(04-24-2015 03:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 03:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:48 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 05:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 08:54 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  Link? Quote? or troll?

Let me help you out and his last name is Pickens, not pickins

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/colle...ng-pac-12/

You source a newspaper article that is in the same town as a PAC 12 school. It is slanted in their favor. Pickens said something different in the Oklahoma City newspaper for being against the PAC 12, and in favor for the SEC. He sees that Okie State fits in the geography of the SEC.

Here is some time table here.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...e-pac-16-i

It looks like the PAC 12 wanted Kansas and not Oklahoma State. This could explained why Pickens was angry and said that Okie State should go to the SEC. Baylor at the time making a hayday making threats to sue Texoma 4 and others if they leave the conference. Baylor was putting pressure to go with the 4 schools.
The Longhorn Network also killed any chances for the 4 schools to join the PAC 16.
ESPN wants to protect their inventory of college football with the Big 12. If the four schools left for the PAC 16? ESPN will lose out in money to another Network.

My thoughts is that they used Oklahoma State, then dropped them to coax the PAC 16 to accept the three schools and Kansas. Kansas is an AAU school along the lines like most of the PAC 16. Oklahoma State is not. The deal was Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas A&M bulked and was not in the deal. Baylor making threats. Texas trying to make all the agreements by not including some schools, and drop one. Oklahoma would bulk without Oklahoma State. This failed in round one. The 2nd round would be Texas with their Longhorn Network, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. After the first failure, do you blame Pickens want nothing to do with PAC 16? He does not want Oklahoma State be played again like they were the first go around. Right now, many schools in the Big 12 and the ones left are not happy with Texas. If Texas winds up in PAC 16? You might see Colorado jump ship and join Big 10.

Baylor never threatened lawsuit against any school. Any threat would have been against the raiding league for interfering with a 100mm per school FOX deal. Win or lose the threat made it beneficial for a potential raiding league for any raid to happen in a way that kept the league afloat- no damages = no case.

Also the "texas is mean" pr is mostly bs, especially with CU who fully expected Bevo to follow them west.

A&M & NU voted in lockstep with UT on everything. NU was further along with a network of their own and their own chancellor rebuffed any drama with UT.

UT works in their self interest, so does every other school, albeit with less leverage.

That is the problem why other schools in the Big 12 with Texas. They and Oklahoma think for themselves and not what is good for the conference. Big 12 could have a Big 12 Network if they look at where they can get tv sets, and looking at other schools in the P5 was not the answer to raid from them. You could have a share tv network with the other 9 schools and a lot of content if the Longhorn Network was named the Big 12 Network. It can work out since ESPN would be in charge in helping setting it up. Look at all the schools that have been thrown out as possible expansion candidates from the other G5 schools? ESPN seen patterns on which schools can bring them money. These schools are not just in the P5 conferences alone, but in MWC, Independents, C-USA, AAC, Sun Belt and the MAC. There were a couple of FCS schools on the list like Eastern Washington, Delaware, James Madison and North Dakota State who are top names in FCS. There are a lot of potentials in all these schools that the Big 12 are ignoring. At least PAC 12 give the schools in the MWC the credit for who they are, and Big 10 gives credit to some of the MAC schools. Texas needs to get off their high horse, swallow their pride and look at the long run on who can bring in the money. Look at TCU? They were not expected to rise to the top of the Big 12 right away. Or are Texas afraid to have losing season of 7 loses or more?

You need a little history. Texas and Nebraska tried to get the Big 12 to look at a network. The other 10 schools refused so Texas and Nebraska funded a study on their own. Texas offered A&M part of a "Lone Star Network," but A&M wasn't interested as they didn't think it would be worth much. So Texas moved on with the LHN.

1. saying that attendance does not matter is just stupid and nothing but ignorance

UT gets the largest portion of their funding from ticket sales and seat licenses

if your fans will not show up to see a live game they will damn sure not donate and if they are not buying tickets, seat licenses and donating then a program is not going to be competitive in a P5 conference period no matter how much TV money they get

to think anything else is to be a fool

2. Bear and Bullet are correct

the LHN had nothing to do with teams not going to the PAC

the chancellor of Nebraska made it clear in a published interview that Texas and the other 5 schools that were talking to the PAC committed to the Big 12 when ask to by Nebraska on the condition that NU also made the same commitment and at that time NU declined to do so and said they needed to talk to the Big 10 more

once that happened CU said they were offered to go to the PAC 10 alone and they were going

A&M then said they were not going to the PAC 10 ever with anyone

after that it was over UT was no longer interested in the PAC 10 with any other 4 Big 12 teams

UT did state they would explore all options and they did so and it was that action that made OU and OkState fans demand action from their administration so as to not be left flat footed if UT decided on the Big 10 or Independent or if UT was made an offer without anyone else involved

3. the PAC 12 never voted down OU and OkState because they never had a vote on that and the reason they did not have a vote on that is because UT stated they wanted to remain in the Big 12 and agreed to ditch the Big 12 commissioner and bring in Chuckster Neinas at the request of OU and OkState

4. the chancellor of NU stated in that same interview they were in agreement with UT on unequal revenue and NU was working on their own network before they contacted the Big 10

5. The Big 12 had a vote on a network before any other conference and it was voted down when there were 12 schools and that is why Kevin Weiberg left the Big 12 for the Big 10.....so not having a Big !2 network has nothing to do with the LHN or strictly UT and it was voted down long before the LHN was a reality or even a known entity

6. A&M was offered to partner with UT and said no this is a well known fact

7. ESPN owns the tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the PAC 12....tier 3 is the PAC12N owned by the PAC 12

ESPN only owns the tier 1 rights to the Big 12 Fox owns the tier 2 rights and the tier 3 are LHN/ESPN and ESPN/Time Waner Metro Sports/KU

everyone else I believe is with Fox regionals

so only someone that does not have any clue at all would have the idea that ESPN would lose Big 12 content especially the desirable UT, OU, OkState Texas Tech content if those 4 went to the PAC 12.....because of course ESPN owns two tiers of PAC 12 rights Vs 1 for the Big 12

8. currently even the lesser paid tier 3 members of the Big 12 are making $3 million annually of their tier 3 deals......this of course is more than the PAC12N pays out (they pay under 1 million and many PAC 12 members are still paying and will be paying more than that for several years to buy back their tier 3 rights from former holders of those rights ) and more than the ACC pays out (no network)

the SECN has so far paid out nothing and we have one "estimate" of $5 million (down from wild estimated of $30 million+)

the BTN pays out $7.8 million per year, but it is tier 2 and tier 3

the Big 12 of course only holds tier 3 rights for individual universities so no real comparison there

so clearly the Big 12 is not being left behind because of no network unless one believes BS, does not know the facts, and believes the "hype" about the future....which always seems to end up with "wait until NEXT YEAR!!!!"....and then....next year...

9. the Big 12 and Texas and OU do not need to get with anything and consider adding anyone....they are only 2 out of 10 votes

and ESPN and Fox and everyone have already worked with the Big 12 on the value of programs to add and that is why TCU and WVU were added.....and that is why NO ONE ELSE is being added

because programs that say stupid things like "attendance does not matter" or "let us in and we will show you" or "we are worth it for you to take a little less" are not worth adding because they bring nothing

10. people that have no clue should refrain from discussing things they have no clue about

11. only a dolt thinks that Texas is leaving the Big 12 for the ACC

(04-25-2015 07:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 03:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 03:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:48 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 05:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  You source a newspaper article that is in the same town as a PAC 12 school. It is slanted in their favor. Pickens said something different in the Oklahoma City newspaper for being against the PAC 12, and in favor for the SEC. He sees that Okie State fits in the geography of the SEC.

Here is some time table here.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...e-pac-16-i

It looks like the PAC 12 wanted Kansas and not Oklahoma State. This could explained why Pickens was angry and said that Okie State should go to the SEC. Baylor at the time making a hayday making threats to sue Texoma 4 and others if they leave the conference. Baylor was putting pressure to go with the 4 schools.
The Longhorn Network also killed any chances for the 4 schools to join the PAC 16.
ESPN wants to protect their inventory of college football with the Big 12. If the four schools left for the PAC 16? ESPN will lose out in money to another Network.

My thoughts is that they used Oklahoma State, then dropped them to coax the PAC 16 to accept the three schools and Kansas. Kansas is an AAU school along the lines like most of the PAC 16. Oklahoma State is not. The deal was Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas A&M bulked and was not in the deal. Baylor making threats. Texas trying to make all the agreements by not including some schools, and drop one. Oklahoma would bulk without Oklahoma State. This failed in round one. The 2nd round would be Texas with their Longhorn Network, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. After the first failure, do you blame Pickens want nothing to do with PAC 16? He does not want Oklahoma State be played again like they were the first go around. Right now, many schools in the Big 12 and the ones left are not happy with Texas. If Texas winds up in PAC 16? You might see Colorado jump ship and join Big 10.

Baylor never threatened lawsuit against any school. Any threat would have been against the raiding league for interfering with a 100mm per school FOX deal. Win or lose the threat made it beneficial for a potential raiding league for any raid to happen in a way that kept the league afloat- no damages = no case.

Also the "texas is mean" pr is mostly bs, especially with CU who fully expected Bevo to follow them west.

A&M & NU voted in lockstep with UT on everything. NU was further along with a network of their own and their own chancellor rebuffed any drama with UT.

UT works in their self interest, so does every other school, albeit with less leverage.

That is the problem why other schools in the Big 12 with Texas. They and Oklahoma think for themselves and not what is good for the conference. Big 12 could have a Big 12 Network if they look at where they can get tv sets, and looking at other schools in the P5 was not the answer to raid from them. You could have a share tv network with the other 9 schools and a lot of content if the Longhorn Network was named the Big 12 Network. It can work out since ESPN would be in charge in helping setting it up. Look at all the schools that have been thrown out as possible expansion candidates from the other G5 schools? ESPN seen patterns on which schools can bring them money. These schools are not just in the P5 conferences alone, but in MWC, Independents, C-USA, AAC, Sun Belt and the MAC. There were a couple of FCS schools on the list like Eastern Washington, Delaware, James Madison and North Dakota State who are top names in FCS. There are a lot of potentials in all these schools that the Big 12 are ignoring. At least PAC 12 give the schools in the MWC the credit for who they are, and Big 10 gives credit to some of the MAC schools. Texas needs to get off their high horse, swallow their pride and look at the long run on who can bring in the money. Look at TCU? They were not expected to rise to the top of the Big 12 right away. Or are Texas afraid to have losing season of 7 loses or more?

You need a little history. Texas and Nebraska tried to get the Big 12 to look at a network. The other 10 schools refused so Texas and Nebraska funded a study on their own. Texas offered A&M part of a "Lone Star Network," but A&M wasn't interested as they didn't think it would be worth much. So Texas moved on with the LHN.

1. saying that attendance does not matter is just stupid and nothing but ignorance

UT gets the largest portion of their funding from ticket sales and seat licenses

if your fans will not show up to see a live game they will damn sure not donate and if they are not buying tickets, seat licenses and donating then a program is not going to be competitive in a P5 conference period no matter how much TV money they get

to think anything else is to be a fool

2. Bear and Bullet are correct

the LHN had nothing to do with teams not going to the PAC

the chancellor of Nebraska made it clear in a published interview that Texas and the other 5 schools that were talking to the PAC committed to the Big 12 when ask to by Nebraska on the condition that NU also made the same commitment and at that time NU declined to do so and said they needed to talk to the Big 10 more

once that happened CU said they were offered to go to the PAC 10 alone and they were going

A&M then said they were not going to the PAC 10 ever with anyone

after that it was over UT was no longer interested in the PAC 10 with any other 4 Big 12 teams

UT did state they would explore all options and they did so and it was that action that made OU and OkState fans demand action from their administration so as to not be left flat footed if UT decided on the Big 10 or Independent or if UT was made an offer without anyone else involved

3. the PAC 12 never voted down OU and OkState because they never had a vote on that and the reason they did not have a vote on that is because UT stated they wanted to remain in the Big 12 and agreed to ditch the Big 12 commissioner and bring in Chuckster Neinas at the request of OU and OkState

4. the chancellor of NU stated in that same interview they were in agreement with UT on unequal revenue and NU was working on their own network before they contacted the Big 10

5. The Big 12 had a vote on a network before any other conference and it was voted down when there were 12 schools and that is why Kevin Weiberg left the Big 12 for the Big 10.....so not having a Big !2 network has nothing to do with the LHN or strictly UT and it was voted down long before the LHN was a reality or even a known entity

6. A&M was offered to partner with UT and said no this is a well known fact

7. ESPN owns the tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the PAC 12....tier 3 is the PAC12N owned by the PAC 12

ESPN only owns the tier 1 rights to the Big 12 Fox owns the tier 2 rights and the tier 3 are LHN/ESPN and ESPN/Time Waner Metro Sports/KU

everyone else I believe is with Fox regionals

so only someone that does not have any clue at all would have the idea that ESPN would lose Big 12 content especially the desirable UT, OU, OkState Texas Tech content if those 4 went to the PAC 12.....because of course ESPN owns two tiers of PAC 12 rights Vs 1 for the Big 12

8. currently even the lesser paid tier 3 members of the Big 12 are making $3 million annually of their tier 3 deals......this of course is more than the PAC12N pays out (they pay under 1 million and many PAC 12 members are still paying and will be paying more than that for several years to buy back their tier 3 rights from former holders of those rights ) and more than the ACC pays out (no network)

the SECN has so far paid out nothing and we have one "estimate" of $5 million (down from wild estimated of $30 million+)

the BTN pays out $7.8 million per year, but it is tier 2 and tier 3

the Big 12 of course only holds tier 3 rights for individual universities so no real comparison there

so clearly the Big 12 is not being left behind because of no network unless one believes BS, does not know the facts, and believes the "hype" about the future....which always seems to end up with "wait until NEXT YEAR!!!!"....and then....next year...

9. the Big 12 and Texas and OU do not need to get with anything and consider adding anyone....they are only 2 out of 10 votes

and ESPN and Fox and everyone have already worked with the Big 12 on the value of programs to add and that is why TCU and WVU were added.....and that is why NO ONE ELSE is being added

because programs that say stupid things like "attendance does not matter" or "let us in and we will show you" or "we are worth it for you to take a little less" are not worth adding because they bring nothing

10. people that have no clue should refrain from discussing things they have no clue about

11. only a dolt thinks that Texas is leaving the Big 12 for the ACC

The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

(04-24-2015 12:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Blimps are bigger than gorillas.

I know it was a typo but it was a funny typo.

Yeah, I'm glad I wasn't the only person who saw that.

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

actually those programs are not seeing that.....that is something you are simply making up to tell yourself to try and fit a narrative that you have stuck in your head

1. first fact.....the ACC and PAC 12 paid out significantly less than the Big 12 in May of 2014

in May of 2015 they will pay out less again

the Big 12 and SEC paid out pretty much the same amounts in 2014

this is all available online for anyone that wants to look

2. the PAC 12 is stable because there is no other major conference in two time zones to try and take schools from them

the ACC is no more stable than the Big 12 and probably less so since they pay out less money, will not be getting a network soon and have schools that the Big 10 would like over big 12 schools not names Texas

3. the schools in the Big 12 are not being left behind....they earn significantly more than the ACC and PAC 12....it is just a simple fact and they earn the same as the SEC currently when one excludes any tier 3 earnings and currently the SEC has no tier 3 earnings

with the playoff and bowl money the Big 12 will continue to move ahead of the PAC 12 and ACC and that helps then stay competitive with the SEC

4. here is the part you cannot grasp......as long as UT and OU are close to competitive with SEC and Big 10 money (and they are and in fact right now they do better by a fair amount) they are happy in the Big 12

if they are not happy in the Big 12 they might leave (or they might not).....if they leave the other Big 12 members might not have prime new places to go to....some might....some might not....they will all probably take an earnings hit

5. if UT and OU feel that they are behind because of lack of a conference network in the case of OU especially they can throw in with the 8 other schools and make a network and UT could always approach ESPN about one as well.....and then if conference networks are as valuable as everyone thinks they are (they are not, but we can live in pretend world for a second) well then the big 12 could start one now couldn't they?....and booom! problem solved right...right.....that is what we are all pretending right.....start conference network.....make more money for highly undesirable 3rd tier content than you make for tier 1 and 2 content and PROFIT!!!.....see just that simple right!!!

6 here is the part you really cannot grasp....the Big 12 does not need 12 teams to start a conference network they just need to vote to decide to start a conference network and then buy back their rights and start one.....just like the ACC.....except the Big 12 schools actually get paid for 3rd tier content now the ACC does not because it was part of their overall media rights deal....but it has been sold off to Raycon and For Regional and would have to be bought back

7. adding teams to a conference that do not have fan support, financial support and ratings does not add value no matter what market they do not command ownership of.....being in a club with girls does not mean you are going to get laid.....being in a big city does not mean people in that city care about your athletics

telling girls if you just have sex with me I can show you that girls want to have sex with me is not a good pick up line.....just like saying let me in the club and I will show you I belong in the club is not a good line to gain membership

8, major part you do not understand

adding teams to the Big 12 that result in an overall decrease in per team earnings does not help teams in the Big 12 "not get left behind"......it acctually makes those teams start to actually get left behind.....because currently they are not being left behind.....but if they divide their earnings by two more begging bowl holders they will move backwards not forwards

if they move backwards that means UT and OU would actually be MORE LIKELY to LEAVE not LESS LIKELY

UT and OU are not sitting around thinking "man we need to get to 250 teams in the Big 12 or we get left behind!!!!!"....."lets add the rest of the G5!!!!!".....and "corner all that content and markets!!!!!"

UT and OU are thinking what can we do to make sure each team in the conference makes the most the can make....and since every team in the Big 12 currently makes as much as all the SEC teams....and more than all the ACC and PAC 12 teams that is what is going on.....no one is being left behind and no one looks to be left behind

but of you start adding hot garbage then some could fall back....and then UT and OU might want to leave....and the remaining teams might not have good options or even decent options

see you think like a 3rd worlder and a G5er.....you are incapable of thinking things through logically because your response to everything is to hold your little begging bowl out and shake shake shake it and demand that someone else does the work to fill it and if it does not get filled the exact same as the others you cry instead of thinking about how you can fill your own bowl or realizing that if you cry too much those with the ability to overfill their bowl just might go elsewhere and leave you with an empty bowl

(04-25-2015 08:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

actually those programs are not seeing that.....that is something you are simply making up to tell yourself to try and fit a narrative that you have stuck in your head

1. first fact.....the ACC and PAC 12 paid out significantly less than the Big 12 in May of 2014

in May of 2015 they will pay out less again

the Big 12 and SEC paid out pretty much the same amounts in 2014

this is all available online for anyone that wants to look

2. the PAC 12 is stable because there is no other major conference in two time zones to try and take schools from them

the ACC is no more stable than the Big 12 and probably less so since they pay out less money, will not be getting a network soon and have schools that the Big 10 would like over big 12 schools not names Texas

3. the schools in the Big 12 are not being left behind....they earn significantly more than the ACC and PAC 12....it is just a simple fact and they earn the same as the SEC currently when one excludes any tier 3 earnings and currently the SEC has no tier 3 earnings

with the playoff and bowl money the Big 12 will continue to move ahead of the PAC 12 and ACC and that helps then stay competitive with the SEC

4. here is the part you cannot grasp......as long as UT and OU are close to competitive with SEC and Big 10 money (and they are and in fact right now they do better by a fair amount) they are happy in the Big 12

if they are not happy in the Big 12 they might leave (or they might not).....if they leave the other Big 12 members might not have prime new places to go to....some might....some might not....they will all probably take an earnings hit

5. if UT and OU feel that they are behind because of lack of a conference network in the case of OU especially they can throw in with the 8 other schools and make a network and UT could always approach ESPN about one as well.....and then if conference networks are as valuable as everyone thinks they are (they are not, but we can live in pretend world for a second) well then the big 12 could start one now couldn't they?....and booom! problem solved right...right.....that is what we are all pretending right.....start conference network.....make more money for highly undesirable 3rd tier content than you make for tier 1 and 2 content and PROFIT!!!.....see just that simple right!!!

6 here is the part you really cannot grasp....the Big 12 does not need 12 teams to start a conference network they just need to vote to decide to start a conference network and then buy back their rights and start one.....just like the ACC.....except the Big 12 schools actually get paid for 3rd tier content now the ACC does not because it was part of their overall media rights deal....but it has been sold off to Raycon and For Regional and would have to be bought back

7. adding teams to a conference that do not have fan support, financial support and ratings does not add value no matter what market they do not command ownership of.....being in a club with girls does not mean you are going to get laid.....being in a big city does not mean people in that city care about your athletics

telling girls if you just have sex with me I can show you that girls want to have sex with me is not a good pick up line.....just like saying let me in the club and I will show you I belong in the club is not a good line to gain membership

8, major part you do not understand

adding teams to the Big 12 that result in an overall decrease in per team earnings does not help teams in the Big 12 "not get left behind"......it acctually makes those teams start to actually get left behind.....because currently they are not being left behind.....but if they divide their earnings by two more begging bowl holders they will move backwards not forwards

if they move backwards that means UT and OU would actually be MORE LIKELY to LEAVE not LESS LIKELY

UT and OU are not sitting around thinking "man we need to get to 250 teams in the Big 12 or we get left behind!!!!!"....."lets add the rest of the G5!!!!!".....and "corner all that content and markets!!!!!"

UT and OU are thinking what can we do to make sure each team in the conference makes the most the can make....and since every team in the Big 12 currently makes as much as all the SEC teams....and more than all the ACC and PAC 12 teams that is what is going on.....no one is being left behind and no one looks to be left behind

but of you start adding hot garbage then some could fall back....and then UT and OU might want to leave....and the remaining teams might not have good options or even decent options

see you think like a 3rd worlder and a G5er.....you are incapable of thinking things through logically because your response to everything is to hold your little begging bowl out and shake shake shake it and demand that someone else does the work to fill it and if it does not get filled the exact same as the others you cry instead of thinking about how you can fill your own bowl or realizing that if you cry too much those with the ability to overfill their bowl just might go elsewhere and leave you with an empty bowl

The problem is this. No CCG=being left out of the playoffs.
Less teams to the Bowl games =less money being brought into the conference coffers.
If Memphis was in the Big 12 last year? They would have brought in money for the conference for winning their bowl game.
UCF the year before could also brought in money as well.
Northern Illinois the year before that could have brought in the money for appearing in the Orange Bowl.
Having these teams in the conference could have brought hype into the conference to add new excitement. Boise State could do the same thing and Colorado State as well. Big 12 will be the whipping conference for not changing to the time. Having top Big 12 games against Boise State on ESPN would do wonders for Boise State and the Big 12.

(04-25-2015 08:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is this. No CCG=being left out of the playoffs.
Less teams to the Bowl games =less money being brought into the conference coffers.
If Memphis was in the Big 12 last year? They would have brought in money for the conference for winning their bowl game.
UCF the year before could also brought in money as well.
Northern Illinois the year before that could have brought in the money for appearing in the Orange Bowl.
Having these teams in the conference could have brought hype into the conference to add new excitement. Boise State could do the same thing and Colorado State as well. Big 12 will be the whipping conference for not changing to the time. Having top Big 12 games against Boise State on ESPN would do wonders for Boise State and the Big 12.

bowl revenues are meaningless on total conference payouts

most bowls outside the access bowls and playoffs are money losers for the conference and participants

you do not seem to understand even the most simple of concepts

and in case you missed it the Big 12 in terms of playoff and access bowl money was one of the top earners this year

adding even a single team would not help this it would dramatically hurt it

and the Big 12 is no more at risk of being left out of the playoffs than any other conference especially the ACC

the fact is last year was a rare year when all the favorites won their CCG and when there were so many 1 loss teams as well left at the end

if it had been Texas or OU or if Baylor had had even a decent OOC schedule the Big 12 most likely would have had a team in as it was

and all the Big 12 teams that remotely have a chance at the playoffs right now (UT, OU, OkState, KSU, TCU and Baylor) have increased the strength of their OOC with the notable exception of Baylor that is going with the idea of "undefeated and in" which is probably true even for them and their current and future OOC

playing the likes of Memphis and Boise and adding them to the conference does nothing to help that and a CCG in a conference with those teas added does little if anything to help that

the Big 12 would be better off playing 8 or even 7 conference games and a better OOC Vs adding two of any of the available teams even without a CCG and the Big 12 can schedule those "exciting" Boise and Memphis match ups anytime they wish without adding them to the conference and without the dead weight and financial impact of adding them.....but a of now with the exception of Baylor the have decided to play better P5 OOC teams instead....

TodgeRodge Wrote:1. saying that attendance does not matter is just stupid and nothing but ignorance

UT gets the largest portion of their funding from ticket sales and seat licenses

if your fans will not show up to see a live game they will damn sure not donate and if they are not buying tickets, seat licenses and donating then a program is not going to be competitive in a P5 conference period no matter how much TV money they get

to think anything else is to be a fool

Nice strawman you've got there.

The thread title isn't "Attendance is unimportant". It's whether the importance is overstated. Obviously Texas and their attendance is in a different class from Texas Tech and their attendance. But any metric you use is going to separate UT from Tech. But if you're comparing Tech to WVU (for whatever reason), or WVU to Louisville, or Louisville to MAryland, or Houston to UTSA, there's more to the picture than just football attendance.

Quote:7. ESPN owns the tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the PAC 12....tier 3 is the PAC12N owned by the PAC 12

ESPN only owns the tier 1 rights to the Big 12 Fox owns the tier 2 rights and the tier 3 are LHN/ESPN and ESPN/Time Waner Metro Sports/KU

The PAC Tier 1/2 is an even-steven ESPN-Fox split. One year the PAC CCG is on ESPN, the next on Fox. There's an arrangement where Fox, ESPN and the PAC rotate the weekly game selection order.

When the current contracts started with the Big 12, ESPN got the first 14 picks, and Fox got the rest (barring each school's Tier 3 game). When ESPN, Fox and the Big 12 extended, the contracts were shuffled so that ESPN got some more games in return for Fox getting some better picks.

Quote:so only someone that does not have any clue at all would have the idea that ESPN would lose Big 12 content especially the desirable UT, OU, OkState Texas Tech content if those 4 went to the PAC 12.....because of course ESPN owns two tiers of PAC 12 rights Vs 1 for the Big 12

OR somebody who doesn't enjoy making a fool of himself by being both condescending and wrong. (You can be wrong, or you can be condescending. Just don't do both at the same time).

http://www.bruinsnation.com/2011/5/4/215...12-network

The PAC-12 has about 72 home football games a year. Fox gets 22, ESPN gets 22, that leaves 28 for the PAC networks. A PAC-16 would have around 24 more games.

So ESPN (and Fox) would lose some content to the PAC networks.

Quote:10. people that have no clue should refrain from discussing things they have no clue about

I'll just leave this here.

It's kind of impressive that your arguments make your position, that the Big 12 isn't adding anyone and doesn't need to add anyone, seem less credible.

Because the Big 12 isn't adding anyone. They couldn't find two schools to add when they were making $15M a year per school and could expect $20-25M a year for a CCG, they're certainly not going to find anyone worth adding when they're making $20M a year per school and working on a rule change to have a CCG with 10 teams.

(04-25-2015 08:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

actually those programs are not seeing that.....that is something you are simply making up to tell yourself to try and fit a narrative that you have stuck in your head

1. first fact.....the ACC and PAC 12 paid out significantly less than the Big 12 in May of 2014

in May of 2015 they will pay out less again

the Big 12 and SEC paid out pretty much the same amounts in 2014

this is all available online for anyone that wants to look

2. the PAC 12 is stable because there is no other major conference in two time zones to try and take schools from them

the ACC is no more stable than the Big 12 and probably less so since they pay out less money, will not be getting a network soon and have schools that the Big 10 would like over big 12 schools not names Texas

3. the schools in the Big 12 are not being left behind....they earn significantly more than the ACC and PAC 12....it is just a simple fact and they earn the same as the SEC currently when one excludes any tier 3 earnings and currently the SEC has no tier 3 earnings

with the playoff and bowl money the Big 12 will continue to move ahead of the PAC 12 and ACC and that helps then stay competitive with the SEC

4. here is the part you cannot grasp......as long as UT and OU are close to competitive with SEC and Big 10 money (and they are and in fact right now they do better by a fair amount) they are happy in the Big 12

if they are not happy in the Big 12 they might leave (or they might not).....if they leave the other Big 12 members might not have prime new places to go to....some might....some might not....they will all probably take an earnings hit

5. if UT and OU feel that they are behind because of lack of a conference network in the case of OU especially they can throw in with the 8 other schools and make a network and UT could always approach ESPN about one as well.....and then if conference networks are as valuable as everyone thinks they are (they are not, but we can live in pretend world for a second) well then the big 12 could start one now couldn't they?....and booom! problem solved right...right.....that is what we are all pretending right.....start conference network.....make more money for highly undesirable 3rd tier content than you make for tier 1 and 2 content and PROFIT!!!.....see just that simple right!!!

6 here is the part you really cannot grasp....the Big 12 does not need 12 teams to start a conference network they just need to vote to decide to start a conference network and then buy back their rights and start one.....just like the ACC.....except the Big 12 schools actually get paid for 3rd tier content now the ACC does not because it was part of their overall media rights deal....but it has been sold off to Raycon and For Regional and would have to be bought back

7. adding teams to a conference that do not have fan support, financial support and ratings does not add value no matter what market they do not command ownership of.....being in a club with girls does not mean you are going to get laid.....being in a big city does not mean people in that city care about your athletics

telling girls if you just have sex with me I can show you that girls want to have sex with me is not a good pick up line.....just like saying let me in the club and I will show you I belong in the club is not a good line to gain membership

8, major part you do not understand

adding teams to the Big 12 that result in an overall decrease in per team earnings does not help teams in the Big 12 "not get left behind"......it acctually makes those teams start to actually get left behind.....because currently they are not being left behind.....but if they divide their earnings by two more begging bowl holders they will move backwards not forwards

if they move backwards that means UT and OU would actually be MORE LIKELY to LEAVE not LESS LIKELY

UT and OU are not sitting around thinking "man we need to get to 250 teams in the Big 12 or we get left behind!!!!!"....."lets add the rest of the G5!!!!!".....and "corner all that content and markets!!!!!"

UT and OU are thinking what can we do to make sure each team in the conference makes the most the can make....and since every team in the Big 12 currently makes as much as all the SEC teams....and more than all the ACC and PAC 12 teams that is what is going on.....no one is being left behind and no one looks to be left behind

but of you start adding hot garbage then some could fall back....and then UT and OU might want to leave....and the remaining teams might not have good options or even decent options

see you think like a 3rd worlder and a G5er.....you are incapable of thinking things through logically because your response to everything is to hold your little begging bowl out and shake shake shake it and demand that someone else does the work to fill it and if it does not get filled the exact same as the others you cry instead of thinking about how you can fill your own bowl or realizing that if you cry too much those with the ability to overfill their bowl just might go elsewhere and leave you with an empty bowl

And what the hell is that term g5er supposed to mean. Because my education comes from a school that is not in a bs nomenclature made up designation as part of a cartel that it is somehow inferior. You need to extricate your head from your posterior and get some perspective. I agreed with almost everything you said up until that point.

(04-25-2015 08:46 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  ...That said winning in the MAC as opposed to even the AAC, is not much to sneeze about. I mean what has Bowling Green done aside from Urban Meyer's brief stay?

Meyer never won a conference champ or played in a bowl at Bowling Green, so besides winning 16 conference championships, making 12 bowl appearances, hosting an episode of College Game Day, being nationally ranked several times and having the 32nd best all-time winning percentage in FBS I guess BG hasn't really done much without Urban Meyer.

Sorry, I meant what have they done since 1999, the specified time period in the post I was responding to?

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

Mods-- shut this fool up. It is obvious he has no clue

The Big 12 has equal revenue distribution and has no desire to add a school that takes away from current members.

David---- spend $$ opening your own conference with G5 schools and see where you get.

(04-26-2015 12:51 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

Mods-- shut this fool up. It is obvious he has no clue

The Big 12 has equal revenue distribution and has no desire to add a school that takes away from current members.

David---- spend $$ opening your own conference with G5 schools and see where you get.

I am not blind or a fool on what is going. Usually a die-hard fan of Texas would be blind. I remember since I used to live in Norman on who the Sooners fans blamed for the break up of the rivalry of the Oklahoma/Nebraska games? They blamed the Texas schools. They still blame Texas the most to this day. The hatred went deeper when they completely lost Nebraska to the Big 10, Colorado to the PAC 12 and Missouri to the SEC. Those three schools were their long time rivalry games. The fools are the ones who are blind and not open on how to keep the conference to survive. Texas was the one blamed for destroying the SWC, and they are being blamed for the destruction of the Big 12.

(04-26-2015 12:51 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

Mods-- shut this fool up. It is obvious he has no clue

The Big 12 has equal revenue distribution and has no desire to add a school that takes away from current members.

David---- spend $$ opening your own conference with G5 schools and see where you get.

RR, I too was going to be fairly strong with a reply to DavidSt and his posts. Then I read where he earlier started he was in high school. I chose not to blast him and cut him some slack. I even replied in an earlier post and referred to him as a young poster. Just for what's is worth.

(04-25-2015 09:31 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  And what the hell is that term g5er supposed to mean. Because my education comes from a school that is not in a bs nomenclature made up designation as part of a cartel that it is somehow inferior. You need to extricate your head from your posterior and get some perspective. I agreed with almost everything you said up until that point.

a G5er is someone that believes that because their school has played D1-A football for some very short period of time relative to D1-A football history and that because their schools "exist" they deserve some equal portion of total revenues

a G5er is someone that does not understand or recognize the fact that conferences like the Big 10 and PAC 10 are the ones that started the Rose Bowl and INVESTED IN the Rose bowl and made it into the major game and the major tradition and the TV spectacle that it is today

a G5er thinks the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl and others were just handed to conferences out of a desire to keep begging bowl holders poor instead of realizing that conferences and fans made a lot of financial investments in those bowls long before big money was being made on those bowls

and those fans and viewers showed up to see those bowls and to watch those bowls not because those bowls were paying huge money, but because they SUPPORTED THOSE TEAMS AS FANS OF THOSE TEAMS.....something you seem as a G5er to feel is "over stated" and thus should be ignored as a criteria for receiving a cut of revenues

a G5er is someone that cannot understand that attendance, viewership and the like is what drives the bus.......shares of income are not what drives the bus.....income comes from fan support and viewership which is something that P5 conferences and teams have invested in for many years beyond when most G5 teams even played football or D1-A football

the SEC did not just wake up one day and have an average attendance of 80,000 or whatever....it is not because someone decided to hand their teams a portion of TV revenues when they did not have a ton of fans and viewers tuning into their games then they suddenly get a lot of TV and bowl revenue and fans tune in and show up

it is the exact opposite they get a lot of TV revenue and bowl revenue because they have a hell of a lot of fans and viewers that attend and view when their games are contested

a G5er is someone that believes if their team was handed $10 million more per year in TV revenues suddenly people would care about them even if they had been terrible for a long number of years or they had very poor (over rated) attendance and viewership and they have no history of doing anything relevant in D1-A other than playing some games in front of not a lot of fans and viewers......which is not really an accomplishment or a reason to get a lot of financial support from media companies

a G5er is someone that is in a conference with a bunch of teams from "large markets" with "hella potential doh" and often large enrollments yet they never sell out their games, they have poor TV viewership and poor financial donor support......yet they seemingly can't understand the economics of why they are not being handed large sums of money for all of that nothingness

a G5er is someone that talks about all the "hella potential doh" of the teams in their conference yet instead of taking that and converting it into fans in the stands and viewers on TV and donor support and large bowl game payouts and large TV contracts they instead make the argument that actual attendance is over rated and shake their begging bowl at other conferences saying "let me in let me in" and claiming that if they just get in and get some moneiez please mister some moniez they will suddenly be a major force to be reckoned with

tG5ers spend all of their time trying to make make excuses for poor attendance or trying to tell everyone why that is an over rated factor in terms of financial payouts and misusing terms like "cartel" and "monopoly" and blaming other conferences for not just handing them something because they manage to exist instead of actually getting fans in the stands, convincing a media partner to pay them more and getting a bowl game started so they can demand that bowl game pays them $40 million per participating team......because of course it is just that easy when you have all that hella markets and potential doh

except it is seemingly not that easy because no G5 conference or group of conferences ever actually works towards that goal they instead work towards trying to discount attendance figures, blaming other conferences that have a good media deal and overselling their "potential" to conferences in the feigned belief that a conference will just let them in

they ignore the concept that of their conference, school, group of schools or group of conferences really commanded the type of money they think they do they should be able to come together and get it done....or drop down to D1-AA where there are "real playoffs" with "dat fairness yo!" and make that into the massive profit machine and hella money paper printer they believe they are capable of being

but instead they shake their begging bowls at P5 conferences and scream let us in let us in all the factors that you and media companies use to evaluate profits and financials are over rated!!!.....but give us some money anyway because we are here!

if you cannot understand the basic economics of the above then yes that probably does reflect on your education as well

if you have potential realize that potential stop looking to others to do it for you.....if you believe that you have all this financial worth and all of this unrealized financial value then band together and go to the market place and get your money and then come shake your overflowing begging bowl back at those P5 conferences that were too foolish to see your potential......if you are not happy with your bowl games your bowl game payouts start a new bowl game and demand a better payout for participating in it

and if you can't do that or you find that it is not going to happen because the P5 are not going to be a part of that then perhaps you need to get a grasp in what your financial worth is IN REALITY and then perhaps you need to address all of those now REALISTIC (formerly overrated) factors like attendance, viewership, and donor participation before demanding that everyone else gives you a cut of something they built and the are getting paid for

no one not in the SEC helped build the SEC.....the PAC 10 and Big 10 built the Rose Bowl and other conferences and conference members built the other large bowls and made them into what the are....if you feel it is so easy them emulate it on your own and prove it.....otherwise maybe it is not as easy as you think it is and the factors you discount are really actually meaningful

if one cannot grasp that they are a G5er and their understanding of economics and media and marketing is highly questionable

(04-26-2015 01:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am not blind or a fool on what is going. Usually a die-hard fan of Texas would be blind. I remember since I used to live in Norman on who the Sooners fans blamed for the break up of the rivalry of the Oklahoma/Nebraska games? They blamed the Texas schools. They still blame Texas the most to this day. The hatred went deeper when they completely lost Nebraska to the Big 10, Colorado to the PAC 12 and Missouri to the SEC. Those three schools were their long time rivalry games. The fools are the ones who are blind and not open on how to keep the conference to survive. Texas was the one blamed for destroying the SWC, and they are being blamed for the destruction of the Big 12.

Then those fans don't know their history. Wouldn't be the first time fans jumped to a wrong conclusion.

1- OU itself (via AD Donnie Duncan) actively sought out the SWC expansion candidates. He was at the center of it all. He and the rest of the Big 8 knew they needed to expand or else they'd be picked apart. CU almost left anyway to go West back then.

2- OU turned down a fixed rival proposal to play NU every year. At the time they didn't want to be forced into both teams every year as league opponents. Texas wasn't easy and NU was a juggernaut back then.

So OU made those decisions themselves. The fans may be passionate but they are wrong.

(04-26-2015 07:53 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:31 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  And what the hell is that term g5er supposed to mean. Because my education comes from a school that is not in a bs nomenclature made up designation as part of a cartel that it is somehow inferior. You need to extricate your head from your posterior and get some perspective. I agreed with almost everything you said up until that point.

a G5er is someone that believes that because their school has played D1-A football for some very short period of time relative to D1-A football history and that because their schools "exist" they deserve some equal portion of total revenues

a G5er is someone that does not understand or recognize the fact that conferences like the Big 10 and PAC 10 are the ones that started the Rose Bowl and INVESTED IN the Rose bowl and made it into the major game and the major tradition and the TV spectacle that it is today

a G5er thinks the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl and others were just handed to conferences out of a desire to keep begging bowl holders poor instead of realizing that conferences and fans made a lot of financial investments in those bowls long before big money was being made on those bowls

and those fans and viewers showed up to see those bowls and to watch those bowls not because those bowls were paying huge money, but because they SUPPORTED THOSE TEAMS AS FANS OF THOSE TEAMS.....something you seem as a G5er to feel is "over stated" and thus should be ignored as a criteria for receiving a cut of revenues

a G5er is someone that cannot understand that attendance, viewership and the like is what drives the bus.......shares of income are not what drives the bus.....income comes from fan support and viewership which is something that P5 conferences and teams have invested in for many years beyond when most G5 teams even played football or D1-A football

the SEC did not just wake up one day and have an average attendance of 80,000 or whatever....it is not because someone decided to hand their teams a portion of TV revenues when they did not have a ton of fans and viewers tuning into their games then they suddenly get a lot of TV and bowl revenue and fans tune in and show up

it is the exact opposite they get a lot of TV revenue and bowl revenue because they have a hell of a lot of fans and viewers that attend and view when their games are contested

a G5er is someone that believes if their team was handed $10 million more per year in TV revenues suddenly people would care about them even if they had been terrible for a long number of years or they had very poor (over rated) attendance and viewership and they have no history of doing anything relevant in D1-A other than playing some games in front of not a lot of fans and viewers......which is not really an accomplishment or a reason to get a lot of financial support from media companies

a G5er is someone that is in a conference with a bunch of teams from "large markets" with "hella potential doh" and often large enrollments yet they never sell out their games, they have poor TV viewership and poor financial donor support......yet they seemingly can't understand the economics of why they are not being handed large sums of money for all of that nothingness

a G5er is someone that talks about all the "hella potential doh" of the teams in their conference yet instead of taking that and converting it into fans in the stands and viewers on TV and donor support and large bowl game payouts and large TV contracts they instead make the argument that actual attendance is over rated and shake their begging bowl at other conferences saying "let me in let me in" and claiming that if they just get in and get some moneiez please mister some moniez they will suddenly be a major force to be reckoned with

tG5ers spend all of their time trying to make make excuses for poor attendance or trying to tell everyone why that is an over rated factor in terms of financial payouts and misusing terms like "cartel" and "monopoly" and blaming other conferences for not just handing them something because they manage to exist instead of actually getting fans in the stands, convincing a media partner to pay them more and getting a bowl game started so they can demand that bowl game pays them $40 million per participating team......because of course it is just that easy when you have all that hella markets and potential doh

except it is seemingly not that easy because no G5 conference or group of conferences ever actually works towards that goal they instead work towards trying to discount attendance figures, blaming other conferences that have a good media deal and overselling their "potential" to conferences in the feigned belief that a conference will just let them in

they ignore the concept that of their conference, school, group of schools or group of conferences really commanded the type of money they think they do they should be able to come together and get it done....or drop down to D1-AA where there are "real playoffs" with "dat fairness yo!" and make that into the massive profit machine and hella money paper printer they believe they are capable of being

but instead they shake their begging bowls at P5 conferences and scream let us in let us in all the factors that you and media companies use to evaluate profits and financials are over rated!!!.....but give us some money anyway because we are here!

if you cannot understand the basic economics of the above then yes that probably does reflect on your education as well

if you have potential realize that potential stop looking to others to do it for you.....if you believe that you have all this financial worth and all of this unrealized financial value then band together and go to the market place and get your money and then come shake your overflowing begging bowl back at those P5 conferences that were too foolish to see your potential......if you are not happy with your bowl games your bowl game payouts start a new bowl game and demand a better payout for participating in it

and if you can't do that or you find that it is not going to happen because the P5 are not going to be a part of that then perhaps you need to get a grasp in what your financial worth is IN REALITY and then perhaps you need to address all of those now REALISTIC (formerly overrated) factors like attendance, viewership, and donor participation before demanding that everyone else gives you a cut of something they built and the are getting paid for

no one not in the SEC helped build the SEC.....the PAC 10 and Big 10 built the Rose Bowl and other conferences and conference members built the other large bowls and made them into what the are....if you feel it is so easy them emulate it on your own and prove it.....otherwise maybe it is not as easy as you think it is and the factors you discount are really actually meaningful

if one cannot grasp that they are a G5er and their understanding of economics and media and marketing is highly questionable

Self fulfilling
Oligopoly
Revenue % of budget
Access
Brand equity based on access
Anchor brands
Tax shelter

Ok so if you had not included your obvious disdain for schools outside of the p5 you may have a reasonable argument. With regard to the bowl games I somewhat agree especially the larger ones. That being said some of us are investing in bowl games.
Second I don't think anyone is asking for a handout. What they are asking for is access. Relevance brand equity the ability to monetize that brand etc are all tied to that. This purposeful exclusion even within their own division points to the fact that this at least on oligopoly and at worst because there is literally no in possible inclusion monopoly.
With regard to budgets, as we don't have the available tv dollars we have to invest our own money into facilities etc. This all goes back to the donors and schools to invest in. If you strip out the tv income a vast majority of schools have similar budgets.
That brings us to the anchor schools. The tv revenue is being generated by these schools. The rest of the schools are not and value is probably closer to the top g5.
With regard to attendance those upper tier schools that you are describing are in between 35k to over 100k. There are several g5s that fall into this category.
There are also many g5s that have large donors so I can't really subscribe to that theory.
Also your association with those g5s is what gives the p5 their tax and legal shelters which saves them a ton of money.
What your describing is all based on dollars. Unfortunately that's not what college sports was supposed to be. You are describing organizations that are in a free market.
You say do it yourself, however you have provided impediments to that free market system. That is access. It impedes recruiting, the ability to win, relevance etc which dictates brand value.
The other thing that's a challenge is there are no hard and fast rules to be considered a p5. It's completely arbitrary and based on the choice of others and who they want to associate with. There are many g5 that outperform p5 in a variety of metrics.
It is also a consideration that it is in the best interest of those paying to consolidate and build the brands they are investing in. Again while it's sound business strategy it goes against the spirit of cfb.
The net of all of this is it's a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't have a problem with the tv contract. I do have a problem with the designation and the access. There is too much power within the conferences themselves. If they want to play by their own rules and act like an oligopoly then they should separate as you are creating a micro market. With that goes the tax and legal shelter that the NCAA provides. They are there to offset the cost of running football. It is a different type of market. Ucf doesn't care about conference affiliation outside of the academic virtues. We have always invested in our program from day 1. Access is what is keeping this from being a quasi free market. The bottom line is those are cartel tactics. Remember even ole miss was only putting 40k butts in the seats in the 90s. The exposure has made a difference.

Attendance is VERY IMPORTANT, just ask any recruit the question, "would you rather play in front of a lot of people, or a few people?" Voila, you have your answer, unless your of the opinion that recruits don't matter either.

(04-26-2015 11:51 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Attendance is VERY IMPORTANT, just ask any recruit the question, "would you rather play in front of a lot of people, or a few people?" Voila, you have your answer, unless your of the opinion that recruits don't matter either.

Important as far as realignment goes.

SJSU got a MWC invite after having bottom five attendance .

Georgia ST is one of the favorites to replace UAB is another example.

FIU and FAU according to their fans don't average ten thousand a game .

Georgia Southern and APP ST being the last two FCS call ups is another example.
They average close to a sell out yet were passed over even by start up programs .

ECU getting a football only invite at first and being selected after Tulane.

(04-26-2015 01:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:51 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

Mods-- shut this fool up. It is obvious he has no clue

The Big 12 has equal revenue distribution and has no desire to add a school that takes away from current members.

David---- spend $$ opening your own conference with G5 schools and see where you get.

I am not blind or a fool on what is going. Usually a die-hard fan of Texas would be blind. I remember since I used to live in Norman on who the Sooners fans blamed for the break up of the rivalry of the Oklahoma/Nebraska games? They blamed the Texas schools. They still blame Texas the most to this day. The hatred went deeper when they completely lost Nebraska to the Big 10, Colorado to the PAC 12 and Missouri to the SEC. Those three schools were their long time rivalry games. The fools are the ones who are blind and not open on how to keep the conference to survive. Texas was the one blamed for destroying the SWC, and they are being blamed for the destruction of the Big 12.

And you seriously believe that? That really discredits you. The end of the OU-Nebraska rivalry was OU's decision. They didn't want to be at a competitive disadvantage by playing Nebraska AND Texas every year.

(04-26-2015 01:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:51 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that the other schools that are not named Oklahoma and Texas are seeing the writing on the wall and that the SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 are much more stable with their Networks. These schools are seeing themselves be left behind the other P5 conferences and want to expand now to get to 12 or whatever, and get a TV network package. The only way to stabilize the Big 12 is to expand, and share the revenue like the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12. It is only ones that keep blocking the ideas being the loudest vocal is Texas and Oklahoma.

Mods-- shut this fool up. It is obvious he has no clue

The Big 12 has equal revenue distribution and has no desire to add a school that takes away from current members.

David---- spend $$ opening your own conference with G5 schools and see where you get.

I am not blind or a fool on what is going. Usually a die-hard fan of Texas would be blind. I remember since I used to live in Norman on who the Sooners fans blamed for the break up of the rivalry of the Oklahoma/Nebraska games? They blamed the Texas schools. They still blame Texas the most to this day. The hatred went deeper when they completely lost Nebraska to the Big 10, Colorado to the PAC 12 and Missouri to the SEC. Those three schools were their long time rivalry games. The fools are the ones who are blind and not open on how to keep the conference to survive. Texas was the one blamed for destroying the SWC, and they are being blamed for the destruction of the Big 12.

David, anytime someone has to go ask the mods to shut someone up (like a Whiney baby) you've won the argument. Not because your facts were correct but because you are arguing with someone with an intolerant viewpoint, that's why he's asking the mods to shut you up. He is clearly not interested in a civil discussion, he is only interested in viewpoints that mirror his own. This is America where we can have differing views, some of them will be correct, others incorrect. It's when we shut down conversation (ie. Mods shut this guy down) that we lose our character as Americans, who are tolerant of differing viewpoints, yes even if we disagree with those same viewpoints.

(04-26-2015 11:51 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Attendance is VERY IMPORTANT, just ask any recruit the question, "would you rather play in front of a lot of people, or a few people?" Voila, you have your answer, unless your of the opinion that recruits don't matter either.

The MAC has made a trade-off. They play those T/W games in front of few fans in order to get exposure in TV. For them, its, "Would you rather play on ESPN on national TV or would you rather have 10,000 more fans in the stadium."

But overall, attendance means resources to compete.