if a network were to tell them to add more teams and they will restructure their deal...but since they are already overpaid, this probably isn't going to happen. So Bowlsby is being honest when he says what he says. They know the storm is coming (lower team payout when new tv deal is made). The B12 see's the future and knows it probably doesn't look great, (B12 has the least amount of tv sets for market vs the other P5's and even the AAC) and they know they are totally Texas centric which in today's world of markets and region exposure is not good. I think they know one day the conference will be picked apart and so really, they are doing what they should right now...nothing and making the most of their current but not for long payouts from tv.

The Big 12 didn't get overpaid. Their ratings are comparable if not a little better than the ACC and Pac 12. They get paid fairly similarly to those two conferences. It doesn't matter how many TV sets are in your territory. It matters how many in the country watch you. And no conference but the SEC differs much in that right now.

(10-30-2014 10:54 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 10:05 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Old Gold brings up a good point

You're not going to find too many B12 members who will vote "yes" to be in this division:

KU/KSU/ISU/WVU/AAC#1/AAC#2

particularly since, as he points out, no more annual visits from the only two teams most B12 fans really care about and fewer annual trips to TX for recruiting (though in theory this could be mitigated if it were the U_F twins admitted)

KU, KSU, and ISU survived just fine for 14 years without being in Texas and OU's division. Maybe Kansas and Iowa State should focus on building up their own programs instead of leeching off the "Big Two."

Nobody wants to go back to the old division alignment. That is another reason it will be hard to go to 12 unless they do some sort of zipper so everyone gets access to a Texas game each season. The old B12 north was weak enough, even with NU and MU, replace them with Cincinnati and UConn and that is an even worse division. It gives the south champ no leg up in playoff selection if they beat a weak north champ and it almost certainly knocks them out if they lose that game. The B12 will not go to a north/south split if they add 2 more schools. More likely they split east/west or zipper divisions. However, the B12 will likely sit at 10 until either it or the ACC comes apart.

I live right in the middle of Big XII country, Dallas-Fort Worth, and I have not heard any expansion rumors in the local media. From 2010 to 2013 when the breakup of the Big XII was imminent to surviving to being raided by the SEC to the West Virginia-Louisville feud for the 10th spot to BYU making way too many demands all the way to the Florida State and Clemson rumors......the local DFW media was all over it. I haven't heard any scenario where schools like Cincinnati, UConn or the U_F twins in the local media except you guessed it.....here.

The Big XII has the luxury to wait and see which school(s) are worth for expansion. Just like the Pac-10 before 2010.....where there was no viable school (BYU was never in serious consideration) to justify expansion just for the sake of going to 12 until Larry Scott took over and tried unsuccessfully expand to Texas and settled for Utah and Colorado instead. But make no mistake, if Utah didn't have a successful run from 2004-09, they would still be in the MWC. They can wait and see who's the next Utah, TCU, Boise State and Louisville. One school I would keep an eye on is Colorado State. It opens a new market, has good academics and the conference would get exposure in a state it lost in 2011. In the early 00's, Colorado State was the MWC's most successful football program but they went off the radar with Utah's rise, BYU's revival and TCU's run after 2005. The biggest question mark is fan support and if they're still building a brand new OCS.

As long as the Big XII has Texas and Oklahoma, they will have the cred to be P5. Unlike the Big East which lacked a true football power, the Big XII does not has any of those issues. Two football powers, a basketball blueblood and upcoming programs in football and basketball.

(11-03-2014 02:30 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I live right in the middle of Big XII country, Dallas-Fort Worth, and I have not heard any expansion rumors in the local media. From 2010 to 2013 when the breakup of the Big XII was imminent to surviving to being raided by the SEC to the West Virginia-Louisville feud for the 10th spot to BYU making way too many demands all the way to the Florida State and Clemson rumors......the local DFW media was all over it. I haven't heard any scenario where schools like Cincinnati, UConn or the U_F twins in the local media except you guessed it.....here.

The Big XII has the luxury to wait and see which school(s) are worth for expansion. Just like the Pac-10 before 2010.....where there was no viable school (BYU was never in serious consideration) to justify expansion just for the sake of going to 12 until Larry Scott took over and tried unsuccessfully expand to Texas and settled for Utah and Colorado instead. But make no mistake, if Utah didn't have a successful run from 2004-09, they would still be in the MWC. They can wait and see who's the next Utah, TCU, Boise State and Louisville. One school I would keep an eye on is Colorado State. It opens a new market, has good academics and the conference would get exposure in a state it lost in 2011. In the early 00's, Colorado State was the MWC's most successful football program but they went off the radar with Utah's rise, BYU's revival and TCU's run after 2005. The biggest question mark is fan support and if they're still building a brand new OCS.

As long as the Big XII has Texas and Oklahoma, they will have the cred to be P5. Unlike the Big East which lacked a true football power, the Big XII does not has any of those issues. Two football powers, a basketball blueblood and upcoming programs in football and basketball.

Now that either the corporate networks have sponsored conference networks, or have had GOR's signed for the ACC & Big 12, I don't think anyone will hear of expansion rumors again at the street level. The effect of the conference networks and GOR's was to place all future realignment into the hands of the corporate networks. It is at that level that valuations can be determined, bartered, and shaped into the existing structures in ways that are agreed upon between entities like ESPN, FOX, CBS, & NBC, etc.

If there is future movement involving the Big 12, I think it will be brokered out with the networks and only talked about at the level of the university presidents and that no leaks will happen until its a done deal. It will be much more closely akin to Maryland to the Big 10 than any of the other moves. There will be a single press announcement that covers the entire distribution of schools from that conference into others and then realignment will be over.