WVUs play by play guy giving an interview on some of the rumors he's hearing from KC in terms of expansion/Big 12 network. He's still hearing Uconn and Cincinnati.

http://wvmetronews.com/shows/sportsline/

Click on the show from last night (March 9) and the info starts at about the 7 minute mark

Jackson

Question is....are they Big 12 decision makers he is hearing this stuff from?

American

Temple
Navy
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

The American might hold at 10 schools, if UCONN leaves might as well just look South instead of North for another team. Combination of Southern Miss, Georgia Southern, or Old Dominion. Maybe Wichita State and VCU for basketball only. I would like to see App State and/or Charlotte

Any team you listed other than WSU makes ALOT of sense to me!

(03-10-2016 09:09 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  American

Temple
Navy
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

The American might hold at 10 schools, if UCONN leaves might as well just look South instead of North for another team. Combination of Southern Miss, Georgia Southern, or Old Dominion. Maybe Wichita State and VCU for basketball only. I would like to see App State and/or Charlotte

Stop.

If the AAC loses UC and UCONN, A) look to the MWC and a national best of the rest or B) add VCU or WSU to abate loses in hoops and stand pat at 10 football teams.

I took a look and went to the 7 minute mark and one of the first things they said was having to turn the LHN into the network and will need to give Texas a special deal. I stopped listening right then.

The entire reason why the Big 12 imploded was because of those type of dealings/favoritism towards Texas.

WVU has no place to go to so of course their media people will think expansion will happen - they need it to happen.

(03-10-2016 09:09 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  American

Temple
Navy
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

The American might hold at 10 schools, if UCONN leaves might as well just look South instead of North for another team. Combination of Southern Miss, Georgia Southern, or Old Dominion. Maybe Wichita State and VCU for basketball only. I would like to see App State and/or Charlotte

Wichita makes sense. Nobody else you mentioned fits the mold for an AAC school, unless our new most important criteria for new members is to provide drivable road games for ECU.

(03-10-2016 10:21 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I took a look and went to the 7 minute mark and one of the first things they said was having to turn the LHN into the network and will need to give Texas a special deal. I stopped listening right then.

The entire reason why the Big 12 imploded was because of those type of dealings/favoritism towards Texas.

WVU has no place to go to so of course their media people will think expansion will happen - they need it to happen.

Why? I'm not saying that it will happen - indeed, I think there is waaaaaaaaay more of a chance of expansion than the LHN folding. However, the point is that the only way that a Big 12 network gets off the ground is if Texas is fully on-board, and the only way that you can get Texas fully on-board with it is if they are compensated for every single penny that they would have made by keeping the LHN *plus* the more intangible loss of benefits from having their very own network run by ESPN. Otherwise, the Big 12 network isn't ever getting off the ground in the first place.

The Big 12 is a classic "Can't live with them and can't live without them" situation with respect to Texas. The presence of Texas is what has driven every single school that had the power to leave on its own to end up leaving for stronger P5 leagues. However, the only thing worse for the schools left in the Big 12 is to NOT have Texas there... and the LHN money and exposure is basically the only reason why the Texas is in the Big 12 instead of a Pac-16 superconference. Texas has power because they ARE the single most valuable school in the country, whether we like it or not. The other Big 12 schools don't have any leverage outside of threatening to leave (which only Oklahoma and Kansas can really plausibly threat to do).

As usual, the Big XII clueless on how to expand

(03-10-2016 10:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:09 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  American

Temple
Navy
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

The American might hold at 10 schools, if UCONN leaves might as well just look South instead of North for another team. Combination of Southern Miss, Georgia Southern, or Old Dominion. Maybe Wichita State and VCU for basketball only. I would like to see App State and/or Charlotte

Wichita makes sense. Nobody else you mentioned fits the mold for an AAC school, unless our new most important criteria for new members is to provide drivable road games for ECU.

It would be moot as neither school has a large enough stadium to offer us any away tickets.

(03-10-2016 11:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:21 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I took a look and went to the 7 minute mark and one of the first things they said was having to turn the LHN into the network and will need to give Texas a special deal. I stopped listening right then.

The entire reason why the Big 12 imploded was because of those type of dealings/favoritism towards Texas.

WVU has no place to go to so of course their media people will think expansion will happen - they need it to happen.

Why? I'm not saying that it will happen - indeed, I think there is waaaaaaaaay more of a chance of expansion than the LHN folding. However, the point is that the only way that a Big 12 network gets off the ground is if Texas is fully on-board, and the only way that you can get Texas fully on-board with it is if they are compensated for every single penny that they would have made by keeping the LHN *plus* the more intangible loss of benefits from having their very own network run by ESPN. Otherwise, the Big 12 network isn't ever getting off the ground in the first place.

The Big 12 is a classic "Can't live with them and can't live without them" situation with respect to Texas. The presence of Texas is what has driven every single school that had the power to leave on its own to end up leaving for stronger P5 leagues. However, the only thing worse for the schools left in the Big 12 is to NOT have Texas there... and the LHN money and exposure is basically the only reason why the Texas is in the Big 12 instead of a Pac-16 superconference. Texas has power because they ARE the single most valuable school in the country, whether we like it or not. The other Big 12 schools don't have any leverage outside of threatening to leave (which only Oklahoma and Kansas can really plausibly threat to do).

Agreed. Texas is the king there and obviously will not give up the LHN and that $15 million per year without being adequately (or more so) compensated for it.

I just don't know enough about a potential Big 12 network to know whether/where sufficient dollars will come from to do that and make the other schools enough money for loss of their third tier deals, even with Cincy and UConn aboard.

(03-10-2016 11:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:21 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I took a look and went to the 7 minute mark and one of the first things they said was having to turn the LHN into the network and will need to give Texas a special deal. I stopped listening right then.

The entire reason why the Big 12 imploded was because of those type of dealings/favoritism towards Texas.

WVU has no place to go to so of course their media people will think expansion will happen - they need it to happen.

Why? I'm not saying that it will happen - indeed, I think there is waaaaaaaaay more of a chance of expansion than the LHN folding. However, the point is that the only way that a Big 12 network gets off the ground is if Texas is fully on-board, and the only way that you can get Texas fully on-board with it is if they are compensated for every single penny that they would have made by keeping the LHN *plus* the more intangible loss of benefits from having their very own network run by ESPN. Otherwise, the Big 12 network isn't ever getting off the ground in the first place.

The Big 12 is a classic "Can't live with them and can't live without them" situation with respect to Texas. The presence of Texas is what has driven every single school that had the power to leave on its own to end up leaving for stronger P5 leagues. However, the only thing worse for the schools left in the Big 12 is to NOT have Texas there... and the LHN money and exposure is basically the only reason why the Texas is in the Big 12 instead of a Pac-16 superconference. Texas has power because they ARE the single most valuable school in the country, whether we like it or not. The other Big 12 schools don't have any leverage outside of threatening to leave (which only Oklahoma and Kansas can really plausibly threat to do).

Makes sense for everyone. Texas gets its money. ESPN turns a money loser into a money maker. The Big12 makes more money than they do now, despite giving Texas the first 15 million from network proceeds and giving them a share of whats left over.

(03-10-2016 11:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Agreed. Texas is the king there and obviously will not give up the LHN and that $15 million per year without being adequately (or more so) compensated for it.

I just don't know enough about a potential Big 12 network to know whether/where sufficient dollars will come from to do that and make the other schools enough money for loss of their third tier deals, even with Cincy and UConn aboard.

It's a legit dilemma for the Big 12. About the only thing that is certain is that a Big 12 network isn't worth much of anything without the Texas content that is currently on LHN. OU and KU have the most lucrative third tier deals besides Texas, but they are also the biggest flight risks for the Big 12 because they could unequivocally earn more in either the Big Ten or SEC while also being in significantly more stable conferences.

How much the new schools would add is also a question. I'm a large supporter of Big 12 expansion more for overall long-term demographics and stability, but not necessarily that a Big 12 network in and of itself is going to make much money. I've seen some of the estimates from fans of what they believe that their fans could bring to a Big 12 network in terms of subscriber fees and they are ENTIRELY unrealistic. (For example, I'm not buying that UConn is going to deliver higher subscriber fees in Connecticut, much less the entire NYC/NJ/CT region, than what the BTN is getting in Ohio or the SEC Network is getting in Alabama, which is what I've seen their fans argue when they throw out certain numbers.)

The single biggest piece of what would make the Big 12 network plausibly valuable is the Texas content and the households in the state of Texas - everything else is superfluous. However, Texas has a valid argument about why it should be sharing those dollars at all. This isn't like the Big Ten where Ohio State and Michigan are getting large financial benefits from the BTN being on in the Chicago (vis a vis Illinois and Northwestern) and NYC (vis a vis Rutgers) markets or the SEC where Alabama is getting paid from the SEC Network by being on in the Atlanta (vis a vis Georgia) and the state of Texas (vis a vis Texas A&M). The superpower programs in the Big Ten and SEC are counterbalanced by the fact that there are large and valuable markets covered by non-power programs within their conferences, so the subject of equal revenue sharing for TV rights has been acceptable. The Big 12 is completely different - their largest state, largest TV markets, largest fan base, best recruiting territories, highest profile national brand and best academic school are all wrapped in the *single* school of Texas.

I think conferences that don't share TV money equally are destined to fail because of internal squabbles, but I completely understand why the Big 12 is in the position that it's in today. Even subpar football programs in the Big Ten like Illinois and Rutgers offer something of significant financial value to Ohio State, which is why there is quite a bit of unity. Texas doesn't have any type of counterweight - the only Big 12 brand that competes with them is Oklahoma, but they're in a much smaller market and don't have the same clear options because of academics and their ties to Oklahoma State.

(03-10-2016 11:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:21 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I took a look and went to the 7 minute mark and one of the first things they said was having to turn the LHN into the network and will need to give Texas a special deal. I stopped listening right then.

The entire reason why the Big 12 imploded was because of those type of dealings/favoritism towards Texas.

WVU has no place to go to so of course their media people will think expansion will happen - they need it to happen.

Why? I'm not saying that it will happen - indeed, I think there is waaaaaaaaay more of a chance of expansion than the LHN folding. However, the point is that the only way that a Big 12 network gets off the ground is if Texas is fully on-board, and the only way that you can get Texas fully on-board with it is if they are compensated for every single penny that they would have made by keeping the LHN *plus* the more intangible loss of benefits from having their very own network run by ESPN. Otherwise, the Big 12 network isn't ever getting off the ground in the first place.

The Big 12 is a classic "Can't live with them and can't live without them" situation with respect to Texas. The presence of Texas is what has driven every single school that had the power to leave on its own to end up leaving for stronger P5 leagues. However, the only thing worse for the schools left in the Big 12 is to NOT have Texas there... and the LHN money and exposure is basically the only reason why the Texas is in the Big 12 instead of a Pac-16 superconference. Texas has power because they ARE the single most valuable school in the country, whether we like it or not. The other Big 12 schools don't have any leverage outside of threatening to leave (which only Oklahoma and Kansas can really plausibly threat to do).

Because it is the same line of thought and system from six years ago (and even longer than that) that has lead to today.

When Colorado, Nebraska, etc, left, Texas got pandered to for everything. The conference office moved. The commish for that conference six years ago backed Texas in everything and tried to make the rest of the schools in the conference to what was best for Texas and not the conference as a whole.

Unequal revenue sharing is what lead to the destruction of the conference. Sure the new schools into the conference may not have an issue with unequal distribution and doing anything to have a happy Texas, but Oklahoma will want nothing to do with that. Nothing. They know exactly how that goes since they have lived it.

If the LHN stays, Oklahoma leaves.

It isn't that hard in the big grand scheme of everything to throw out an offer to a school at the G5 level and go visit their school to play a sport, but this goes much deeper than just giving an offer to a couple of schools.

If B12 adds Cincy & UConn, in order to strengthen hoops, keep travel costs economical and gain a large new market (with the added bonus of that market losing an NFL franchise with those entertainment $ needing to be spent somewhere); add VCU & St Louis for hoops and Olympic Sports. VCU, adds a large public U with great hoops pedigre and gets the AAC into growing Virginia.

St Louis is the largest Catholic university west of the Mississippi(nearly identical in size to Wichita) , play in a $70M almost 11K seat arena in downtown St Louis near Busch Stadium. St Louis losses an NFL franchise and the Billikens only have the NHL Blues to compete with for the fall/winter sports entertainment $ and in a much larger and easier to get to market than Wichita.

AAC is now on the map in Missouri which is a larger state than Kansas. Your welcome.

Big 12 could add Cincinnati, Connecticut, Memphis and BYU.

(03-10-2016 12:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Because it is the same line of thought and system from six years ago (and even longer than that) that has lead to today.

When Colorado, Nebraska, etc, left, Texas got pandered to for everything. The conference office moved. The commish for that conference six years ago backed Texas in everything and tried to make the rest of the schools in the conference to what was best for Texas and not the conference as a whole.

Unequal revenue sharing is what lead to the destruction of the conference. Sure the new schools into the conference may not have an issue with unequal distribution and doing anything to have a happy Texas, but Oklahoma will want nothing to do with that. Nothing. They know exactly how that goes since they have lived it.

If the LHN stays, Oklahoma leaves.

It isn't that hard in the big grand scheme of everything to throw out an offer to a school at the G5 level and go visit their school to play a sport, but this goes much deeper than just giving an offer to a couple of schools.

I understand everything here... but the dilemma is that the only reason why Texas stayed in the Big 12 in the first place is the LHN. Otherwise, we would be watching the Pac-16 with the Texahoma schools. A Big 12 with equal revenue sharing is of no value to Texas - if they're going to do equal revenue sharing, then they are better off in the Big Ten or SEC.

Look - there isn't a good answer. If OU leaves, then the Big 12 might die. (When I say "die", I mean cease being a power conference.) However, we also know that if Texas leaves, then the Big 12 will unequivocally die (and OU and KU will end up leaving, anyway).

Essentially, if OU doesn't get equal revenue sharing, then OU might leave, which would then spur Texas to leave.

On the other hand, if Texas is forced into equal revenue sharing, then Texas would leave for a place where equal revenue sharing makes a whole lot more sense (like the Big Ten or SEC), which would also spur OU to leave.

The more ways that I look at it, the more it looks like the Big 12 is a complete bind. The league may stay together for awhile because schools like OU and KU may not have other options as of now, but no one seems to truly want to be there except for Texas... and that's only because of the existence of the LHN that the other schools want to take away. There isn't any easy answer.

(03-10-2016 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think conferences that don't share TV money equally are destined to fail because of internal squabbles, but I completely understand why the Big 12 is in the position that it's in today. Even subpar football programs in the Big Ten like Illinois and Rutgers offer something of significant financial value to Ohio State, which is why there is quite a bit of unity. Texas doesn't have any type of counterweight - the only Big 12 brand that competes with them is Oklahoma, but they're in a much smaller market and don't have the same clear options because of academics and their ties to Oklahoma State.

I don't agree that sharing TV money equally is a prerequisite for harmony. Unequal TV revenue isn't a problem for the Big 12, except perhaps for David Boren's ego.

The issue they do have, unavoidably, compared to the Pac, Big Ten, and SEC is the lack of historical ties. Ohio State would hesitate before kicking Purdue, Minnesota, etc. to the curb if only because of traditional ties. Same for Alabama and Florida vis-a-vis Vandy or Mississippi State. For Texas and everyone else in the Big 12, those ties are very thin if they even exist at all. Texas' longtime conference died 20 years ago. Longtime rivals of KU and OU have left them. There is not sufficient history there to make the powerbrokers hesitate much before making a major move.

Dan Wolken thinks expansion is unlikely and I agree with him.

https://soundcloud.com/football-four/new...2-problems

Dan Wolken ‎@DanWolken
New podcast with @GeorgeSchroeder: Can Lovie win at Illinois? CFP sked changes? Is the Big 12 expanding? https://soundcloud.com/football-four/new...2-problems …
8:48 AM - 10 Mar 2016
3 3 Retweets 7 7 likes

(03-10-2016 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think conferences that don't share TV money equally are destined to fail because of internal squabbles, but I completely understand why the Big 12 is in the position that it's in today. Even subpar football programs in the Big Ten like Illinois and Rutgers offer something of significant financial value to Ohio State, which is why there is quite a bit of unity. Texas doesn't have any type of counterweight - the only Big 12 brand that competes with them is Oklahoma, but they're in a much smaller market and don't have the same clear options because of academics and their ties to Oklahoma State.

I don't agree that sharing TV money equally is a prerequisite for harmony. Unequal TV revenue isn't a problem for the Big 12, except perhaps for David Boren's ego.

The issue they do have, unavoidably, compared to the Pac, Big Ten, and SEC is the lack of historical ties. Ohio State would hesitate before kicking Purdue, Minnesota, etc. to the curb if only because of traditional ties. Same for Alabama and Florida vis-a-vis Vandy or Mississippi State. For Texas and everyone else in the Big 12, those ties are very thin if they even exist at all. Texas' longtime conference died 20 years ago. Longtime rivals of KU and OU have left them. There is not sufficient history there to make the powerbrokers hesitate much before making a major move.

They approached the schools about starting a network but Texas wanted to make the most money for the reasons that Frank the Tank already laid out. He knows how it went down.

The other schools in the conference wanted nothing to do with it. They wanted equal share. Nebraska and A&M have no business seeing them as a sub brand to Texas.

So eventually those schools left and ESPN came to Texas at the last second with the LHN. ESPN and Texas are under contract for a long time yet. Texas will never allow the LHN to be turned into a conference network to share equal monies and Oklahoma knows this.