I don't think that it will happen, but I would love to see one of:

UC + Memphis

or

UC + BYU

Big 12 should be happy. They have ten schools and less money to pay out per school. They probably wish they did not have WVU just because of distance and had instead picked up BYU for football only or maybe Memphis as a full member.

(04-23-2015 10:50 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  More realistically, no AAC school is worth more than $5 million

What a school in the AAC is worth and what it can quickly become worth in a "power conference" are two different things. That's just talking money. The Big 12 has a serious long-range problem in that it only has a presence in 5 relatively low-density population states, which limits recruiting and exposure. That, and the ludicrous gap in footprint, needs to be addressed.

What you say is true. The question isn't whether an AAC school would be more valuable to some P5 conference than it is to the AAC. The question is whether it can be more valuable to some P5 conference than doing nothing is. Bullet's analysis is also true. The only debate there might be is whether his assessment of how much more value potential there is in any G5 adds is too optimistic or too conservative.

From the point of view of the individual schools in the P5 conferences, if you only consider the raw dollars, there is more per school value to be gained by shedding some marginal P5 schools than there is by adding marginal G5 schools. For obvious reasons, the top G5 programs would like to see a bigger overall P5, and offer all sorts of scenarios in which that could happen.

But another possible scenario is that there is some combination of the most valuable properties in the Big 12 and ACC in which some schools from each conference are left behind and the P5 shrinks to 52-54 schools. The pie is marginally smaller, but every school that gets to stay in the club gets a bigger slice of that pie.

At the end of the day, I think the conferences and their individual members will decide that raw dollars are not the only consideration, and things will remain pretty much as they are. Eventually, instead of weaker conferences dying, conference realignment boards on the internet will die from lack of oxygen fueled by hope.

As has been reported, the Big 12 will likely go to a championship game with 10 members in 2016 or 2017. One more year of missing out on the CFP will seal the deal.

Poor West Virginia.

I think if the Big XII can get away with the option of having a championship game without 12 teams-2divisions, they will

(04-23-2015 06:52 AM)1IvyDog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 04:00 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  c'mon Mongoose, you know how culturally similar Santa Barbara and Lubbock are. We're practically sister cities.

JD, you are freaking hilarious. Lubbock and Bakersfield are interchangeable, You should just add Bakersfield to the BW.

Bakersfield to the BW would be the same as Houston Baptist to the B12. The last thing needed is another in-state member.

We offer the B12 something very valuable - a footprint right in the heart of Pac territory. Not to mention also being located on the beach. All about location

(04-23-2015 11:16 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:50 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  More realistically, no AAC school is worth more than $5 million

What a school in the AAC is worth and what it can quickly become worth in a "power conference" are two different things. That's just talking money. The Big 12 has a serious long-range problem in that it only has a presence in 5 relatively low-density population states, which limits recruiting and exposure. That, and the ludicrous gap in footprint, needs to be addressed.

This. Exactly. The conference networks are where the real money is. If expansion cost the Big12 in the TV pay out it would make it up and then some with a conf network. The issue is will they ever move to that model.

Right now in Raleigh, NC I can get the B1G, PAC and SEC networks already and obviously ACC programming. I imagine its the same in other areas sans the ACC content. The ACC is working on their network, the odd man out is the Big12.

#1 Big 12 does just fine in TV ratings as its national audience that matters, not just regional audience.
#2 Big 12 does just fine in recruiting. There's enough talent in Texas alone. The Pac 12 is only in 6 states, but there is plenty of talent in California.

So the footprint only matters for a conference network. The Big 12 doesn't have one and wouldn't generate the type of $ the Big 10 and SEC would. Neither will the Pac 12 or ACC. The individual networks are doing just fine for the Big 12. For schools not named Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas, its not the $5-$8 million the SEC and Big 10 are now making, but its better than the Pac 12 is currently getting. The Big 12 is making $30 million between TV and playoffs, not counting Tier III networks. That's where the $ are. The Big 10 is making $7-$8 million on their network after several years. That is not going to go up dramatically. I don't see anyone making much more than $10 million adjusted for inflation in the next decade. And conference networks probably won't be nearly as valuable beyond that time frame when more "a la carte" or "semi-a-la-carte" programming becomes available (like Verizon FIOS's new deal).

Finally, no one really adds value to recruiting or footprint. Its not going to change the pattern and its not going to significantly improve the value of recruiting. WVU and ISU are the only ones recruiting Florida much and they do ok without UCF or USF. As for footprint, Cincinnati only adds Cincinnati. BYU adds a low population state. UCF or USF don't really add the whole state of Florida like Florida or FSU do. Houston adds no footprint. Connecticut isn't that populous a state and there's no synergy from an isolated state like that.

USF + UCF

(04-23-2015 12:47 PM)westwolf Wrote:  As has been reported, the Big 12 will likely go to a championship game with 10 members in 2016 or 2017. One more year of missing out on the CFP will seal the deal.

Poor West Virginia.

And why poor WV

(04-23-2015 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  Its pretty simple math.

Big 12 TV contract averages $20 million per school. Big 12 made $6.74 per school from the playoff. In 2 out of 3 years they will make an extra $4 million per school from the Sugar Bowl. That's nearly $30 million per school combined.

The entire AAC makes $20 million per year. BYU makes $6-8 million per year. Big 10 ccg pays $24 million per year.
So if you assume one AAC school was worth the whole contract, the Big 12 in a now crowded field matched the Big 10 ccg payout and BYU's value doubled in the Big 12, you would just get to the $60 million you need to break even.

More realistically, no AAC school is worth more than $5 million, 25% of the $20 million. Adding 50% for a better schedule gets it to $7.5. Similarly, that gets BYU to a max of $12. Big 12 probably gets more like $20 million from ccg. So that gets to $39.5 million, well short of the $60 million to break even. Divided 12 ways that's close to $2 million. When was the last time a conference deliberately voted to give themselves a pay cut of any kind, let alone $2 million?

...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain. You and I have been down this road before so I won't post the same links again to prove my point. However, I will present another point for readers to consider: If you were to put TCU back in the MWC, its contract would probably remain the same. Likewise, placing WV back with UCONN, Cinci, and USF wouldn't increase the value of their TV contract. However, replace Houston with Texas and Tulsa with OU, the American would get a substantial TV increase and become a power conference while the B12 likely becomes a G5 conference and suffers a substantial pay cut....

(04-23-2015 02:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  ...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain.

Irrelevant as all of that was prior to 50% of the tv deal being renegotiated with ESPN. That was a 1-3 year assurance (can't remember exactly how many years) relevant to the time prior to renegotiation where the projected money would make such assurances unnecessary. We are well past that point.

That's like someone making a judgement on the ACC's value using the 2009 or 2010 contract- it's irrelevant because it's no longer the most recent situation.

The question of Big 12 expansion mainly depends on sufficient motivation:

1- Will Fox or ESPN be motivated to pay up for AAC additions?

2- Will playoff considerations motivate the league to move?

I doubt either has changed but say this as one who is reasonably pro-expansion.

I still think if the BigXII expands, it's going to be with Cincinnati and Memphis. I think those two make the most overall sense. They're not going with UCF or USF. Sorry. Not going to happen. Move along.

(04-23-2015 02:38 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  [quote='Underdog' pid='12004747' dateline='1429817325']

...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain. quote]

Irrelevant as all of that was prior to 50% of the tv deal being renegotiated with ESPN. That was a 1-3 year assurance (can't remember exactly how many years) relevant to the time prior to renegotiation where the projected money would make such assurances unnecessary. We are well past that point.

That's like someone making a judgement on the ACC's value using the 2009 or 2010 contract- it's irrelevant because it's no longer the most recent situation.

We have also been down this road numerous times 1845 Bear.... Although I respect your opinion, I disagree with it. Heck, I posted a link that stated Texas' own media partner thought the original figures were ridiculous—which only had three B12 schools making $20 mil each at the time. TCU does not equal A$M and WV doesn't provide the same market as MIZZOU. Nevertheless, the networks didn't want certain schools going the PAC 12 (a fact also presented in a previous link that I've posted), so the payouts were increased....

I’m not trying to bash the B12, but there are certain fans of the conference that think the American schools don’t have anything to offer….

When Fox gets the B1G all to it's self, the Big 12 will be split between the PAC and the B1G. Don't worry though, all your payouts will increase.

(04-23-2015 02:47 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:38 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  [quote='Underdog' pid='12004747' dateline='1429817325']

...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain. quote]

Irrelevant as all of that was prior to 50% of the tv deal being renegotiated with ESPN. That was a 1-3 year assurance (can't remember exactly how many years) relevant to the time prior to renegotiation where the projected money would make such assurances unnecessary. We are well past that point.

That's like someone making a judgement on the ACC's value using the 2009 or 2010 contract- it's irrelevant because it's no longer the most recent situation.

We have also been down this road numerous times 1845 Bear.... Although I respect your opinion, I disagree with it. Heck, I posted a link that stated Texas' own media partner thought the original figures were ridiculous—which only had three B12 schools making $20 mil each at the time. TCU does not equal A$M and WV doesn't provide the same market as MIZZOU. Nevertheless, the networks didn't want certain schools going the PAC 12 (a fact also presented in a previous link that I've posted), so the payouts were increased....

We have been down this road before and you keep wanting to be wrong!


As for TCU/WV vs ATM/MU the only contract affected is the FOX deal as ESPN (which held T1 at the time) had yet to be redone. Here is why that doesn't make much of a valuation difference vs what the Big 12 is getting now.

The advantageous value of the old pair vs the new pair would be 90% felt on T1 anyway, that is where the big matchups that skew your average price per game for the whole contract are going to show up. The bottom 2/3 of games is a much lesser variance. Simply put T1 is where the big brand impact is more commonly felt so that deal being done with the existing teams reflects that weakened value already.

Big 12

East: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, WVU, Uconn

West: OU, OK state, Ku, K state, Io state, BYU

format 5-1-2

Travel for UConn really isn't much different than in the AAC + byu can be football only. If the big 12 really wanted to be creative they could add VCU to pair with BYU football only.

(04-23-2015 02:38 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  ...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain.

Irrelevant as all of that was prior to 50% of the tv deal being renegotiated with ESPN. That was a 1-3 year assurance (can't remember exactly how many years) relevant to the time prior to renegotiation where the projected money would make such assurances unnecessary. We are well past that point.

That's like someone making a judgement on the ACC's value using the 2009 or 2010 contract- it's irrelevant because it's no longer the most recent situation.

Well, not even that since the deal he discusses never happened. It was merely a proposal by the 5 remaining schools.

(04-23-2015 03:01 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:47 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:38 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  [quote='Underdog' pid='12004747' dateline='1429817325']

...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain. quote]

Irrelevant as all of that was prior to 50% of the tv deal being renegotiated with ESPN. That was a 1-3 year assurance (can't remember exactly how many years) relevant to the time prior to renegotiation where the projected money would make such assurances unnecessary. We are well past that point.

That's like someone making a judgement on the ACC's value using the 2009 or 2010 contract- it's irrelevant because it's no longer the most recent situation.

We have also been down this road numerous times 1845 Bear.... Although I respect your opinion, I disagree with it. Heck, I posted a link that stated Texas' own media partner thought the original figures were ridiculous—which only had three B12 schools making $20 mil each at the time. TCU does not equal A$M and WV doesn't provide the same market as MIZZOU. Nevertheless, the networks didn't want certain schools going the PAC 12 (a fact also presented in a previous link that I've posted), so the payouts were increased....

We have been down this road before and you keep wanting to be wrong!


As for TCU/WV vs ATM/MU the only contract affected is the FOX deal as ESPN (which held T1 at the time) had yet to be redone. Here is why that doesn't make much of a valuation difference vs what the Big 12 is getting now.

The advantageous value of the old pair vs the new pair would be 90% felt on T1 anyway, that is where the big matchups that skew your average price per game for the whole contract are going to show up. The bottom 2/3 of games is a much lesser variance. Simply put T1 is where the big brand impact is more commonly felt so that deal being done with the existing teams reflects that weakened value already.

And Fox got reworked when ESPN did. So the contracts weren't signed until the current membership was in place. But underdog doesn't let facts get in the way.

(04-23-2015 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:38 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  ...only three B12 schools were suppose to receive $20 mil each and two of those schools remain.

Irrelevant as all of that was prior to 50% of the tv deal being renegotiated with ESPN. That was a 1-3 year assurance (can't remember exactly how many years) relevant to the time prior to renegotiation where the projected money would make such assurances unnecessary. We are well past that point.

That's like someone making a judgement on the ACC's value using the 2009 or 2010 contract- it's irrelevant because it's no longer the most recent situation.

Well, not even that since the deal he discusses never happened. It was merely a proposal by the 5 remaining schools.

I know you aren't referring to the exit fees proposal again.... That's a different topic, and you know it bullet!