(06-19-2016 06:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 06:47 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 09:23 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 03:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  ....Why not just go then with the 2 schools that have the best academics....

That would be Rice and Tulane.

Yup. Academics are a hurdle, and a hurdle set at different heights for different conferences ... they are not a reason to add a school to a conference on their own, even if a school that is appealing for other reasons, like Texas A&M, would have been even more appealing to the SEC due to their AAC status and strong standing in STEM research programs.

AAC status?

I had no idea the AAC was so prestigious.

AAC is the new AAU.

Cheers!

(06-19-2016 05:30 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 04:47 PM)Realignment Wrote:  I think BYU, Colorado State, Cincinnati and Houston would be a no brainer if you're going to 14, if going to just 12, then maybe Cincinnati and Memphis. Houston though is too good of a program to pass up, maybe the Pac-12 decides to add Houston but then you have to wonder who would go with them Rice or Tulsa?

I think Houston or Rice (but not both) would be good choices for a two or four team Big 12 expansion. I also think neither one is on the short list.

PAC-12 and/or B1G I believe will eventually be in the state of Texas and it would not surprise me (especially if Big 12 survives) if Rice and UH landed in one of those spots.

Tulsa, no question. A lot of talk about Tulsa going to the PAC. The PAC needs to move on Tulsa before the Big 10 or SEC makes their move.

Cheers!

you guys are looking at this all backwards. Expansion will not be about the best schools but about compromise. So if the Big XII absolutely must expand because of political or network pressure it will go one of 2 ways.

CSU
&
BYU

Or

Cincinnati


Academics and athletic wise, Cinci is hands down the winner. However they do not fit culturally near as well. Cinci is blocked by Texas, Tech, and OU. However if only one is selected it will be them.

Culturally, CSU is the perfect fit and would move the needle academically big time with Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Iowa State. BYU moves the needle with Baylor and TCU so there is 5. KU and OU don't care because they see themselves headed to the BIG if 2 are added. That's 7 yes votes and TECH will vote yes because at least they will still have a viable conference if/When UT, KU and OU bail. So basically if they expand by one, it will be Cinci. If they expand by 2 it will be CSU/BYU.

(06-19-2016 09:58 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 09:22 AM)CurveItAround Wrote:  I don't see any scenario where a group of land grant schools will choose to add a former junior college/city school or even a directional state university.

I just don't think their pride would let them.

This is not 1970.

Has nothing to do with the calendar. More to do with the pedigree. None of those schools in the AAC or MWC that have been mentioned have any appeal to the power teams in the Big 12.

10 years from now there will be less P5 teams, not more. Inviting more G5 schools to the party only creates more problems down the line.

(06-19-2016 05:30 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 04:47 PM)Realignment Wrote:  I think BYU, Colorado State, Cincinnati and Houston would be a no brainer if you're going to 14, if going to just 12, then maybe Cincinnati and Memphis. Houston though is too good of a program to pass up, maybe the Pac-12 decides to add Houston but then you have to wonder who would go with them Rice or Tulsa?

I think Houston or Rice (but not both) would be good choices for a two or four team Big 12 expansion. I also think neither one is on the short list.

PAC-12 and/or B1G I believe will eventually be in the state of Texas and it would not surprise me (especially if Big 12 survives) if Rice and UH landed in one of those spots.

I think if the push from the Big 12 members is really real to get back into Houston then Texas would want Rice over Houston, because of the AAU status, plus they would recruit players like Stanford, Northwestern & Vanderbilt do that are high on academics. I said weeks ago I thought BYU, Colorado State, Cincinnati & Rice made the most sense to me but people laughed so if we're going off big time potential I'd put Houston over Rice.

I would like to see the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Colorado State as full members, and then BYU and Boise State added as football-only members. Cincinnati brings a well-rounded athletics program, a travel partner and bridge to West Virginia and access to the Ohio market. Colorado State brings back access to Colorado, strong academics and a decent (not strong) athletics program. Both BYU and Boise State bring strong football brands that would elevate the level of play within the Big 12.

Big 12 West
Boise State (football-only)
BYU (football-only)
Colorado State
Kansas State
Oklahoma
TCU
Texas Tech

Big 12 East
Baylor
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Oklahoma State
Texas
West Virginia

Obviously, UT/OU would be protected annual game (as would KU/KSU, OU/OSU, BU/TCU, UT/TT). There are ways to do scheduling that keep big games intact. I would think that OU/UT would want to be in separate divisions, in order to have higher probability of meeting again in CCG.

1. there is no political pressure to expand

2. there is NO PRESSURE from their media partners to expand in fact the pressure is NOT TO EXPAND

3. there is not going to be a Big 12 network that has been made crystal clear and even if there was expansion would do nothing for that

4. ESPN would not be docking the AAC contract even if 4 teams came from the AAC to the Big 12 because it is simply not worth the litigation for the small amount of money and the few years left

5. BUT even though it is a relatively small amount of money overall it is still just ESPN paying more for something they already own and on fact ESPN would be getting LESS out of the deal because Fox has Big 12 rights as well while ESPN has all of the ACC rights less what they sub out to CBS....and that subbing out to CBS is an issue as well because surely CBS will want some money back if the two "best" or "most desirable" teams leave the AAC at the behest of ESPN (and Fox) paying them more

6. but of course the Big 12 is almost certainly not going to expand now or most likely in the future because there is NO MONEY IN IT and there is NO BENEFIT and ONLY DOWNSIDES

the Big 12 with 10 teams is set to average $36.5 million per team over the 8 years when they could have new members provided the CCG pays $30 million per year

the addition of two teams brings in $360 million and 4 teams would be twice that or $720 million

and while most are big enough fools to think that matters

here is the issue once again for those that are math challenged

you have 10 teams set to make an average of $36.5 million over the next 8 seasons

and you have pairs of two teams that bring in $360 million in new money

well $360 / 2 teams / 8 years = $22.5 million per team per year on average over 8 years

so where in the hell does the Big 12 benefit from adding two teams that bring in at most $22.5 million on average over 8 years when the Big 12 is set to average $36.5 million per team per year over the next 8 years

there is no way you get ANY new money for EXISTING teams unless you have teams that are stupid enough to take OVER $14 million dollars per year less than existing members for ALL 8 years

and that is not how you stabilize or strengthen a conference that is how you make your conference look foolish and weak and filled with also rans and don't belongers

Now that we pretty much know what Big Ten teams will be getting...

Q1: does this increase the flight risk of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas?

Q2: if it does, do the other 7 teams band together and vote for expansion, perhaps along with a GoR extension, to try to prevent those teams from leaving?

(06-20-2016 12:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Now that we pretty much know what Big Ten teams will be getting...

Q1: does this increase the flight risk of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas?

Q2: if it does, do the other 7 teams band together and vote for expansion, perhaps along with a GoR extension, to try to prevent those teams from leaving?

That'd be the wise thing to do, but it won't happen

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

(06-20-2016 12:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Now that we pretty much know what Big Ten teams will be getting...

Q1: does this increase the flight risk of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas?

Q2: if it does, do the other 7 teams band together and vote for expansion, perhaps along with a GoR extension, to try to prevent those teams from leaving?

If the B12 is 36 million and Texas is getting that plus 15 million from the LHN they are getting B1G money.

Oklahoma isnt too far off from a B1G distribution with a 7 mill for third tier rights.

A1: no. Kansas and Oklahoma don't bring enough population/market/cable subs. Texas can't and won't join the Big Ten because the conf won't allow it to keep the LHN deal.

(06-20-2016 02:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  A1: no. Kansas and Oklahoma don't bring enough population/market/cable subs. Texas can't and won't join the Big Ten because the conf won't allow it to keep the LHN deal.

You're assuming that the money difference isn't enough to convince Texas to scrap the LHN.

Yes, the LHN has exposure advantages, but how much are they worth? $5M? $10M?

Lets just assume the exposure is worth $5M for this example. If the Big 10 can make Texas earn >$5M more, it's worth it for Texas to drop the LHN and join.

There WILL be a point where the increased money is worth moving to the Big 10 without the LHN. I just have no idea how much money the exposure from the LHN is worth to Texas.

The LHN is worth $15 million per year to Texas.

(06-20-2016 03:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The LHN is worth $15 million per year to Texas.

Not true. That contract was back loaded so, the amount Texas gets paid rises towards the end of the contract. It's worth more then 15 mil this year.

(06-20-2016 04:07 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 03:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The LHN is worth $15 million per year to Texas.

Not true. That contract was back loaded so, the amount Texas gets paid rises towards the end of the contract. It's worth more then 15 mil this year.

It isn't "back-loaded." Its escalated. I think its a straight 3% per year.

Back-loaded would be something that would be like 5, 5, 5, 5, 10, 10.

(06-20-2016 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 04:07 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 03:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The LHN is worth $15 million per year to Texas.

Not true. That contract was back loaded so, the amount Texas gets paid rises towards the end of the contract. It's worth more then 15 mil this year.

It isn't "back-loaded." Its escalated. I think its a straight 3% per year.

Back-loaded would be something that would be like 5, 5, 5, 5, 10, 10.

I'm old and can only recall half of what I thought I did. Now who are you and what were we talking about.

Big 12 will expand. There is pressure to expand.

(06-20-2016 04:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 will expand. There is pressure to expand.

Pressure by who? TV partners probably don't want to pay more for property they hold. I haven't seen UT change there mind. Regents at OU are against it thus Boren has cooled. Baylor's a mess. Why would UT want be part of renegotiated TV deal extending their GOR? I don't see it and without OU & UT the league isn't P5.

(06-20-2016 10:51 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 04:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 will expand. There is pressure to expand.

Pressure by who? TV partners probably don't want to pay more for property they hold. I haven't seen UT change there mind. Regents at OU are against it thus Boren has cooled. Baylor's a mess. Why would UT want be part of renegotiated TV deal extending their GOR? I don't see it and without OU & UT the league isn't P5.

Pressure from entropy?

(06-20-2016 11:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 10:51 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 04:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 will expand. There is pressure to expand.

Pressure by who? TV partners probably don't want to pay more for property they hold. I haven't seen UT change there mind. Regents at OU are against it thus Boren has cooled. Baylor's a mess. Why would UT want be part of renegotiated TV deal extending their GOR? I don't see it and without OU & UT the league isn't P5.

Pressure from entropy?

Pressure from DavidSt