A 10 team CCG for the Big12 has the potential to devalue the Sugar. Without the right expansion choices, expansion does as well. As always, this has to do with implications for the Sec.

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

I believe what you've written here is accurate.

It's been pointed out that the expansion of the Big 12 to 12 teams is already written into their contract and thus does not devalue the current teams contract but, increases the Big 12's over-all value to the networks by adding additional product. That's why the expansion by 2 teams was written in at status quo value.

I further believe that, the Big 12 will expand to 14 teams to support their network. one of the reasons for the expansion will be population within their footprint. They have the smallest footprint both in size and population. The population numbers need to be raised to raise interest in a Big 12 network with prospective partners.

The Big 12 can do anything or nothing, I'm just guessing.

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

Every comment from Boren and Bowlsby is that they get both the pro-rata and the ccg money.

(03-16-2016 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

Every comment from Boren and Bowlsby is that they get both the pro-rata and the ccg money.

It may or may not be firm:

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/j...our-sports

Quote:Because of the volatility that was in place at the time, TV partners said if you lose people, we’ll give you pro rata down and if you gain people give pro rata up," Bowlsby said. "I think our TV partners might justifiably assert we ought to do (a championship game) without any uptick in money."

The contract might state that if the Big 12 goes back to 12 and adds a CCG, the money per team stays the same. There has been some quotes supporting that and it makes some sense. Other older quotes have suggested the Big 12 as it started in the 90s with 12 teams and a CCG was just as valuable per team as a 10 team Big 12 would have been without a CCG (and without Baylor and Texas Tech included). The assumption when writing was probably that any additional teams would be below the current Big 12 average in value (given that value includes Texas/Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball), but the CCG added value would make up for that.

Regardless though, there is zero chance the Big 12 would add a CCG and stay at 10 teams and not get anything extra. Think about it.
1. Right now they have a full schedule and no CCG.
2. If they add a CCG, they don't lose any games, they'll only be adding one.
3. That game is worth millions to ESPN/FOX.
4. The Big 12 won't go to the trouble and expense without getting some of that money.

On the issue of having a CCG with full round robin, while I agree it is unnecessary, I also think that set-up still makes a lot more sense than what we have in the other conferences with uneven schedules and a CCG.

(03-16-2016 05:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

Every comment from Boren and Bowlsby is that they get both the pro-rata and the ccg money.

It may or may not be firm:

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/j...our-sports

Quote:Because of the volatility that was in place at the time, TV partners said if you lose people, we’ll give you pro rata down and if you gain people give pro rata up," Bowlsby said. "I think our TV partners might justifiably assert we ought to do (a championship game) without any uptick in money."

Thanks. Hadn't seen that article before or Bowlsby making those comments before.

But, the contracts were signed with the new members already in place (before Bowlsby was there). Bowlsby's interpretation in that article makes zero sense.

(03-16-2016 03:45 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks have a CCG with round robin is stupid??

Nope, you are not alone

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

(03-16-2016 12:29 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the research data indicates that the Big 12 should expand, then they would be foolish to dilly-dally for a year. The Big 12 is banking on no more departures. That is foolish since nobody has a crystal ball and schools like OU and Kansas could bolt in a heartbeat if they want to get away from Texas. That would kill the Big 12. Also, the Big 12 is banking on schools like UConn and Cincy still being available. That is also foolish as the ACC could end up snapping them up (or the B1G could take UConn if they become AAU). BYU, Boise, Houston, and Memphis would still be available, but only BYU gives them the academic prowess and a high number of television sets that they do not have yet.

It will be fitting if they miss out on adding certain schools the way that they missed out on adding Louisville the last time around.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The Grant of Rights means that the Big 12 can take their time.

Nobody is going to challenge it in court, so there is no urgency.

The ACC is not going to expand, so nobody will be snapped up nor will the Big 12 miss out on anything.

(03-16-2016 01:49 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:03 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:29 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the research data indicates that the Big 12 should expand, then they would be foolish to dilly-dally for a year. The Big 12 is banking on no more departures. That is foolish since nobody has a crystal ball and schools like OU and Kansas could bolt in a heartbeat if they want to get away from Texas. That would kill the Big 12. Also, the Big 12 is banking on schools like UConn and Cincy still being available. That is also foolish as the ACC could end up snapping them up (or the B1G could take UConn if they become AAU). BYU, Boise, Houston, and Memphis would still be available, but only BYU gives them the academic prowess and a high number of television sets that they do not have yet.

It will be fitting if they miss out on adding certain schools the way that they missed out on adding Louisville the last time around.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

1. none of the available teams will REMOTELY "save the Big 12" and IF OU and KU desire to and could "leave in a heart beat" without taking a massive financial hit none of the available teams will prevent that

2. the ACC is not "snapping anyone up"

3. the AAU adds members about once a decade of that and the last round of booting NU and SU leaving was something they are looking to avoid in the future and they have also made it clear they are not looking to grow much larger of at all

and the metrics of UConn are not close to the metrics of the past public school admitted to the AAU which was GaTech

4. if the Big 12 lost KU and OU they would not fall apart for sure.....there are PLENTY of teams that are available to be warm bodies so there is no need to add warm bodies out of the fear that teams might leave

that only serves to reduce the added income for teams in the conference from those leaving the conference when the teams that would be remaining could just as easily split exit fees smaller ways and offer lesser deals to any and all available teams

5. if the Big 12 was to lose OU and KU and The Sugar Bowl decided they no longer wanted any part of the Big 12 it is not as if the Big 12 would be able to add members now and retain that contract....The Sugar Bowl is going to exit that contract if they want out of it

and if the NCAA/Playoffs decide that the Big 12 is no longer worthy of $50 million they are not going to avoid that decision because the Big 12 added warm bodies and then watched OU and KU leave

and even IF the Big 12 could retain those contracts and payments with OU and KU leaving that will ONLY happen until the end of those contracts and after that they will be done for

so it would make more sense for the Big 12 to WAIT until teams leave (which is very unlikely to happen) and then make bad offers to available warm bodies and the remaining teams in the Big 12 make all the money they can while they still can and that is that when it is over they move on

the only contract that would be at risk AND saved by two warm bodies would be the media contract and it just needs warm bodies to replace the number of teams leaving

the Sugar Bowl and NCAA Playoff money is not going to stick around for the ACC 2.0 or MWC on Steroids they will be gone if they want to be gone and warm bodies NOW will not stop that

Everybody has an opinion and none of these points are actually based on data. In the end, all that matters is what the Big 12 decides, not you or I.

On point number 3, please provide the metrics of UConn vs Georgia Tech that you have reviewed. Thank you.

As I recall, Cincy and UCONN have many metrics that meet or exceed those of some current AAU members. AAU is an academicians' country club; there is no measurable tipping point to gaining entry.

the AAU does not look at "gross metrics" this is a major fallacy that UH especially loves to look at and their chancellor/president likes to waste her time giving reports on these things

the AAU looks at COMPARABLE PEER UNIVERSITIES

in other words you are not going to simply get all of your metrics at or above the lowest level of any particular AAU member in any particular metric they look at and say "we are in soon"

because you might be a large PUBLIC university with 3,500 faculty members comparing your gross research numbers to a small private university with 1,800 faculty members

or you might be a university with a medical school comparing yourself to a university without one

or on the flip side you might be a small highly selective private university in a very large metro area comparing your SAT and freshman metrics to a public university in a state that only has 3 or 4 public universities total

they are not comparable metrics

or you might be a public university in a state with 30+ public universities comparing freshman metrics to a public university in a state with only 3 or 4 public universities so your university has the ability to be more selective because there are two other public universities within 5 miles of your campus while the other is a university that serves most of an entire state

so again the AAU weights these factors and makes comparisons of PEER universities and the overall make up of the university and the university mission

you do not just get your research/federal research up to some metric and start to feel "we are there" because of course if you are a large public university with a medical school you might be "passing" a small private university that has no medical school and on a per faculty member basis is still much more productive in research and those faculty members have much more contact with their students because of a 10:1 student faculty ratio Vs a 24:1 student to faculty ratio and that matters TO THE STUDENTS

it just so happens that in the case of UConn the university ask about here and GaTech the overall comparison is a similar one because they are both public universities of similar size in states where they are not the only public option or one of a few and neither has a medical school

so here are the latest numbers from the same source which means they are compiled the same way it is an equal comparison

Latest Comparable Data

UConn # of National Academy Members 1

Faculty Awards 8

Doctorates Granted 272

National Merits 5

2012 Post Docs 134

Median SAT 1230

2012 Total Research $147,938,000 2014 Total Research $258,056,000

2012 Federal Research $88,834,000

2013 Endowment $251.247,000 2015 Endowment $383,149,000

2012 % Life Science 34.7

2012 % Physical Science 6

2012 % Environmental 5.8

2012 % Engineering 25.7

2012 % CS 2.2

2012 % Math .7

2013 Annual Giving $38,982,000

2012 Research in Constant 1983 Dollars $50,462,000

Research in 2003 in Constant 1983 Dollars $39,173,000

Net Change 2003-2012 $11,289,000 % Change 28.8%

2003 Median SAT (1170) to year 2012 (1230)

2014 # of Top 25 Measures Nationally 0

2014 # of Top 26-50 Measures Nationally 0

2014 # of Top 25 Measures Nationally Public Universities 0

2014 # of Top 26-50 Measures Nationally Public universities 2


GaTech

2013 GaTech # of National Academy Members 26

2013 Faculty Awards 15

2013 Doctorates Granted 488

2013 National Merits 176

2013 Annual Giving 102,717,000

2012 Post Docs 307

2012 Median SAT 1355

2012 Total Research $683,894,000 2014 Total Research $725,550,000

2012 Federal Research $482,349,000

2013 Endowment 1,714,876,000 2015 Endowment $1,858,977,000

2012 % Life Science 3.1

2012 % Physical Science 7.5

2012 % Environmental 2.2

2012 % Engineering 70.6

2012 % CS 12.6

2012 % Math 1

2012 Research in Constant 1983 Dollars 233,276,000

Research in 2003 in Constant 1983 Dollars 162,939,000

Net Change 2003-2012 70,338,000 % Change 43.2

2003 Median SAT (1340) to year 2012 (1355)

2014 # of Top 25 Measures Nationally 2

2014 # of Top 26-50 Measures Nationally 4

2014 # of Top 25 Measures Nationally Public Universities 7

2014 # of Top 26-50 Measures Nationally Public universities 2

(03-16-2016 03:45 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks have a CCG with round robin is stupid??

no it is not just stupid it is death

the Big 12 is much better off staying at 10 and playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games and a CCG

it would be the best situation for all members and afford them the ability to craft their schedule for their needs

(03-16-2016 04:09 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

I believe what you've written here is accurate.

It's been pointed out that the expansion of the Big 12 to 12 teams is already written into their contract and thus does not devalue the current teams contract but, increases the Big 12's over-all value to the networks by adding additional product. That's why the expansion by 2 teams was written in at status quo value.

I further believe that, the Big 12 will expand to 14 teams to support their network. one of the reasons for the expansion will be population within their footprint. They have the smallest footprint both in size and population. The population numbers need to be raised to raise interest in a Big 12 network with prospective partners.

The Big 12 can do anything or nothing, I'm just guessing.

that is what ive thought all along. Makes no sense to stop at 12. If they are gonna move a needle 14 is the number and ive read where they purchased the rights to the Big 14 in the past.
It would not suprise me to see uconn as the only aac team they take. Some combination of 3 acc teams will make a move. If the big 10 moves like some think we may very well be at the point the p5 becomes the p4.

(03-16-2016 07:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The Grant of Rights means that the Big 12 can take their time.

Nobody is going to challenge it in court, so there is no urgency.

The ACC is not going to expand, so nobody will be snapped up nor will the Big 12 miss out on anything.

It seems to me that there is an urgent need to convert the LHN into a conference network which provides revenue and exposure for ALL members, to add TV markets and population within the footprint and to bridge the gap toward WVU. In short, the Big 12 urgently needs to improve strength (financial, exposure, recruiting) and stability relative to the other "P5" conferences. The demise of the Big East is an example of what the ostrich tactic can lead to.

I hope the Big 12 doesn't expand; I'm anxious to see what the AAC can do - half the schools in the conference are borderline P5-level and legitimate Big 12 candidates and many schools are improving facilities and performance.

(03-16-2016 11:58 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 04:09 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 01:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, what's clear is that the CCG is an unambiguous money-maker *especially* if it doesn't require any expansion. No one needs any other "data points" on that front.

This is complete speculation, as usual. But:
1. IT is widely reported that the Big 12's media contracts with ESPN and Fox provide for pro-rata expansion to 12, with whoever the Big 12 might pick.
2. When those contracts were signed, the only way to have a CCG was with 12 teams.

2 is a fact. If 1 is true, what are the chances that the Big 12 CCG is already included in the Fox/ESPN contract, in such a way that there is no money earmarked for the CCG? IOW, that the CCG money is contractually tied into the money for School #11 and School #12?

I believe what you've written here is accurate.

It's been pointed out that the expansion of the Big 12 to 12 teams is already written into their contract and thus does not devalue the current teams contract but, increases the Big 12's over-all value to the networks by adding additional product. That's why the expansion by 2 teams was written in at status quo value.

I further believe that, the Big 12 will expand to 14 teams to support their network. one of the reasons for the expansion will be population within their footprint. They have the smallest footprint both in size and population. The population numbers need to be raised to raise interest in a Big 12 network with prospective partners.

The Big 12 can do anything or nothing, I'm just guessing.

that is what ive thought all along. Makes no sense to stop at 12. If they are gonna move a needle 14 is the number and ive read where they purchased the rights to the Big 14 in the past.
It would not suprise me to see uconn as the only aac team they take. Some combination of 3 acc teams will make a move. If the big 10 moves like some think we may very well be at the point the p5 becomes the p4.

14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

My take on B12 expansion to 12 is that it will happen, but its more a matter of when it will happen.

Its not about "schools" that are ready, its more about when the "conference" is ready...or maybe when the "money" is ready.

(03-17-2016 09:21 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The Grant of Rights means that the Big 12 can take their time.

Nobody is going to challenge it in court, so there is no urgency.

The ACC is not going to expand, so nobody will be snapped up nor will the Big 12 miss out on anything.

It seems to me that there is an urgent need to convert the LHN into a conference network which provides revenue and exposure for ALL members, to add TV markets and population within the footprint and to bridge the gap toward WVU. In short, the Big 12 urgently needs to improve strength (financial, exposure, recruiting) and stability relative to the other "P5" conferences. The demise of the Big East is an example of what the ostrich tactic can lead to.

No urgent need. Texas is under contract. This is simply about putting a "deadline" on Texas to say yes or no and the article is saying their answer will be no when they announce it.

Chances are Texas never even spoke to the other party in their contract about converting it to a conference network in any real discussion. They likely said they would think about it and now that it is coming time for them to decide, they are say no.

I don't blame Texas for saying no since they get $15M a year without having to do anything and don't have to take a risk of a failed Big 12 Network if it failed. They are stable for that type of money.

Texas will do what Texas wants. Ask Nebraska. Ask Colorado. Ask A&M.

(03-17-2016 10:33 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:21 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The Grant of Rights means that the Big 12 can take their time.

Nobody is going to challenge it in court, so there is no urgency.

The ACC is not going to expand, so nobody will be snapped up nor will the Big 12 miss out on anything.

It seems to me that there is an urgent need to convert the LHN into a conference network which provides revenue and exposure for ALL members, to add TV markets and population within the footprint and to bridge the gap toward WVU. In short, the Big 12 urgently needs to improve strength (financial, exposure, recruiting) and stability relative to the other "P5" conferences. The demise of the Big East is an example of what the ostrich tactic can lead to.

No urgent need. Texas is under contract. This is simply about putting a "deadline" on Texas to say yes or no and the article is saying their answer will be no when they announce it.

Chances are Texas never even spoke to the other party in their contract about converting it to a conference network in any real discussion. They likely said they would think about it and now that it is coming time for them to decide, they are say no.

I don't blame Texas for saying no since they get $15M a year without having to do anything and don't have to take a risk of a failed Big 12 Network if it failed. They are stable for that type of money.

Texas will do what Texas wants. Ask Nebraska. Ask Colorado. Ask A&M.

Just glad Texas decided NO on Louisville...in the end it worked out for us...way too much drama in the Big XII...

(03-17-2016 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

14 may not make sense, but it seems to work well for several other "Autonomy 5" conferences.

(03-17-2016 03:54 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

14 may not make sense, but it seems to work well for several other "Autonomy 5" conferences.

None of them have done it very long.

I actually think 16 works better for scheduling, and for conference networks.

(03-17-2016 03:54 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  14 is the number that makes little sense. It starts to change a conference into something else-a TV consortium.

14 may not make sense, but it seems to work well for several other "Autonomy 5" conferences.

i think 14 is the minimum. 12 wont do alot for the tv deal. 14 maybe 16.
I dont see the aac losing more than uconn unless the number goes past 14.