(05-05-2015 07:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Imagine the following:

"All right OU fans! You've just finished watching the Sooners take on the Cincinatti Bearkats! Tickets are on sale for next week's exciting game as Big 12 play continues with Oklahoma taking on the Pirates of East Carolina!

Juuuusssttttt not seeing it.

But I still hope it happens just to watch the look of horror and disgust on my co-worker's face.

In fairness to the University of Cincinnati they spell it Bearcats like a normal person not Bearkats like it is some kind of minor league roller hockey team.

(05-06-2015 03:26 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:17 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  OK I understand..like I said I did not waste time reading the entire post. However, what you propose still has zero chance, because the networks have already told the Big12 that the teams you mention (except for BYU) add no value to the conference.

None of the teams bring anything close to an extra $20 million to the conference, such that an even split would yield a lower per team payout.

However, the idea proposes to pay teams like Cincinnati and Memphis a fraction of the full-member payout - which would still be more than what Cincinnati and Memphis currently make from the AAC - and deliver extra games of content to the Big 12 each week. Those extra weekly games would land more value to the Big 12 than the cost of the Cincinnati and Memphis payouts.

The trade off is replacing West Virginia v. Texas Tech or Iowa St. v. Oklahoma with games like West Virginia v. Cincinnati, Texas Tech v. BYU, Boise St. v. Oklahoma, and Iowa St. v. Memphis. Which could actually enhance the conference schedule, giving the TV partners not only more inventory, but better inventory.

By more inventory I guess you mean more options. Same number of games would likely be televised. But better inventory? Outside of BYU I disagree.

(05-06-2015 03:58 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  By more inventory I guess you mean more options. Same number of games would likely be televised. But better inventory? Outside of BYU I disagree.

Partially. Definitely more options, but also more actual TV broadcasts. You would generally still have 2 or 3 good matchups for the marquee TV spots, but you would actually have more games on TV, which means more air time and more $$$.

For instance, the current Week 6 2015 Big 12 schedule looks like this:
- Oklahoma v. Texas - likely on ABC
- TCU@Kansas St. - likely on ESPN or FOX
- Oklahoma St.@West Virginia - likely on FS1 or ESPN
- Baylor@Kansas - meh - throw it on FS1
- Iowa St.@Texas Tech - blah - throw it on FS1

That's 5 games with the OU-UT behemoth and good matchups with TCU/KSU and OSU/WVU.

This is actually one of the better Big 12 lineups, because you can't really beat Oklahoma-Texas and you've paired a couple of the weaklings (ISU-TTech).

Now, replace that with:
- Oklahoma v. Texas - likely on ABC [same as above]
- TCU@Kansas St. - likely on ESPN or FOX [same as above]
- Oklahoma St.@West Virginia - likely on FS1 or ESPN [same as above]
- Navy@Baylor - ESPN2-worthy
- Memphis@Boise St. - hohum, but decent game for ESPN2 at 8pm Pacific under the Big 12 banner
- BYU@Iowa St. - hohum - throw it on FS1
- ECU@Kansas - blah - throw it on FS1

So, you still get the three best games and a couple of games on FS1, but you add ESPN2 inventory, which = $$$ (and you only have to pay $ to get that $$$)

if the goal is to expand just enough to get a CCG, then this is one idea

add Ark St and Mizzou St football only as probational members that can be kicked out any time the Big 12 feels like it. The new teams only play 6 conference games total, 5 against their same division. they will get no share of tv revenue, they have to get their own tv contract.

other teams still play 9 conference games, 5 against same division.

north
Iowa. St, Kan, KSU, Ok, Ok St, Mizzou St

south
Texas, TT, Bay, TCU, WV, Ark ST

Upon hearing that the Big 12 isn't expanding, they are try their best to make a case for their inclusion. I guess Indy isn't going to last and you'll be back in the MW or in the AAC for football only.

(05-05-2015 07:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Imagine the following:

"All right OU fans! You've just finished watching the Sooners take on the Cincinatti Bearkats! Tickets are on sale for next week's exciting game as Big 12 play continues with Oklahoma taking on the Pirates of East Carolina!

Juuuusssttttt not seeing it.

But I still hope it happens just to watch the look of horror and disgust on my co-worker's face.

Learn to spell ace.

1. Cincinnati
2. Bearcats

What you typed looks like an attempt by a six year old.

And what's wrong with OU vs UC? OU came to Cincy and won by a couple points a few years ago...in a down year for UC. The game was played at PBS in front of huge crowd. Why is that small time, like you are making it out? I mean, it's not like OU/Iowa State has any national appeal, lol. In fact you could say that about a lot of P5 match ups. Oregon St vs Wash St...ohhh ahhhh. Come on, pull your head out of your arse.

And in hoops we add a great program with a storied history.


Not expecting you to be a UC fan but you could at least treat the situation fairly...and learn to spell while you are at it.

(05-06-2015 04:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 03:58 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  By more inventory I guess you mean more options. Same number of games would likely be televised. But better inventory? Outside of BYU I disagree.

Partially. Definitely more options, but also more actual TV broadcasts. You would generally still have 2 or 3 good matchups for the marquee TV spots, but you would actually have more games on TV, which means more air time and more $$$.

For instance, the current Week 6 2015 Big 12 schedule looks like this:
- Oklahoma v. Texas - likely on ABC
- TCU@Kansas St. - likely on ESPN or FOX
- Oklahoma St.@West Virginia - likely on FS1 or ESPN
- Baylor@Kansas - meh - throw it on FS1
- Iowa St.@Texas Tech - blah - throw it on FS1

That's 5 games with the OU-UT behemoth and good matchups with TCU/KSU and OSU/WVU.

This is actually one of the better Big 12 lineups, because you can't really beat Oklahoma-Texas and you've paired a couple of the weaklings (ISU-TTech).

Now, replace that with:
- Oklahoma v. Texas - likely on ABC [same as above]
- TCU@Kansas St. - likely on ESPN or FOX [same as above]
- Oklahoma St.@West Virginia - likely on FS1 or ESPN [same as above]
- Navy@Baylor - ESPN2-worthy
- Memphis@Boise St. - hohum, but decent game for ESPN2 at 8pm Pacific under the Big 12 banner
- BYU@Iowa St. - hohum - throw it on FS1
- ECU@Kansas - blah - throw it on FS1

So, you still get the three best games and a couple of games on FS1, but you add ESPN2 inventory, which = $$$ (and you only have to pay $ to get that $$$)

Undefeated Cincinnati Vs undefeated Oklahoma?
Undefeated Boise State Vs Undefeated TCU? This would be ratings gold.
Undefeated BYU Vs Undefeated Texas?
Undefeated Baylor Vs Undefeated Northern Illinois?
Undefeated Kansas State Vs Undefeated UCF?

Arghhhh!

http://youtu.be/syZA7f8HuLo

(05-05-2015 07:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Imagine the following:

"All right OU fans! You've just finished watching the Sooners take on the Cincinatti Bearkats! Tickets are on sale for next week's exciting game as Big 12 play continues with Oklahoma taking on the Pirates of East Carolina!

Juuuusssttttt not seeing it.

But I still hope it happens just to watch the look of horror and disgust on my co-worker's face.

yeah, ive seen that look of horror and disgust from sec fans when they found out that mizzou and the tamu jar fillers were joining. kenny trill. enjoy your middle of the pack status in the west forever.

so make fun of cincy all you want, the aggies are gonna get some serious arse whippings this year. good god yall are a weird bunch

In your rush to defend your internet honor you're all completely missing the point.

Do you know what UT and OU fans are complaining about right now?

Their schedules in the Big 12. Namely, the lack of compelling, name brand matchups.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness.

KSU has owned UT the last 5 years but the horns still don't care about the game.

Adding teams like ECU Cincy or Memphis does not solve that problem for UT or OU which is why they will continue to veto anyone who isn't Florida State/Clemson types.



HTH

...oh and sorry about the misspell, we have a local TX team with that name who spells it with a "k" for some reason and my phone went with that one

(05-16-2015 07:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Do you know what UT and OU fans are complaining about right now?

Their schedules in the Big 12. Namely, the lack of compelling, name brand matchups.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness.

It certainly doesn't. So much for the American ideals of equality, fairness and sportsmanship. Instead, OU and UT exhibit pusillanimous snobbery and hypocrisy. Having beaten such "compelling name brands" in the past as Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Miami and Southern Cal, there is no doubt in my mind that Memphis could provide respectable competition for OU and UT, especially after enjoying the recruiting and financial advantages of Big 12 membership. What fun it would be to help their royal fans with periodic attitude adjustments.

(05-16-2015 07:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  In your rush to defend your internet honor you're all completely missing the point.

Do you know what UT and OU fans are complaining about right now?

Their schedules in the Big 12. Namely, the lack of compelling, name brand matchups.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness.

KSU has owned UT the last 5 years but the horns still don't care about the game.

Adding teams like ECU Cincy or Memphis does not solve that problem for UT or OU which is why they will continue to veto anyone who isn't Florida State/Clemson types.



HTH

...oh and sorry about the misspell, we have a local TX team with that name who spells it with a "k" for some reason and my phone went with that one

texas has pumped more money into their football program than the budget of some european countries and they still suck. the idea that being in a conference with memphis, cincy or north dakota optical college would hurt their chances at a playoff bid are patently absurd. no school in the history of the universe has done so little with so much. tamu would run a close second in that same category.

(05-16-2015 12:30 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 07:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  In your rush to defend your internet honor you're all completely missing the point.

Do you know what UT and OU fans are complaining about right now?

Their schedules in the Big 12. Namely, the lack of compelling, name brand matchups.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness.

KSU has owned UT the last 5 years but the horns still don't care about the game.

Adding teams like ECU Cincy or Memphis does not solve that problem for UT or OU which is why they will continue to veto anyone who isn't Florida State/Clemson types.



HTH

...oh and sorry about the misspell, we have a local TX team with that name who spells it with a "k" for some reason and my phone went with that one

texas has pumped more money into their football program than the budget of some european countries and they still suck. the idea that being in a conference with memphis, cincy or north dakota optical college would hurt their chances at a playoff bid are patently absurd. no school in the history of the universe has done so little with so much. tamu would run a close second in that same category.

The Bisons of North Dakota State could wipe the floor up with the Longhorns. Texas is afraid of adding schools with winning records who could beat them to a point leaving them with a losing record. That is how bad the Horns have been lately. They lost the Aggies. They lost the Hogs. They lost the Cougars. They Lost the Mustangs. They lost Owls. They lost the Buffalos. They lost the Tigers. They lost the Cornhuskers. Houston had a much better win/lost record than the Horns the past few years.

I live in SEC country...I can tell you that at least of the people I know, they rolled their eyes at the additions of Texas A&M and Mizzou.

Cincinnati is one of a very small handful of programs that has five straight bowl appearances AND five straight NCAA appearances....we also have a great market and OH is a great recruiting area.

But hey, we add zero.

Diluting your brand is a bad thing.

At this point in time there just isn't anybody that doesn't dilute the Big12 to a dangerous extent.

Texas and OU gain nothing by adding the likes of Memphis, Cincy, or Houston to their annual schedule.

(05-06-2015 04:35 PM)goofus Wrote:  if the goal is to expand just enough to get a CCG, then this is one idea

add Ark St and Mizzou St football only as probational members that can be kicked out any time the Big 12 feels like it. The new teams only play 6 conference games total, 5 against their same division. they will get no share of tv revenue, they have to get their own tv contract.

other teams still play 9 conference games, 5 against same division.

north
Iowa. St, Kan, KSU, Ok, Ok St, Mizzou St

south
Texas, TT, Bay, TCU, WV, Ark ST

What type of support does Arkansas State and Missouri State have? Missouri State averaged less than 12,000 fans a game last year. Arkansas State averaged less than 25,000. Arkansas State's football coach left to take a coordinator position in the SEC. They have no budget to compete in the Big XII.

ECU averages more football fans in the stand than Illinois. More than Kansas. More than Northwestern. More than Purdue. More than Indiana.

Keep things in perspective.

(05-16-2015 01:11 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Cincinnati is one of a very small handful of programs that has five straight bowl appearances AND five straight NCAA appearances....we also have a great market and OH is a great recruiting area.

But hey, we add zero.

Cincinnati and Connecticut baffle me. How are they left to the sides?

(05-16-2015 07:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  In your rush to defend your internet honor you're all completely missing the point.

Do you know what UT and OU fans are complaining about right now?

Their schedules in the Big 12. Namely, the lack of compelling, name brand matchups.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness.

KSU has owned UT the last 5 years but the horns still don't care about the game.

Adding teams like ECU Cincy or Memphis does not solve that problem for UT or OU which is why they will continue to veto anyone who isn't Florida State/Clemson types.



HTH

...oh and sorry about the misspell, we have a local TX team with that name who spells it with a "k" for some reason and my phone went with that one

Oklahoma and Texas have no rights to complain. The fans may but their schools representatives created this mess.

They ran off Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Missouri.

blah blah blah

just because some fans of some p5 schools think or say something doesn't make it so

ef you