It's been a wild 24 hours...

1. The ACC is officially getting a network and they just extended their GOR. Any raiding of the ACC is indefinitely postponed and, in my opinion, will probably never happen.

2. All of a sudden, the Big 12 decides they want to expand after all. It's unclear what all the implications of this are...whether the major powers of the league are giving themselves freedom to leave or whether they are sticking around for the foreseeable future.

I'm struck by the haphazard way the Big 12 governs itself. They were seemingly disinterested in expansion a few weeks ago and decided to add a CCG despite an incongruent setup. Well, now they could be adding as many as 4 schools. Will they get a network as well? Will the major powers of the league leave for greener pastures anyway?

There were already threads to discuss these things so I thought maybe we could use one to discuss how the SEC responds to these moves.

The SEC has never been one to intentionally wreck another league so I highly doubt we see the conference force their way into board room with OU so to speak. What will we see though?

Contingency 1:

The Big 12 powers are giving themselves space to bail. We only see this if the league does not extend their current GOR. How many have opportunities to get out though? UT, OU, and KU will have multiple suitors. I still think it's likely that OU and OSU would end up in the SEC in this scenario. Political pressure will be high on the leaders of OU to not leave their little brother behind in an inferior conference when there is a major league willing to take both. Not sure about UT or KU.

Contingency 2:

The Big 12 extends their GOR in exchange for a network. This move would signal the commitment of the power schools to remain in the Big 12 for the long haul. It's unclear whether powers like UT and OU want the Big 12 as their first option. My bet is that UT does want that. They like having a fiefdom and they won't get that anywhere else. If they convert the LHN to serve as a B12N and save the league, they will not only guarantee numerous regional partners, but will be almost single-handedly responsible for saving the league. In short, most of the other members would owe them. How could UT take advantage of that to benefit their standing as opposed to simply leaving for another league where they have to start over?

In this scenario, the SEC still has motivation to expand with G5 schools. The reason being that if the ACC and Big 12 can cash in on lesser products and especially add networks then the ceiling for sports rights has not yet been reached. Schools like ECU and UCF would/should be top priorities. Maybe Cincinnati as well depending on what way the wind blows.

Thoughts?

Who is going to partner with the B12 for a network? No one. If they were, we would be hearing major emphasis on footprint and cable boxes or subscribers.

The opinion of the presidents changed significantly when word of the ACC deal broke. This sounds like a money grab and a chance to develop this conference so it'll survive after it loses its biggest brands in a couple of years. This could free OU, KU and UT from OSU, KSU and Tech, respectively, as they could leave the little brothers in a safe stable conference that would still make competitive money.

(07-20-2016 12:51 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Who is going to partner with the B12 for a network? No one. If they were, we would be hearing major emphasis on footprint and cable boxes or subscribers.

The opinion of the presidents changed significantly when word of the ACC deal broke. This sounds like a money grab and a chance to develop this conference so it'll survive after it loses its biggest brands in a couple of years. This could free OU, KU and UT from OSU, KSU and Tech, respectively, as they could leave the little brothers in a safe stable conference that would still make competitive money.

You may be right.

I'm just trying to think of why the Big 12 would be willing to expand at all. The major schools could just take a couple of little brothers with them when the GOR expires and achieve mostly the same result. That seems like the easier of the 2 options to me.

I'm also leery that a Big 12 without its power programs would really make competitive money. They might at first, but their ability to keep pace would be virtually nonexistent. Sooner or later, all the little brothers fall behind. It's just a slow death rather than a quick one.

It might also cost the networks more money that way. They tore apart the Big East and left the remnants with an inferior contract. They could tear apart the Big 12, move about 6 schools into a more valuable league, and then save money by relegating the rest to a 'has been' league. Would the networks really go for an increasingly costly Big 12 just for the sake of moving 2 or 3 programs into more profitable leagues where they would also have to spend even more money on those particular programs?

It seems like the cheaper move would just be to pay the Big 12 and put major realignment to bed for at least a generation. That at least achieves the elimination of any huge windfalls for leagues like the B1G and SEC. The networks save money there. They could pay an expanded Big 12 a competitive rate and have more content at their disposal. More value for your money there.

I think the tale of the tape will be whether or not the Big 12 schools extend their GOR. We won't know anything for certain until that decision is made.

I should add that at first the Big 12 was disinterested in expanding and now all of a sudden it looks like a certainty. What happened?

I'm not saying they got the promise of a network, but something has changed to cause them to turn on a dime like that.

If the powers were intent on leaving their little brothers behind then it would seem nothing about the overall situation has changed. In other words, they should have been planning for that all along. Instead, it seemed like they were planning to blow the whole thing up at the end of the GOR. Now they are taking a different approach. That seems very odd to me.

(07-20-2016 12:51 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Who is going to partner with the B12 for a network? No one. If they were, we would be hearing major emphasis on footprint and cable boxes or subscribers.

The opinion of the presidents changed significantly when word of the ACC deal broke. This sounds like a money grab and a chance to develop this conference so it'll survive after it loses its biggest brands in a couple of years. This could free OU, KU and UT from OSU, KSU and Tech, respectively, as they could leave the little brothers in a safe stable conference that would still make competitive money.

Except, they are free to leave in 2022, with a two year notice. Why make a commitment to support smaller schools, and possibly be obligated to them when you can just leave in 6 years? The bump isn't worth the entanglements.

Only OU and UT are going to leave now that expansion is happening. TCU, Baylor, Iowa state and the like are not attractive adds for other P5 conferences. KS, WVU, etc, now have a home for the next 100 years.

Working on the assumption that BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and Connecticut are selected by the Big 12, let's take a look at what might happen next.

Big 12 expands to 14. In a few years though, the GOR will expire and schools will be free to move without legal repercussions. Will they do so? I have my doubts and here is why...

Reason #1. The powers of the league were free to move without legal repercussions in 2010. There was no GOR. The only schools that left during the initial period of turmoil were Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Notice a pattern? None of them had little brothers that the politicians of their respective states were protecting. You might say that A&M was an exception here and it's true that their departure was the bumpiest, but keep one thing in mind...A&M did not leave its fellow state schools in an irrelevant and poor league. In fact, TCU was elevated due to A&M's departure. The state of TX now has 5 Power programs in their state as opposed to 4.

Back in the early 2000s, the ACC was ready to expand with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College. At the eleventh hour, the politicos of the state of VA forced the hand of UVA to intervene on behalf of Virginia Tech. The reason? There was significant fear that a gutted Big East, at the time a BCS league, would be relegated to irrelevance and any program in it would suffer the fate of dilution. Luckily, UNC and Duke were also voting against expansion and UVA's vote against Syracuse was critical in protecting VT's and by extension the state of VA's interests. Syracuse got bumped, VT was included, and the rest is history.

If any of you have been following the news on Big 12 expansion the last couple of days you will notice that prominent politicians from the state of TX have endorsed the inclusion of Houston in the Big 12. Why would the politicos of a state be so interested in elevating one of their own at the possible risk of reducing the power and influence of the state's flagship by diluting the league? Well, I think the answer is fairly obvious. Look no further than UT's President Fenves' endorsement of the move. So UT wants Houston in the Big 12? Unless these people are bald face lying to the public then yes. What does UT have to gain here? Well, there's the local political angle. UT wants to expand their system by putting a campus in Houston. UH supporters have been blocking that move. It's obvious there's a little give and take here, classic quid pro quo. I think it probably goes deeper though. The leaders of the state of TX want to elevate as many of their institutions as possible. Now UT might get a campus in Houston, but doesn't that hinder their flexibility later? Won't having one more local mouth to feed in the Big 12 reduce the likelihood of Texas being able to make a clean break from the Big 12 later? It might, but maybe UT isn't worried about that. Maybe they really don't have any intention of leaving...at least not without multiple big brothers in tow.

They tried that in 2010. They wanted to take the entire Big 12 South to the PAC. It was supposed to be UT, A&M, TT, Baylor, OU, and OSU to the PAC for 16. At least that was the plan. There were several reasons the deal broke apart, but what is indisputable is that UT was not burdened with a GOR at the time and could have theoretically jettisoned its little brothers(not calling A&M a little brother). Of course, OU was in the same boat. UT and OU didn't leave on their own. Maybe they didn't want to. Maybe they couldn't. I'm not exactly sure which.

Murr pointed out last night that the next round of realignment for Texas will be like the breaking apart of the SWC all over again. I can see the reasoning there and it's hard to argue, but consider this...what if one pairing down was all that was acceptable to the powers that be in TX? After all, the first thing they did when A&M bolted was elevate an old SWC member when the smart thing to do for the league would have been to take someone from another state, a new market. What if the powers that be have no stomach for an additional pairing down of power schools in their state? That would line up perfectly with the call to include Houston despite what little they really bring to the conference.

This leads me to my first conclusion: UT and OU, for whatever reason, cannot leave their little brothers behind in an inferior conference. If they could, they would have simply done it in 2010.

Reason #2. While the call to include Houston was a bit peculiar, more peculiar still is the desire to expand at all. For the purposes of UT, OU, and perhaps KU; it seems totally unnecessary.

The GOR will not hinder them in 6-8 years. Just wait it out and go where you want to go. Simple. Or perhaps wait it out and take a couple of little brothers with you to allay political pressure. KU probably can't get away with that, but OU and UT probably could depending on what league they're going to. Fairly simple right? Not to mention it is cost effective for the networks. Just let the Big 12 die right? Take the valuable parts, a couple of less than stellar products, and relegate the rest of the league to AAC status. You don't have to pay them a lot of money. You make your conference partners happy by giving them the programs they want to include. Fairly simple.

So why expand and make the process even messier than it already is. Clearly, there's no going to be any brokering at this stage assuming that was ever a serious consideration. Well, you might say that it's a cash grab. The networks are obligated to pay pro rata for new additions. Throw in a little extra cash from a CCG and maybe a few more postseason tourney appearances while giving the new members a reduced rate of revenue and the powers that be raise their revenue without really giving anything up. In the process, a stable league is created for the little brothers to thrive in once the big brothers have graduated. I get the reasoning, but consider this...whatever new conference forms without the powers that make the league valuable now will not be more valuable later. I don't see how the math adds up on this.

If UT and OU are gone, and if presumably KU is gone as well, then where does the revenue come from? The Big 12, whatever form it takes, will have its contract renegotiated at the end of the GOR. The league would likely consist of BYU, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn. They may have to add someone else if KU leaves, but the pickings will surely be slim. There's not a lot of oomph there. What kind of contract is that league going to get in the open marketplace? They certainly aren't going to get a raise because nothing will merit them keeping pace with the SEC, B1G, PAC, and maybe not even the ACC by that time. They aren't going to get what they had because they lost key pieces. This league is in trouble. This is the Big East 2.0 with the only difference being that members are less likely to get rescued by other Power leagues at some point in the future.

In short, the little brothers will fall behind. I don't see a way they can't. Now that may not necessarily be UT or OU's problem, but it will be the problem of the politicians of the respective states in which these schools reside. Their duty is to look out for the best interests of the state and its institutions. How many alumni are going to get pissed that their alma mater was allowed to languish while the flagship got to leave them in the dust and get a raise out of it? It's not going to be pretty. If politicians can be counted on for one thing, it's the strong instinct for self preservation. They want to get re-elected. They want to be thought well of and they want glory for their triumphs. What motivation will they have to let schools like OU and UT bolt if it means the little brothers have to suffer? I honestly don't see one.

If the Big 12 does expand then I think they will sign a new GOR. It might not happen quickly, but I think as we near the expiration date of the current contract a deal may be struck for a network in exchange for a long term commitment to the conference. That's basically what just happened with the ACC. Everyone thought they were on the brink for quite some time and now they've solidified themselves for a generation at least. The Big 12, while not benefitting from as good a leadership, appears to be on the same path. It just so happens they are on a different time table.

It could be exactly what the networks are waiting for actually. A new Big 12 that operates for 4-5 years could be worth more money than it is today. Programs could be lifted because of their new association albeit not significantly. The perception of the league as a football and basketball powerhouse could be improved. Maybe then ESPN converts the LHN into a league network. ESPN's only other option will be to move UT to an ESPN controlled league so that their investment in the LHN isn't for naught. UT's only other option is to abandon the LHN anyway because none of the other leagues would allow them to keep it should UT be intent on leaving the Big 12.

Perhaps UT enjoys their fiefdom that much. I don't think we can discount that off hand as UT has plenty of money. They don't need the increased revenue another league could provide. Perhaps they value power more than money. Perhaps OU doesn't really want to move away from its traditional region. I'm speculating more and more as this post progresses so I'll stop here. Now I know that I'm assuming a lot here and mainly I'm just offering this up for discussion. I'm asking though for someone to tell me where I'm wrong. Right now, I don't see it.

(07-22-2016 10:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Working on the assumption that BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and Connecticut are selected by the Big 12, let's take a look at what might happen next.

Big 12 expands to 14. In a few years though, the GOR will expire and schools will be free to move without legal repercussions. Will they do so? I have my doubts and here is why...

Reason #1. The powers of the league were free to move without legal repercussions in 2010. There was no GOR. The only schools that left during the initial period of turmoil were Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Notice a pattern? None of them had little brothers that the politicians of their respective states were protecting. You might say that A&M was an exception here and it's true that their departure was the bumpiest, but keep one thing in mind...A&M did not leave its fellow state schools in an irrelevant and poor league. In fact, TCU was elevated due to A&M's departure. The state of TX now has 5 Power programs in their state as opposed to 4.

Back in the early 2000s, the ACC was ready to expand with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College. At the eleventh hour, the politicos of the state of VA forced the hand of UVA to intervene on behalf of Virginia Tech. The reason? There was significant fear that a gutted Big East, at the time a BCS league, would be relegated to irrelevance and any program in it would suffer the fate of dilution. Luckily, UNC and Duke were also voting against expansion and UVA's vote against Syracuse was critical in protecting VT's and by extension the state of VA's interests. Syracuse got bumped, VT was included, and the rest is history.

If any of you have been following the news on Big 12 expansion the last couple of days you will notice that prominent politicians from the state of TX have endorsed the inclusion of Houston in the Big 12. Why would the politicos of a state be so interested in elevating one of their own at the possible risk of reducing the power and influence of the state's flagship by diluting the league? Well, I think the answer is fairly obvious. Look no further than UT's President Fenves' endorsement of the move. So UT wants Houston in the Big 12? Unless these people are bald face lying to the public then yes. What does UT have to gain here? Well, there's the local political angle. UT wants to expand their system by putting a campus in Houston. UH supporters have been blocking that move. It's obvious there's a little give and take here, classic quid pro quo. I think it probably goes deeper though. The leaders of the state of TX want to elevate as many of their institutions as possible. Now UT might get a campus in Houston, but doesn't that hinder their flexibility later? Won't having one more local mouth to feed in the Big 12 reduce the likelihood of Texas being able to make a clean break from the Big 12 later? It might, but maybe UT isn't worried about that. Maybe they really don't have any intention of leaving...at least not without multiple big brothers in tow.

They tried that in 2010. They wanted to take the entire Big 12 South to the PAC. It was supposed to be UT, A&M, TT, Baylor, OU, and OSU to the PAC for 16. At least that was the plan. There were several reasons the deal broke apart, but what is indisputable is that UT was not burdened with a GOR at the time and could have theoretically jettisoned its little brothers(not calling A&M a little brother). Of course, OU was in the same boat. UT and OU didn't leave on their own. Maybe they didn't want to. Maybe they couldn't. I'm not exactly sure which.

Murr pointed out last night that the next round of realignment for Texas will be like the breaking apart of the SWC all over again. I can see the reasoning there and it's hard to argue, but consider this...what if one pairing down was all that was acceptable to the powers that be in TX? After all, the first thing they did when A&M bolted was elevate an old SWC member when the smart thing to do for the league would have been to take someone from another state, a new market. What if the powers that be have no stomach for an additional pairing down of power schools in their state? That would line up perfectly with the call to include Houston despite what little they really bring to the conference.

This leads me to my first conclusion: UT and OU, for whatever reason, cannot leave their little brothers behind in an inferior conference. If they could, they would have simply done it in 2010.

Reason #2. While the call to include Houston was a bit peculiar, more peculiar still is the desire to expand at all. For the purposes of UT, OU, and perhaps KU; it seems totally unnecessary.

The GOR will not hinder them in 6-8 years. Just wait it out and go where you want to go. Simple. Or perhaps wait it out and take a couple of little brothers with you to allay political pressure. KU probably can't get away with that, but OU and UT probably could depending on what league they're going to. Fairly simple right? Not to mention it is cost effective for the networks. Just let the Big 12 die right? Take the valuable parts, a couple of less than stellar products, and relegate the rest of the league to AAC status. You don't have to pay them a lot of money. You make your conference partners happy by giving them the programs they want to include. Fairly simple.

So why expand and make the process even messier than it already is. Clearly, there's no going to be any brokering at this stage assuming that was ever a serious consideration. Well, you might say that it's a cash grab. The networks are obligated to pay pro rata for new additions. Throw in a little extra cash from a CCG and maybe a few more postseason tourney appearances while giving the new members a reduced rate of revenue and the powers that be raise their revenue without really giving anything up. In the process, a stable league is created for the little brothers to thrive in once the big brothers have graduated. I get the reasoning, but consider this...whatever new conference forms without the powers that make the league valuable now will not be more valuable later. I don't see how the math adds up on this.

If UT and OU are gone, and if presumably KU is gone as well, then where does the revenue come from? The Big 12, whatever form it takes, will have its contract renegotiated at the end of the GOR. The league would likely consist of BYU, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn. They may have to add someone else if KU leaves, but the pickings will surely be slim. There's not a lot of oomph there. What kind of contract is that league going to get in the open marketplace? They certainly aren't going to get a raise because nothing will merit them keeping pace with the SEC, B1G, PAC, and maybe not even the ACC by that time. They aren't going to get what they had because they lost key pieces. This league is in trouble. This is the Big East 2.0 with the only difference being that members are less likely to get rescued by other Power leagues at some point in the future.

In short, the little brothers will fall behind. I don't see a way they can't. Now that may not necessarily be UT or OU's problem, but it will be the problem of the politicians of the respective states in which these schools reside. Their duty is to look out for the best interests of the state and its institutions. How many alumni are going to get pissed that their alma mater was allowed to languish while the flagship got to leave them in the dust and get a raise out of it? It's not going to be pretty. If politicians can be counted on for one thing, it's the strong instinct for self preservation. They want to get re-elected. They want to be thought well of and they want glory for their triumphs. What motivation will they have to let schools like OU and UT bolt if it means the little brothers have to suffer? I honestly don't see one.

If the Big 12 does expand then I think they will sign a new GOR. It might not happen quickly, but I think as we near the expiration date of the current contract a deal may be struck for a network in exchange for a long term commitment to the conference. That's basically what just happened with the ACC. Everyone thought they were on the brink for quite some time and now they've solidified themselves for a generation at least. The Big 12, while not benefitting from as good a leadership, appears to be on the same path. It just so happens they are on a different time table.

It could be exactly what the networks are waiting for actually. A new Big 12 that operates for 4-5 years could be worth more money than it is today. Programs could be lifted because of their new association albeit not significantly. The perception of the league as a football and basketball powerhouse could be improved. Maybe then ESPN converts the LHN into a league network. ESPN's only other option will be to move UT to an ESPN controlled league so that their investment in the LHN isn't for naught. UT's only other option is to abandon the LHN anyway because none of the other leagues would allow them to keep it should UT be intent on leaving the Big 12.

Perhaps UT enjoys their fiefdom that much. I don't think we can discount that off hand as UT has plenty of money. They don't need the increased revenue another league could provide. Perhaps they value power more than money. Perhaps OU doesn't really want to move away from its traditional region. I'm speculating more and more as this post progresses so I'll stop here. Now I know that I'm assuming a lot here and mainly I'm just offering this up for discussion. I'm asking though for someone to tell me where I'm wrong. Right now, I don't see it.

Let's start with the idea that there is a league out there that can offer UT increased revenue. They received somewhere around 42 mil last year. Which other league are you talking about?

(07-23-2016 09:08 AM)reick Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Working on the assumption that BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and Connecticut are selected by the Big 12, let's take a look at what might happen next.

Big 12 expands to 14. In a few years though, the GOR will expire and schools will be free to move without legal repercussions. Will they do so? I have my doubts and here is why...

Reason #1. The powers of the league were free to move without legal repercussions in 2010. There was no GOR. The only schools that left during the initial period of turmoil were Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Notice a pattern? None of them had little brothers that the politicians of their respective states were protecting. You might say that A&M was an exception here and it's true that their departure was the bumpiest, but keep one thing in mind...A&M did not leave its fellow state schools in an irrelevant and poor league. In fact, TCU was elevated due to A&M's departure. The state of TX now has 5 Power programs in their state as opposed to 4.

Back in the early 2000s, the ACC was ready to expand with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College. At the eleventh hour, the politicos of the state of VA forced the hand of UVA to intervene on behalf of Virginia Tech. The reason? There was significant fear that a gutted Big East, at the time a BCS league, would be relegated to irrelevance and any program in it would suffer the fate of dilution. Luckily, UNC and Duke were also voting against expansion and UVA's vote against Syracuse was critical in protecting VT's and by extension the state of VA's interests. Syracuse got bumped, VT was included, and the rest is history.

If any of you have been following the news on Big 12 expansion the last couple of days you will notice that prominent politicians from the state of TX have endorsed the inclusion of Houston in the Big 12. Why would the politicos of a state be so interested in elevating one of their own at the possible risk of reducing the power and influence of the state's flagship by diluting the league? Well, I think the answer is fairly obvious. Look no further than UT's President Fenves' endorsement of the move. So UT wants Houston in the Big 12? Unless these people are bald face lying to the public then yes. What does UT have to gain here? Well, there's the local political angle. UT wants to expand their system by putting a campus in Houston. UH supporters have been blocking that move. It's obvious there's a little give and take here, classic quid pro quo. I think it probably goes deeper though. The leaders of the state of TX want to elevate as many of their institutions as possible. Now UT might get a campus in Houston, but doesn't that hinder their flexibility later? Won't having one more local mouth to feed in the Big 12 reduce the likelihood of Texas being able to make a clean break from the Big 12 later? It might, but maybe UT isn't worried about that. Maybe they really don't have any intention of leaving...at least not without multiple big brothers in tow.

They tried that in 2010. They wanted to take the entire Big 12 South to the PAC. It was supposed to be UT, A&M, TT, Baylor, OU, and OSU to the PAC for 16. At least that was the plan. There were several reasons the deal broke apart, but what is indisputable is that UT was not burdened with a GOR at the time and could have theoretically jettisoned its little brothers(not calling A&M a little brother). Of course, OU was in the same boat. UT and OU didn't leave on their own. Maybe they didn't want to. Maybe they couldn't. I'm not exactly sure which.

Murr pointed out last night that the next round of realignment for Texas will be like the breaking apart of the SWC all over again. I can see the reasoning there and it's hard to argue, but consider this...what if one pairing down was all that was acceptable to the powers that be in TX? After all, the first thing they did when A&M bolted was elevate an old SWC member when the smart thing to do for the league would have been to take someone from another state, a new market. What if the powers that be have no stomach for an additional pairing down of power schools in their state? That would line up perfectly with the call to include Houston despite what little they really bring to the conference.

This leads me to my first conclusion: UT and OU, for whatever reason, cannot leave their little brothers behind in an inferior conference. If they could, they would have simply done it in 2010.

Reason #2. While the call to include Houston was a bit peculiar, more peculiar still is the desire to expand at all. For the purposes of UT, OU, and perhaps KU; it seems totally unnecessary.

The GOR will not hinder them in 6-8 years. Just wait it out and go where you want to go. Simple. Or perhaps wait it out and take a couple of little brothers with you to allay political pressure. KU probably can't get away with that, but OU and UT probably could depending on what league they're going to. Fairly simple right? Not to mention it is cost effective for the networks. Just let the Big 12 die right? Take the valuable parts, a couple of less than stellar products, and relegate the rest of the league to AAC status. You don't have to pay them a lot of money. You make your conference partners happy by giving them the programs they want to include. Fairly simple.

So why expand and make the process even messier than it already is. Clearly, there's no going to be any brokering at this stage assuming that was ever a serious consideration. Well, you might say that it's a cash grab. The networks are obligated to pay pro rata for new additions. Throw in a little extra cash from a CCG and maybe a few more postseason tourney appearances while giving the new members a reduced rate of revenue and the powers that be raise their revenue without really giving anything up. In the process, a stable league is created for the little brothers to thrive in once the big brothers have graduated. I get the reasoning, but consider this...whatever new conference forms without the powers that make the league valuable now will not be more valuable later. I don't see how the math adds up on this.

If UT and OU are gone, and if presumably KU is gone as well, then where does the revenue come from? The Big 12, whatever form it takes, will have its contract renegotiated at the end of the GOR. The league would likely consist of BYU, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn. They may have to add someone else if KU leaves, but the pickings will surely be slim. There's not a lot of oomph there. What kind of contract is that league going to get in the open marketplace? They certainly aren't going to get a raise because nothing will merit them keeping pace with the SEC, B1G, PAC, and maybe not even the ACC by that time. They aren't going to get what they had because they lost key pieces. This league is in trouble. This is the Big East 2.0 with the only difference being that members are less likely to get rescued by other Power leagues at some point in the future.

In short, the little brothers will fall behind. I don't see a way they can't. Now that may not necessarily be UT or OU's problem, but it will be the problem of the politicians of the respective states in which these schools reside. Their duty is to look out for the best interests of the state and its institutions. How many alumni are going to get pissed that their alma mater was allowed to languish while the flagship got to leave them in the dust and get a raise out of it? It's not going to be pretty. If politicians can be counted on for one thing, it's the strong instinct for self preservation. They want to get re-elected. They want to be thought well of and they want glory for their triumphs. What motivation will they have to let schools like OU and UT bolt if it means the little brothers have to suffer? I honestly don't see one.

If the Big 12 does expand then I think they will sign a new GOR. It might not happen quickly, but I think as we near the expiration date of the current contract a deal may be struck for a network in exchange for a long term commitment to the conference. That's basically what just happened with the ACC. Everyone thought they were on the brink for quite some time and now they've solidified themselves for a generation at least. The Big 12, while not benefitting from as good a leadership, appears to be on the same path. It just so happens they are on a different time table.

It could be exactly what the networks are waiting for actually. A new Big 12 that operates for 4-5 years could be worth more money than it is today. Programs could be lifted because of their new association albeit not significantly. The perception of the league as a football and basketball powerhouse could be improved. Maybe then ESPN converts the LHN into a league network. ESPN's only other option will be to move UT to an ESPN controlled league so that their investment in the LHN isn't for naught. UT's only other option is to abandon the LHN anyway because none of the other leagues would allow them to keep it should UT be intent on leaving the Big 12.

Perhaps UT enjoys their fiefdom that much. I don't think we can discount that off hand as UT has plenty of money. They don't need the increased revenue another league could provide. Perhaps they value power more than money. Perhaps OU doesn't really want to move away from its traditional region. I'm speculating more and more as this post progresses so I'll stop here. Now I know that I'm assuming a lot here and mainly I'm just offering this up for discussion. I'm asking though for someone to tell me where I'm wrong. Right now, I don't see it.

Let's start with the idea that there is a league out there that can offer UT increased revenue. They received somewhere around 42 mil last year. Which other league are you talking about?

There are only two conferences that could earn Texas more money, but not by simply taking them pro rata but rather by bump that both conferences and Texas would receive by their union. So, as it stands Texas only really has three options outright.

1. Join the Big 10.
2. Join the SEC.
3. Keep what they have and improve scheduling by going independent perhaps in the ACC.

There is a 4th option that is not quite as recognizable. Texas and three Big 12 schools could join the PAC and keep the LHN as a regional addition to a fully owned PAC network. Texas could then be paid by ESPN until the end of their LHN contract provided ESPN keeps as a part of their lease with the PAC that portion of the PAC content in addition to 50% of the current PAC content.

Of the options before Texas all of them have issues and none of them will be tempting until a Big 12 sans Oklahoma and Kansas exists.

(07-23-2016 10:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 09:08 AM)reick Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Working on the assumption that BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and Connecticut are selected by the Big 12, let's take a look at what might happen next.

Big 12 expands to 14. In a few years though, the GOR will expire and schools will be free to move without legal repercussions. Will they do so? I have my doubts and here is why...

Reason #1. The powers of the league were free to move without legal repercussions in 2010. There was no GOR. The only schools that left during the initial period of turmoil were Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Notice a pattern? None of them had little brothers that the politicians of their respective states were protecting. You might say that A&M was an exception here and it's true that their departure was the bumpiest, but keep one thing in mind...A&M did not leave its fellow state schools in an irrelevant and poor league. In fact, TCU was elevated due to A&M's departure. The state of TX now has 5 Power programs in their state as opposed to 4.

Back in the early 2000s, the ACC was ready to expand with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College. At the eleventh hour, the politicos of the state of VA forced the hand of UVA to intervene on behalf of Virginia Tech. The reason? There was significant fear that a gutted Big East, at the time a BCS league, would be relegated to irrelevance and any program in it would suffer the fate of dilution. Luckily, UNC and Duke were also voting against expansion and UVA's vote against Syracuse was critical in protecting VT's and by extension the state of VA's interests. Syracuse got bumped, VT was included, and the rest is history.

If any of you have been following the news on Big 12 expansion the last couple of days you will notice that prominent politicians from the state of TX have endorsed the inclusion of Houston in the Big 12. Why would the politicos of a state be so interested in elevating one of their own at the possible risk of reducing the power and influence of the state's flagship by diluting the league? Well, I think the answer is fairly obvious. Look no further than UT's President Fenves' endorsement of the move. So UT wants Houston in the Big 12? Unless these people are bald face lying to the public then yes. What does UT have to gain here? Well, there's the local political angle. UT wants to expand their system by putting a campus in Houston. UH supporters have been blocking that move. It's obvious there's a little give and take here, classic quid pro quo. I think it probably goes deeper though. The leaders of the state of TX want to elevate as many of their institutions as possible. Now UT might get a campus in Houston, but doesn't that hinder their flexibility later? Won't having one more local mouth to feed in the Big 12 reduce the likelihood of Texas being able to make a clean break from the Big 12 later? It might, but maybe UT isn't worried about that. Maybe they really don't have any intention of leaving...at least not without multiple big brothers in tow.

They tried that in 2010. They wanted to take the entire Big 12 South to the PAC. It was supposed to be UT, A&M, TT, Baylor, OU, and OSU to the PAC for 16. At least that was the plan. There were several reasons the deal broke apart, but what is indisputable is that UT was not burdened with a GOR at the time and could have theoretically jettisoned its little brothers(not calling A&M a little brother). Of course, OU was in the same boat. UT and OU didn't leave on their own. Maybe they didn't want to. Maybe they couldn't. I'm not exactly sure which.

Murr pointed out last night that the next round of realignment for Texas will be like the breaking apart of the SWC all over again. I can see the reasoning there and it's hard to argue, but consider this...what if one pairing down was all that was acceptable to the powers that be in TX? After all, the first thing they did when A&M bolted was elevate an old SWC member when the smart thing to do for the league would have been to take someone from another state, a new market. What if the powers that be have no stomach for an additional pairing down of power schools in their state? That would line up perfectly with the call to include Houston despite what little they really bring to the conference.

This leads me to my first conclusion: UT and OU, for whatever reason, cannot leave their little brothers behind in an inferior conference. If they could, they would have simply done it in 2010.

Reason #2. While the call to include Houston was a bit peculiar, more peculiar still is the desire to expand at all. For the purposes of UT, OU, and perhaps KU; it seems totally unnecessary.

The GOR will not hinder them in 6-8 years. Just wait it out and go where you want to go. Simple. Or perhaps wait it out and take a couple of little brothers with you to allay political pressure. KU probably can't get away with that, but OU and UT probably could depending on what league they're going to. Fairly simple right? Not to mention it is cost effective for the networks. Just let the Big 12 die right? Take the valuable parts, a couple of less than stellar products, and relegate the rest of the league to AAC status. You don't have to pay them a lot of money. You make your conference partners happy by giving them the programs they want to include. Fairly simple.

So why expand and make the process even messier than it already is. Clearly, there's no going to be any brokering at this stage assuming that was ever a serious consideration. Well, you might say that it's a cash grab. The networks are obligated to pay pro rata for new additions. Throw in a little extra cash from a CCG and maybe a few more postseason tourney appearances while giving the new members a reduced rate of revenue and the powers that be raise their revenue without really giving anything up. In the process, a stable league is created for the little brothers to thrive in once the big brothers have graduated. I get the reasoning, but consider this...whatever new conference forms without the powers that make the league valuable now will not be more valuable later. I don't see how the math adds up on this.

If UT and OU are gone, and if presumably KU is gone as well, then where does the revenue come from? The Big 12, whatever form it takes, will have its contract renegotiated at the end of the GOR. The league would likely consist of BYU, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn. They may have to add someone else if KU leaves, but the pickings will surely be slim. There's not a lot of oomph there. What kind of contract is that league going to get in the open marketplace? They certainly aren't going to get a raise because nothing will merit them keeping pace with the SEC, B1G, PAC, and maybe not even the ACC by that time. They aren't going to get what they had because they lost key pieces. This league is in trouble. This is the Big East 2.0 with the only difference being that members are less likely to get rescued by other Power leagues at some point in the future.

In short, the little brothers will fall behind. I don't see a way they can't. Now that may not necessarily be UT or OU's problem, but it will be the problem of the politicians of the respective states in which these schools reside. Their duty is to look out for the best interests of the state and its institutions. How many alumni are going to get pissed that their alma mater was allowed to languish while the flagship got to leave them in the dust and get a raise out of it? It's not going to be pretty. If politicians can be counted on for one thing, it's the strong instinct for self preservation. They want to get re-elected. They want to be thought well of and they want glory for their triumphs. What motivation will they have to let schools like OU and UT bolt if it means the little brothers have to suffer? I honestly don't see one.

If the Big 12 does expand then I think they will sign a new GOR. It might not happen quickly, but I think as we near the expiration date of the current contract a deal may be struck for a network in exchange for a long term commitment to the conference. That's basically what just happened with the ACC. Everyone thought they were on the brink for quite some time and now they've solidified themselves for a generation at least. The Big 12, while not benefitting from as good a leadership, appears to be on the same path. It just so happens they are on a different time table.

It could be exactly what the networks are waiting for actually. A new Big 12 that operates for 4-5 years could be worth more money than it is today. Programs could be lifted because of their new association albeit not significantly. The perception of the league as a football and basketball powerhouse could be improved. Maybe then ESPN converts the LHN into a league network. ESPN's only other option will be to move UT to an ESPN controlled league so that their investment in the LHN isn't for naught. UT's only other option is to abandon the LHN anyway because none of the other leagues would allow them to keep it should UT be intent on leaving the Big 12.

Perhaps UT enjoys their fiefdom that much. I don't think we can discount that off hand as UT has plenty of money. They don't need the increased revenue another league could provide. Perhaps they value power more than money. Perhaps OU doesn't really want to move away from its traditional region. I'm speculating more and more as this post progresses so I'll stop here. Now I know that I'm assuming a lot here and mainly I'm just offering this up for discussion. I'm asking though for someone to tell me where I'm wrong. Right now, I don't see it.

Let's start with the idea that there is a league out there that can offer UT increased revenue. They received somewhere around 42 mil last year. Which other league are you talking about?

There are only two conferences that could earn Texas more money, but not by simply taking them pro rata but rather by bump that both conferences and Texas would receive by their union. So, as it stands Texas only really has three options outright.

1. Join the Big 10.
2. Join the SEC.
3. Keep what they have and improve scheduling by going independent perhaps in the ACC.

There is a 4th option that is not quite as recognizable. Texas and three Big 12 schools could join the PAC and keep the LHN as a regional addition to a fully owned PAC network. Texas could then be paid by ESPN until the end of their LHN contract provided ESPN keeps as a part of their lease with the PAC that portion of the PAC content in addition to 50% of the current PAC content.

Of the options before Texas all of them have issues and none of them will be tempting until a Big 12 sans Oklahoma and Kansas exists.

I doubt the SEC would result in an increase. It would take about a 200 million dollar jump in distributed revenue per year just to equal what Texas is already getting, let alone increase their revenue. I know UT has a lot of value but I think that's pushing it a little. The entire Big XII only distributed 250 mil this year and the SEC 450 mil. Texas adding a 50% jump in revenue distribution doesn't seem very realistic. B1G numbers may look a little better but would probably be just about as unrealistic. What are the chances the PAC is going to take Texas and let them keep TLN? Probably about the same as Texas adding over 200 mil per year to a conferences distributed revenue. I could see the ACC cutting UT a deal. It would have to be awfully sweet. Probably too sweet for the ACCs taste, but you never know. What kind of distribution could UT get from the ACC as a partial member? How much more would they get from TLN if it aired 7 UT games instead of just 1? It would have to at least double and probably go higher than that.

This is pure speculation on my part. But I actually think their may be a back room deal to bring Arkansas to the Big 12. This may seem silly. But lets look at it.

1st, Jerry Jones donated money and land to the UofA just last year. And as recently as 2012. Stated that he would like to see Arkansas in the Big 12. He will offer the UofA another substantial amount to join the Big 12. As long as the championship game is held in Jerryworld.

2nd, Jeff Long and Joe Castiglione are very good friends. UofA and OUs athletic directors.

3rd, Why would the Big 12 announce expansion intent? If they actually didn't have some good news. Bringing an SEC program into the Big 12 would be a huge get for the conference.

4th, The Money. If the Big 12 expands. They stand to make 20 plus million per team or something like that more. What if the Big 12 only adds three teams. Arkansas, Colorado state, and Houston. They all agree over the next however many season left of the current GOR. That Arkansas would get an additional 20 million per season to join the conference. This of course comes out of CSU and Houston's share.

5th, Extension of the GOR. The Big 12 extends the GOR and makes a deal with networks for a similar deal that the ACC just got. Having a conference network. Which even Texas agrees to be apart of as soon as the ESPN contract for LHN is up. Their is one exception to the GOR. WVU will be allowed to fined another conference home. If the conference is closer to the state. If they don't find a conference. The Big 12 will look to expand by an additional program.

(07-23-2016 10:47 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  This is pure speculation on my part. But I actually think their may be a back room deal to bring Arkansas to the Big 12. This may seem silly. But lets look at it.

1st, Jerry Jones donated money and land to the UofA just last year. And as recently as 2012. Stated that he would like to see Arkansas in the Big 12. He will offer the UofA another substantial amount to join the Big 12. As long as the championship game is held in Jerryworld.

2nd, Jeff Long and Joe Castiglione are very good friends. UofA and OUs athletic directors.

3rd, Why would the Big 12 announce expansion intent? If they actually didn't have some good news. Bringing an SEC program into the Big 12 would be a huge get for the conference.

4th, The Money. If the Big 12 expands. They stand to make 20 plus million per team or something like that more. What if the Big 12 only adds three teams. Arkansas, Colorado state, and Houston. They all agree over the next however many season left of the current GOR. That Arkansas would get an additional 20 million per season to join the conference. This of course comes out of CSU and Houston's share.

5th, Extension of the GOR. The Big 12 extends the GOR and makes a deal with networks for a similar deal that the ACC just got. Having a conference network. Which even Texas agrees to be apart of as soon as the ESPN contract for LHN is up. Their is one exception to the GOR. WVU will be allowed to fined another conference home. If the conference is closer to the state. If they don't find a conference. The Big 12 will look to expand by an additional program.

I take it you are one of those Arkansas fans that always wanted to be in the Big 12 as opposed to the SEC. That's fine, of course, but there are many many reasons it wouldn't work.

1. Arkansas will hands down have significantly more money and exposure in the SEC.

2. The Big 12 has already lost 4 founding members, major brands. They've been on the brink of losing more and might have already dissolved had the GOR not been put in place. The league is not remotely stable or attractive enough to lure Power 5 brands or none of them would have ever left.

3. Jerry Jones is obviously a good businessman in some respects, but he's a terrible decision maker when it comes to the sports world. He bought the most popular NFL franchise in history and has since rendered them almost irrelevant. He's one of those armchair super-fans that had he not been fortunate enough to make ridiculous money would probably be in a bar somewhere scribbling wild expansion scenarios on a napkin. I don't say that to insult him, but if Jones thinks Arkansas in the Big 12 is a good idea then you can bank on it being a bad idea.

(07-23-2016 02:38 PM)reick Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 10:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 09:08 AM)reick Wrote:  Let's start with the idea that there is a league out there that can offer UT increased revenue. They received somewhere around 42 mil last year. Which other league are you talking about?

There are only two conferences that could earn Texas more money, but not by simply taking them pro rata but rather by bump that both conferences and Texas would receive by their union. So, as it stands Texas only really has three options outright.

1. Join the Big 10.
2. Join the SEC.
3. Keep what they have and improve scheduling by going independent perhaps in the ACC.

There is a 4th option that is not quite as recognizable. Texas and three Big 12 schools could join the PAC and keep the LHN as a regional addition to a fully owned PAC network. Texas could then be paid by ESPN until the end of their LHN contract provided ESPN keeps as a part of their lease with the PAC that portion of the PAC content in addition to 50% of the current PAC content.

Of the options before Texas all of them have issues and none of them will be tempting until a Big 12 sans Oklahoma and Kansas exists.

I doubt the SEC would result in an increase. It would take about a 200 million dollar jump in distributed revenue per year just to equal what Texas is already getting, let alone increase their revenue. I know UT has a lot of value but I think that's pushing it a little. The entire Big XII only distributed 250 mil this year and the SEC 450 mil. Texas adding a 50% jump in revenue distribution doesn't seem very realistic. B1G numbers may look a little better but would probably be just about as unrealistic. What are the chances the PAC is going to take Texas and let them keep TLN? Probably about the same as Texas adding over 200 mil per year to a conferences distributed revenue. I could see the ACC cutting UT a deal. It would have to be awfully sweet. Probably too sweet for the ACCs taste, but you never know. What kind of distribution could UT get from the ACC as a partial member? How much more would they get from TLN if it aired 7 UT games instead of just 1? It would have to at least double and probably go higher than that.

I think there's a valid point being made here. While UT might receive a bump in either the SEC or the B1G, it's likely it would not be a significant bump over what they are currently making. That's in large part due to the LHN contract. We can all understand why the other leagues would want UT, but what are the reasons UT would want another league? Would a slight bump in pay compensate for the loss of disproportionate influence? Would it compensate for the loss of numerous regional rivals? I think those are good questions.

While it's true that the LHN will not last forever and so UT will not be able to maintain the status quo indefinitely, it's also true that ESPN might be willing to double down on their investment if they get to keep the entire Big 12 together. A Big 12 Network, albeit not a reality in the near future, could provide just enough revenue for UT to pretty much supplant whatever they might lose when the LHN deal is up.

UT's inclusion in another league would give them slightly more money, but they would lose other advantages. Given the overwhelming wealth of UT's athletic department, the lure of a few more bucks might not be that tempting.

Let me theorize a little further...

If it's true that execs told Big 12 Presidents that there wasn't really a market for a Big 12 Network then what was their reasoning? Well, we might have assumed the conditions for any new linear network were bad, but the ACC just got a deal done. Statements have been made that if the network performs moderately then they will have competitive revenue with the SEC and B1G. If network execs believe that and I don't see any reason they wouldn't then what's working against the Big 12?

The obvious roadblock would be market footprint. Quality of content would be less of a concern, but you need interested parties in large markets to buy your product. You just have to have it. So what if the impetus behind expansion is indeed more a matter of building a resume to eventually get their own linear network? BYU helps, UConn helps...Houston might provide some decent quality although the TX market is already pretty saturated for the Big 12. Cincinnati doesn't really do a lot, but there's some potential to capture Southern OH in the future.

The concerns are still obvious though. The Big 12 simply can't expand their footprint in any significant degree with quality programs. There simply aren't enough of them available.

Enter the market aspect. The Big Ten just got a big raise. The ACC just got a network. The NBA got a ridiculous new deal a couple of years ago. The English Premier League even got a near tripling of their former deal in the US(not counting the huge deals they get domestically) and the sport still isn't super popular here. The UFC just sold for $4B. Why?

I think we can conclude that the impending sports rights bubble may not be as fast approaching as we might have thought. Sports are still very valuable to advertisers because they are basically the only thing on TV that you have to watch live. Nothing really changes that.

Cord cutting is still a relevant phenomenon, but as cord cutting continues the irony is that sports become an even more rare vehicle to reach the masses. Obviously, the excessive growth will be cut off one day. No product can grow in value exponentially indefinitely, but perhaps nothing can change the new role that sports plays when it comes to advertisers. if you want to get your product out there then you have to use sports broadcasts.

My overall point here is that maybe a Big 12 Network is a real possibility because any decent sports content is very valuable. it's highly unlikely the money a Big 12 Network could make would be on par with the SEC and B1G, but maybe all things considered...it doesn't have to be?

(07-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 02:38 PM)reick Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 10:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 09:08 AM)reick Wrote:  Let's start with the idea that there is a league out there that can offer UT increased revenue. They received somewhere around 42 mil last year. Which other league are you talking about?

There are only two conferences that could earn Texas more money, but not by simply taking them pro rata but rather by bump that both conferences and Texas would receive by their union. So, as it stands Texas only really has three options outright.

1. Join the Big 10.
2. Join the SEC.
3. Keep what they have and improve scheduling by going independent perhaps in the ACC.

There is a 4th option that is not quite as recognizable. Texas and three Big 12 schools could join the PAC and keep the LHN as a regional addition to a fully owned PAC network. Texas could then be paid by ESPN until the end of their LHN contract provided ESPN keeps as a part of their lease with the PAC that portion of the PAC content in addition to 50% of the current PAC content.

Of the options before Texas all of them have issues and none of them will be tempting until a Big 12 sans Oklahoma and Kansas exists.

I doubt the SEC would result in an increase. It would take about a 200 million dollar jump in distributed revenue per year just to equal what Texas is already getting, let alone increase their revenue. I know UT has a lot of value but I think that's pushing it a little. The entire Big XII only distributed 250 mil this year and the SEC 450 mil. Texas adding a 50% jump in revenue distribution doesn't seem very realistic. B1G numbers may look a little better but would probably be just about as unrealistic. What are the chances the PAC is going to take Texas and let them keep TLN? Probably about the same as Texas adding over 200 mil per year to a conferences distributed revenue. I could see the ACC cutting UT a deal. It would have to be awfully sweet. Probably too sweet for the ACCs taste, but you never know. What kind of distribution could UT get from the ACC as a partial member? How much more would they get from TLN if it aired 7 UT games instead of just 1? It would have to at least double and probably go higher than that.

I think there's a valid point being made here. While UT might receive a bump in either the SEC or the B1G, it's likely it would not be a significant bump over what they are currently making. That's in large part due to the LHN contract. We can all understand why the other leagues would want UT, but what are the reasons UT would want another league? Would a slight bump in pay compensate for the loss of disproportionate influence? Would it compensate for the loss of numerous regional rivals? I think those are good questions.

While it's true that the LHN will not last forever and so UT will not be able to maintain the status quo indefinitely, it's also true that ESPN might be willing to double down on their investment if they get to keep the entire Big 12 together. A Big 12 Network, albeit not a reality in the near future, could provide just enough revenue for UT to pretty much supplant whatever they might lose when the LHN deal is up.

UT's inclusion in another league would give them slightly more money, but they would lose other advantages. Given the overwhelming wealth of UT's athletic department, the lure of a few more bucks might not be that tempting.

Let me theorize a little further...

If it's true that execs told Big 12 Presidents that there wasn't really a market for a Big 12 Network then what was their reasoning? Well, we might have assumed the conditions for any new linear network were bad, but the ACC just got a deal done. Statements have been made that if the network performs moderately then they will have competitive revenue with the SEC and B1G. If network execs believe that and I don't see any reason they wouldn't then what's working against the Big 12?

The obvious roadblock would be market footprint. Quality of content would be less of a concern, but you need interested parties in large markets to buy your product. You just have to have it. So what if the impetus behind expansion is indeed more a matter of building a resume to eventually get their own linear network? BYU helps, UConn helps...Houston might provide some decent quality although the TX market is already pretty saturated for the Big 12. Cincinnati doesn't really do a lot, but there's some potential to capture Southern OH in the future.

The concerns are still obvious though. The Big 12 simply can't expand their footprint in any significant degree with quality programs. There simply aren't enough of them available.

Enter the market aspect. The Big Ten just got a big raise. The ACC just got a network. The NBA got a ridiculous new deal a couple of years ago. The English Premier League even got a near tripling of their former deal in the US(not counting the huge deals they get domestically) and the sport still isn't super popular here. The UFC just sold for $4B. Why?

I think we can conclude that the impending sports rights bubble may not be as fast approaching as we might have thought. Sports are still very valuable to advertisers because they are basically the only thing on TV that you have to watch live. Nothing really changes that.

Cord cutting is still a relevant phenomenon, but as cord cutting continues the irony is that sports become an even more rare vehicle to reach the masses. Obviously, the excessive growth will be cut off one day. No product can grow in value exponentially indefinitely, but perhaps nothing can change the new role that sports plays when it comes to advertisers. if you want to get your product out there then you have to use sports broadcasts.

My overall point here is that maybe a Big 12 Network is a real possibility because any decent sports content is very valuable. it's highly unlikely the money a Big 12 Network could make would be on par with the SEC and B1G, but maybe all things considered...it doesn't have to be?

We will see. Of course TLN stands in the way of a network as well. Right now I still have to lean towards 2 schools leaving. If expansion does actually happen, who they take and the terms will tell us a lot. For example, if they pass on Houston and the newbies had to make special concessions to UT (and most likely OU) I think that would indicate a network could be in the works.