UConn and Kansas are both schools that, while they've been historically awful in football, have enough brand cache' to end up in a power conference when the dust all settles in other areas, namely basketball. I get it, football drives the bus. Everyone here has had that pounded into their heads...but conference networks need more than just football to survive. They need content, and content people want to watch, throughout other parts of the year. That's where schools like Kansas and UConn both add significant value. For a lot of the schools they play, they're marquee basketball opponents and people will tune in to watch.

(03-23-2016 11:40 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn and Kansas are both schools that, while they've been historically awful in football, have enough brand cache' to end up in a power conference when the dust all settles in other areas, namely basketball. I get it, football drives the bus. Everyone here has had that pounded into their heads...but conference networks need more than just football to survive. They need content, and content people want to watch, throughout other parts of the year. That's where schools like Kansas and UConn both add significant value. For a lot of the schools they play, they're marquee basketball opponents and people will tune in to watch.

But because they are basketball schools, Kansas and UConn are filler. You don't put New England filler into the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 12.

(03-23-2016 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:40 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn and Kansas are both schools that, while they've been historically awful in football, have enough brand cache' to end up in a power conference when the dust all settles in other areas, namely basketball. I get it, football drives the bus. Everyone here has had that pounded into their heads...but conference networks need more than just football to survive. They need content, and content people want to watch, throughout other parts of the year. That's where schools like Kansas and UConn both add significant value. For a lot of the schools they play, they're marquee basketball opponents and people will tune in to watch.

But because they are basketball schools, Kansas and UConn are filler. You don't put New England filler into the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 12.

UCONN football is on the rise, they were bowl eligible last year and have a fair amount of returning players. I don't think it's unrealistic to think they can build on that and get their program on the right path. Hell I've seen NIU basketball shape up, I'll believe anything now

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

(03-23-2016 12:10 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:40 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn and Kansas are both schools that, while they've been historically awful in football, have enough brand cache' to end up in a power conference when the dust all settles in other areas, namely basketball. I get it, football drives the bus. Everyone here has had that pounded into their heads...but conference networks need more than just football to survive. They need content, and content people want to watch, throughout other parts of the year. That's where schools like Kansas and UConn both add significant value. For a lot of the schools they play, they're marquee basketball opponents and people will tune in to watch.

But because they are basketball schools, Kansas and UConn are filler. You don't put New England filler into the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 12.

UCONN football is on the rise, they were bowl eligible last year and have a fair amount of returning players. I don't think it's unrealistic to think they can build on that and get their program on the right path. Hell I've seen NIU basketball shape up, I'll believe anything now

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

That's only half the football equation.

To southern football schools, northern basketball teams on the home schedule is a HUGE revenue loser.

The Texoma school ADs all cringe when ISU and KU are on the home schedule (even when they're good) because that's the game everyone is going to choose to do something else that weekend and the gate receipt is usually the season's worst for P5 opponents.

The ACC southern football schools have the same complaint.

UConn would be another such home game revenue hurter.

I'm no KU fan, but I find it laughable when anyone thinks they'd get left out of a power conference if the B12 crumbles. Sure, their football is atrocious, but that basketball program and its national relevance and the way that fan base travels would be attractive to any remaining power conference.

(03-23-2016 02:07 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I'm no KU fan, but I find it laughable when anyone thinks they'd get left out of a power conference if the B12 crumbles. Sure, their football is atrocious, but that basketball program and its national relevance and the way that fan base travels would be attractive to any remaining power conference.

Why? They were going to be left out when the B12 was crumbling.

(03-23-2016 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 05:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The SEC wouldn't take OK State even if Oklahoma was coming too, much less with Kansas State.

And you this to be true how?

Because when has the SEC ever settled for the second-rung team in any state? Save for one that used to be its own country?

If things are happening (and that remains to be seen), and if the ACC remains stable, the SEC might well take a school that while still a top 30 revenue producer would give them a second annual game in Dallas and help them to land a top 7 revenue producer, and possibly the top revenue producer. Plus it would be a lock down on contiguity to Texas via a northern route, unless of course Colorado State is on the Big 10 radar.

OK (lol), I back off my first statement: If Oklahoma was coming, there is a chance the SEC would take OK State as part of the package. It's not a slam-dunk, but it might happen, as Oklahoma is that valuable. But OK State and Kansas State? Never happen, that would clearly weaken the SEC.

And I don't think the SEC *needs* any more Texas access. TAMU gives it all it needs, and then some. So I do not expect the SEC to do anything to penetrate Texas more other than try to land Texas itself if they were somehow in play.

“Every major cable and satellite subscriber in Texas pays around $16.80 a year for the SEC Network,” Travis wrote in May 2015."

As for Colorado State and the B1G, I don't think there's any danger of that.

You do realize that I was using deliberate litotes with regard to CSU. And Quo I never said anything about OSU & KSU. I don't know where you got that.

And you need to do some research on what are likely to be future cable models. I have referred to the possibility of a switch to a "saturation" model where the networks would pay only for the % of the state a school actually carried. Now with streaming, and smart TVs, actual tracking is much more possible. I heard someone in the Big 10 talking about a "penetration model" the other day. His description of a penetration model is exactly what I was referring to with regards to a "saturation" model. Only instead of being based upon actual viewers it is based on demographic studies.

The days of a switch in the model is coming. The SEC owns outright the majority viewership, and by a wide margin, in every state of it's footprint except the following: Florida holds the lead in the Sunshine State but does so with 45% of the households. South Carolina holds a slight majority over Clemson and that may presently be shifting. And the Aggies do give us the footprint payout in Texas but if the pay model changes to actual viewers the SEC would be ahead of the game to have a second significant Texas brand. Kentucky is a solid majority holder in Kentucky but Louisville is making strides.

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee are all well secured no matter the model.

IMO if the SEC expanded to 18 with Oklahoma, a second Texas school with following, Florida State and Clemson we might not add markets, but we would guarantee that our payout would not change with payout model changes and we would be multiplying our content value exponentially. That is the future. The market model will be history in 10 to 20 years and that will pass in the blink of an eye. The future is in brands, not crappy additions from somewhat large states.

(03-23-2016 02:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:07 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I'm no KU fan, but I find it laughable when anyone thinks they'd get left out of a power conference if the B12 crumbles. Sure, their football is atrocious, but that basketball program and its national relevance and the way that fan base travels would be attractive to any remaining power conference.

Why? They were going to be left out when the B12 was crumbling.

I find it amazing that even after the last close call of being left out Kansas still hasn't really touched their outdated and stale stadium. Well, I guess they took out the track. You have to start with infrastructure to turn a program around, but KU hasn't gotten the memo I guess.

(03-23-2016 02:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:07 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I'm no KU fan, but I find it laughable when anyone thinks they'd get left out of a power conference if the B12 crumbles. Sure, their football is atrocious, but that basketball program and its national relevance and the way that fan base travels would be attractive to any remaining power conference.

Why? They were going to be left out when the B12 was crumbling.

Close call? Because rumors on message boards said so?

(03-23-2016 03:01 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:07 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I'm no KU fan, but I find it laughable when anyone thinks they'd get left out of a power conference if the B12 crumbles. Sure, their football is atrocious, but that basketball program and its national relevance and the way that fan base travels would be attractive to any remaining power conference.

Why? They were going to be left out when the B12 was crumbling.

Close call? Because rumors on message boards said so?

The PAC-16 project was pretty well reported. And Kansas, K-STate, Iowa State and Baylor were slated to be left behind to join the MWC or Big East.

Trust me, I'd love to see KU get left out considering they've done everything possible to keep Wichita down from the moment we became a state university. They will find a home in a power conference based solely on their basketball. ESPN would pretty much guarantee they found a home if nothing else. K-State will definitely be screwed if/when the B12 goes away. They've been riding KU's coattails from the beginning.

(03-23-2016 08:12 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  As I've said time and time again, there will be FOUR Power Conferences when the dust settles. This is how the CFP is going to expand without really having to expand: Because then your P4 CCG will be your de facto Round of 8. This will heighten the importance of the conference championship games and streamline the whole process (no more selection committees) which benefits the layman fan (where the growth is). This is the best way to expand the playoffs to benefit the majority of parties.

*More relevancy to the CCG benefits the conferences because said games will now generate more revenue from the networks.
*More relevancy to the CCG benefits the networks because more people are going to want to tune in to see who makes it to the next round of the playoffs.
*Going to a model that is more streamlined will attract viewers who aren't as diehard of fans as you and I because it's a simple processes they can understand. People are turned off by and less interested in watching sports they don't understand. The whole concept of style points and selection committees are head scratchers at times to the more diehard of college fan, so you can only imagine how disinterested someone who ISN'T a diehard would be. Eliminate that, give them something more easily digestable, and suddenly you'll see the more layman fan start tuning in. This helps points 1 and 2 in my theory.

P4 conferences of 24 teams. 4 pods of 6 works out. That way, you could add states that could raise a stink for being left out like Utah. That is 96 teams as tier 1 FBS. Tier 2 would bring up FCS schools and D2 that have stadiums that can seat many. You can have 5 G5 conferences of 60. Tier 3 would be the FCS with top D2 schools. Tier 4 could be non-scholarship football and schools like Kalamazoo and them who could help their students out more.

(03-23-2016 04:09 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Trust me, I'd love to see KU get left out considering they've done everything possible to keep Wichita down from the moment we became a state university. They will find a home in a power conference based solely on their basketball. ESPN would pretty much guarantee they found a home if nothing else. K-State will definitely be screwed if/when the B12 goes away. They've been riding KU's coattails from the beginning.

KU have been riding the coattails of KSU's in football.

(03-23-2016 04:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 04:09 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Trust me, I'd love to see KU get left out considering they've done everything possible to keep Wichita down from the moment we became a state university. They will find a home in a power conference based solely on their basketball. ESPN would pretty much guarantee they found a home if nothing else. K-State will definitely be screwed if/when the B12 goes away. They've been riding KU's coattails from the beginning.

KU have been riding the coattails of KSU's in football.

Holy hell, you're such an idiot.

(03-23-2016 11:40 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn and Kansas are both schools that, while they've been historically awful in football, have enough brand cache' to end up in a power conference when the dust all settles in other areas, namely basketball.

So why isn't UConn in a power conference? Maybe they aren't quite so valuable.

UCon doesn't measure up to KU in basketball. Few schools do.

(03-23-2016 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you this to be true how?

Because when has the SEC ever settled for the second-rung team in any state? Save for one that used to be its own country?

If things are happening (and that remains to be seen), and if the ACC remains stable, the SEC might well take a school that while still a top 30 revenue producer would give them a second annual game in Dallas and help them to land a top 7 revenue producer, and possibly the top revenue producer. Plus it would be a lock down on contiguity to Texas via a northern route, unless of course Colorado State is on the Big 10 radar.

OK (lol), I back off my first statement: If Oklahoma was coming, there is a chance the SEC would take OK State as part of the package. It's not a slam-dunk, but it might happen, as Oklahoma is that valuable. But OK State and Kansas State? Never happen, that would clearly weaken the SEC.

And I don't think the SEC *needs* any more Texas access. TAMU gives it all it needs, and then some. So I do not expect the SEC to do anything to penetrate Texas more other than try to land Texas itself if they were somehow in play.

“Every major cable and satellite subscriber in Texas pays around $16.80 a year for the SEC Network,” Travis wrote in May 2015."

As for Colorado State and the B1G, I don't think there's any danger of that.

You do realize that I was using deliberate litotes with regard to CSU.

I assumed that you were joking about CSU, and I replied with a joke as well.

(03-23-2016 04:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 04:09 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Trust me, I'd love to see KU get left out considering they've done everything possible to keep Wichita down from the moment we became a state university. They will find a home in a power conference based solely on their basketball. ESPN would pretty much guarantee they found a home if nothing else. K-State will definitely be screwed if/when the B12 goes away. They've been riding KU's coattails from the beginning.

KU have been riding the coattails of KSU's in football.

This is hysterical. KSU has only ever had success under one coach. And they had to beg him out of retirement to save their program. And now that everyone knows retirement in imminent, his recruiting is taking a turn.

(03-23-2016 03:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 03:01 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:07 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I'm no KU fan, but I find it laughable when anyone thinks they'd get left out of a power conference if the B12 crumbles. Sure, their football is atrocious, but that basketball program and its national relevance and the way that fan base travels would be attractive to any remaining power conference.

Why? They were going to be left out when the B12 was crumbling.

Close call? Because rumors on message boards said so?

The PAC-16 project was pretty well reported. And Kansas, K-STate, Iowa State and Baylor were slated to be left behind to join the MWC or Big East.

No, they just weren't slated to go to the PAC. That's not to say that some wouldn't or couldn't have ended up in the B1G (Kansas, Iowa State), SEC (Baylor, K-State), or even ACC (Baylor). Just because those schools wouldn't necessarily be anyone's FIRST choice doesn't mean they'd be BAD choices if they were on the table. Not to say they WOULD end up in any of those locations, but the notion that they were automatically going to the Big East or the MWC just because they weren't going to the PAC is erroneous.

(03-22-2016 11:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 06:50 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Three-fourths of that article is inaccurate. Fiction. This article embarrasses me to be involved with conference realignmment.

That article has to have been written by a person who does not have any experience with conference realignment

Written by Dodd, again. He has spread so much hot garbage about the Big 12 that it makes you wonder if Dodd is the Dude.

I was paraphrasing the original Gundy rant, of course, starting at the 14 second mark.