http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...12-invite/

Interesting thought here.

Basically:

At 4 schools at $25 million each over the course of 8 years, that costs the networks $800 million if the conference expands.

If the new members take a half-pay rate that is still 12.5 million for each new school, and results in $400 million split between the original 10, or 5 million a year.

So the networks could pay $400 million more to the conference and save $400 million over the next 8 years if the conference did not expand.

Other factors involved, but if I'm the networks I'd be pushing this.

(07-29-2016 01:42 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...12-invite/

Interesting thought here.

Basically:

At 4 schools at $25 million each over the course of 8 years, that costs the networks $800 million if the conference expands.

If the new members take a half-pay rate that is still 12.5 million for each new school, and results in $400 million split between the original 10, or 5 million a year.

So the networks could pay $400 million more to the conference and save $400 million over the next 8 years if the conference did not expand.

Other factors involved, but if I'm the networks I'd be pushing this.

I don't think they would initiate those types of discussions. Gets too much into tampering. And these schools do have more value if they are in a P5 rather than a G5. Worth that much more? Maybe not.

Now I could see the Big 12 talking to the networks about what they could get staying at 12 and extending the contract.

And then?
2024 rolls around....

Texas scoots of to Independence
Kansas bolts with Oklahoma to The Big Ten
Oklahoma State and Kansas State run off to The SEC
WVU finally joins The ACC

What then?
Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, Baylor go where and with what? A few years of exit fees in their pockets.

No, the only solution is expansion, with or without an extended GOR.
CJ

(07-29-2016 01:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  And then?
2024 rolls around....

Texas scoots of to Independence
Kansas bolts with Oklahoma to The Big Ten
Oklahoma State and Kansas State run off to The SEC
WVU finally joins The ACC

What then?
Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, Baylor go where and with what? A few years of exit fees in their pockets.

No, the only solution is expansion, with or without an extended GOR.
CJ

Pretty much what Rutgers poster was saying in the other thread.

Networks offer 400mil for an extended GOR and clause that says they will match for expansion only from schools currently in a P5 conference

For the Big 12, I doubt it. The very glaring issue is the population footprint of the Big 12. I think the TV networks really need them to expand to increase the viewership in the more populated area in the eastern US.

They already received the numbers and expansion is a go. All this other stuff, is probably disinformation being sent to make it look like it isn't a done deal or to some sort of that effect.

(07-29-2016 01:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  And then?
2024 rolls around....

Texas scoots of to Independence
Kansas bolts with Oklahoma to The Big Ten
Oklahoma State and Kansas State run off to The SEC
WVU finally joins The ACC

What then?
Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, Baylor go where and with what? A few years of exit fees in their pockets.

No, the only solution is expansion, with or without an extended GOR.
CJ

I appreciate your opinion but I don’t understand, how would adding 4 G5 schools keep any of that from happening? Especially without a GOR.

Where are the G5 schools going that they won't be available in 2, 3, 4 or 10 years to back-fill when necessary?

(07-29-2016 03:11 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 01:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  And then?
2024 rolls around....

Texas scoots of to Independence
Kansas bolts with Oklahoma to The Big Ten
Oklahoma State and Kansas State run off to The SEC
WVU finally joins The ACC

What then?
Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, Baylor go where and with what? A few years of exit fees in their pockets.

No, the only solution is expansion, with or without an extended GOR.
CJ

I appreciate your opinion but I don’t understand, how would adding 4 G5 schools keep any of that from happening? Especially without a GOR.

Where are the G5 schools going that they won't be available in 2, 3, 4 or 10 years to back-fill when necessary?

Well if they expand now, higher probability that they have multiple teams playing at a higher level, in football and bball, doing well in bowls, making ncaa tourneys, etc. So if you lose 2-3 schools as you approach the GOR it won't be as difficult to stomach.

(07-29-2016 02:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  For the Big 12, I doubt it. The very glaring issue is the population footprint of the Big 12. I think the TV networks really need them to expand to increase the viewership in the more populated area in the eastern US.

They already received the numbers and expansion is a go. All this other stuff, is probably disinformation being sent to make it look like it isn't a done deal or to some sort of that effect.

Exactly. They are diddling around with details and contracts now.

(07-29-2016 03:11 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 01:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  And then?
2024 rolls around....

Texas scoots of to Independence
Kansas bolts with Oklahoma to The Big Ten
Oklahoma State and Kansas State run off to The SEC
WVU finally joins The ACC

What then?
Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, Baylor go where and with what? A few years of exit fees in their pockets.

No, the only solution is expansion, with or without an extended GOR.
CJ

I appreciate your opinion but I don’t understand, how would adding 4 G5 schools keep any of that from happening? Especially without a GOR.

Where are the G5 schools going that they won't be available in 2, 3, 4 or 10 years to back-fill when necessary?

it doesn't keep that from happening it is more likely that it causes it to happen

the idea that these schools will all be performing at a higher level and thus be "P5 equivalent" when the next contract comes around is a stretch

especially when you are looking at a situation where those schools will have to be under paid for 8 years for the current Big 12 members to not lose money

people continue to want to compare the Big 12 to the Big East, but somehow they fail to acknowledge that the Big East expanded again and again and it still fell apart and some of the teams that were doing better in some sports were left behind for others that are doing nothing

so the idea that a team that fears it will be left behind needs to look to add other programs as a security blanket is a failed one as well

it would be easier and more profitable for any team that could be left behind to take a larger cut of exit fees and add teams that have a longer proven history in the future than to tie themselves to those teams now and pretty much seal the fate of the Big 12 changing dramatically in 9 years from now and the possibility of being stuck with teams that did not step up and perform at a better level

any program that feels they need to rely on other programs especially P5 programs looking to the "safety" of G5 programs should probably just call the MWC or AAC now and ask for membership now

Even a partial share that the greedy bastards of The Big 12 give new teams is about 8-10 times more than the same team can earn in The AAC or MWC. Multiple that over 8 years, that is a bunch of capital for facility upgrades, recruiting, increased budgets and debt reduction.

Chances are that a Cincinnati or Memphis will be in a much better shape academically and more importantly athleticly when Texas or Oklahoma bolt at the end of the GOR than they are now.

It's shortsightedness that's got The Big 12 to this point. Penny wise and pound foolishness have The Big 12 positioned to be picked apart in 2022 if not sooner.
CJ

it would be easier and more profitable for any team that could be left behind to take a larger cut of exit fees and add teams that have a longer proven history in the future than to tie themselves to those teams now and pretty much seal the fate of the Big 12 changing dramatically in 9 years from now and the possibility of being stuck with teams that did not step up and perform at a better level

any program that feels they need to rely on other programs especially P5 programs looking to the "safety" of G5 programs should probably just call the MWC or AAC now and ask for membership now
[/quote]

So you recommend that ISU, KSU, Tex Tech, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest, BC, Purdue, Wash St, Ore St, Vandy, etc etc leave there conference for the MWC or AAC?? All of these schools would be left out if it were possible to do so.

(07-29-2016 10:06 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 05:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it would be easier and more profitable for any team that could be left behind to take a larger cut of exit fees and add teams that have a longer proven history in the future than to tie themselves to those teams now and pretty much seal the fate of the Big 12 changing dramatically in 9 years from now and the possibility of being stuck with teams that did not step up and perform at a better level

any program that feels they need to rely on other programs especially P5 programs looking to the "safety" of G5 programs should probably just call the MWC or AAC now and ask for membership now

So you recommend that ISU, KSU, Tex Tech, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest, BC, Purdue, Wash St, Ore St, Vandy, etc etc leave there conference for the MWC or AAC?? All of these schools would be left out if it were possible to do so.

if their thoughts are to add G5 programs now because that means they will have a cozy conference of left behinds in the future to wallow around with then they should just go ahead and give up now

if their thoughts are that they will just keep sucking and accept that and instead add other programs that might be able to "build themselves up" and "help the conference" then they might as well just go ahead and give up now and drop down

this is what "worked so well" for several current AAC (Big East with a different name) members

VT had been ranked 4 times in their history before they joined the Big East in 1954, 1966, 1986 and the year before they joined 1990

yet they GTFO the Big EAST ASAP as soon as they could

BC 6 times in 39, 40, 42, 83, 84 and 86 before they joined in 1991 and then they GTFO ASAP

how did that help Pitt, UConn or Syracuse be in a more stable Big East?

those teams were all in the Big East and football independent and then those 3 teams went to full memberships as VT joined football only and BC went to full membership

Miami joined as a full member as did Temple

Miami, VT and BC were gone ASAP and Temple basically gave up on football.....how did that help Pitt and UConn and Syracuse be in a more stable Big East after those teams came and went

oh wait it didn't.....Miami and VY had success, but they LEFT ASAP.....Temple practically folded on football

that is not "stability" that is just a bunch of warm bodies together all looking to GTFO and some of the longest term members were the ones that were screwed in that deal

(07-29-2016 11:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 10:06 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 05:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it would be easier and more profitable for any team that could be left behind to take a larger cut of exit fees and add teams that have a longer proven history in the future than to tie themselves to those teams now and pretty much seal the fate of the Big 12 changing dramatically in 9 years from now and the possibility of being stuck with teams that did not step up and perform at a better level

any program that feels they need to rely on other programs especially P5 programs looking to the "safety" of G5 programs should probably just call the MWC or AAC now and ask for membership now

So you recommend that ISU, KSU, Tex Tech, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest, BC, Purdue, Wash St, Ore St, Vandy, etc etc leave there conference for the MWC or AAC?? All of these schools would be left out if it were possible to do so.

if their thoughts are to add G5 programs now because that means they will have a cozy conference of left behinds in the future to wallow around with then they should just go ahead and give up now

if their thoughts are that they will just keep sucking and accept that and instead add other programs that might be able to "build themselves up" and "help the conference" then they might as well just go ahead and give up now and drop down

this is what "worked so well" for several current AAC (Big East with a different name) members

VT had been ranked 4 times in their history before they joined the Big East in 1954, 1966, 1986 and the year before they joined 1990

yet they GTFO the Big EAST ASAP as soon as they could

BC 6 times in 39, 40, 42, 83, 84 and 86 before they joined in 1991 and then they GTFO ASAP

how did that help Pitt, UConn or Syracuse be in a more stable Big East?

those teams were all in the Big East and football independent and then those 3 teams went to full memberships as VT joined football only and BC went to full membership

Miami joined as a full member as did Temple

Miami, VT and BC were gone ASAP and Temple basically gave up on football.....how did that help Pitt and UConn and Syracuse be in a more stable Big East after those teams came and went

oh wait it didn't.....Miami and VY had success, but they LEFT ASAP.....Temple practically folded on football

that is not "stability" that is just a bunch of warm bodies together all looking to GTFO and some of the longest term members were the ones that were screwed in that deal

If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years? Are there other P5 conferences eager to snap up the current crop of candidates? And if they do, so what?

If the B12 remnants don't have UT and OU as a lure, are they still not better than any existing G5 conference? They may not be able to command P4 money in 8 years, but they will be able to get significantly more than any current G5.

Why not just stockpile what cash you can for the next 8 years, add exit fees to it at the end, and live off your nest egg for as long as you can?

(07-30-2016 08:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years?

The idea is that, over the course of the next 8 or so years, with P5 money the schools-in-question will develop into P5-looking schools.

We have a few test cases, the schools the Big East Football Conference brought into the Promised Land in the 2003-05 shuffle, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF and UConn.

Louisville developed--they were competitive with WVU for the last Big 12 invite, and got an ACC invite to replace Maryland. On the other hand, so did TCU in the Mountain West.

It's hard to see how USF is any better off than UCF, who the football schools were originally considering. CR-wise, they're basically twins.

Is Cincinnati any better off than Houston or Memphis? Not obviously.

(07-30-2016 08:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 11:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 10:06 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 05:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it would be easier and more profitable for any team that could be left behind to take a larger cut of exit fees and add teams that have a longer proven history in the future than to tie themselves to those teams now and pretty much seal the fate of the Big 12 changing dramatically in 9 years from now and the possibility of being stuck with teams that did not step up and perform at a better level

any program that feels they need to rely on other programs especially P5 programs looking to the "safety" of G5 programs should probably just call the MWC or AAC now and ask for membership now

So you recommend that ISU, KSU, Tex Tech, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest, BC, Purdue, Wash St, Ore St, Vandy, etc etc leave there conference for the MWC or AAC?? All of these schools would be left out if it were possible to do so.

if their thoughts are to add G5 programs now because that means they will have a cozy conference of left behinds in the future to wallow around with then they should just go ahead and give up now

if their thoughts are that they will just keep sucking and accept that and instead add other programs that might be able to "build themselves up" and "help the conference" then they might as well just go ahead and give up now and drop down

this is what "worked so well" for several current AAC (Big East with a different name) members

VT had been ranked 4 times in their history before they joined the Big East in 1954, 1966, 1986 and the year before they joined 1990

yet they GTFO the Big EAST ASAP as soon as they could

BC 6 times in 39, 40, 42, 83, 84 and 86 before they joined in 1991 and then they GTFO ASAP

how did that help Pitt, UConn or Syracuse be in a more stable Big East?

those teams were all in the Big East and football independent and then those 3 teams went to full memberships as VT joined football only and BC went to full membership

Miami joined as a full member as did Temple

Miami, VT and BC were gone ASAP and Temple basically gave up on football.....how did that help Pitt and UConn and Syracuse be in a more stable Big East after those teams came and went

oh wait it didn't.....Miami and VY had success, but they LEFT ASAP.....Temple practically folded on football

that is not "stability" that is just a bunch of warm bodies together all looking to GTFO and some of the longest term members were the ones that were screwed in that deal

If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years? Are there other P5 conferences eager to snap up the current crop of candidates? And if they do, so what?

If the B12 remnants don't have UT and OU as a lure, are they still not better than any existing G5 conference? They may not be able to command P4 money in 8 years, but they will be able to get significantly more than any current G5.

Why not just stockpile what cash you can for the next 8 years, add exit fees to it at the end, and live off your nest egg for as long as you can?

The $ gap is growing exponentially. The G5 is likely to fall further and further behind. Just 6 years ago, a Washington St. was only making about a million more from their conference than a CUSA or MWC member. Now its $20 million.

(07-30-2016 08:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 11:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 10:06 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 05:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it would be easier and more profitable for any team that could be left behind to take a larger cut of exit fees and add teams that have a longer proven history in the future than to tie themselves to those teams now and pretty much seal the fate of the Big 12 changing dramatically in 9 years from now and the possibility of being stuck with teams that did not step up and perform at a better level

any program that feels they need to rely on other programs especially P5 programs looking to the "safety" of G5 programs should probably just call the MWC or AAC now and ask for membership now

So you recommend that ISU, KSU, Tex Tech, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest, BC, Purdue, Wash St, Ore St, Vandy, etc etc leave there conference for the MWC or AAC?? All of these schools would be left out if it were possible to do so.

if their thoughts are to add G5 programs now because that means they will have a cozy conference of left behinds in the future to wallow around with then they should just go ahead and give up now

if their thoughts are that they will just keep sucking and accept that and instead add other programs that might be able to "build themselves up" and "help the conference" then they might as well just go ahead and give up now and drop down

this is what "worked so well" for several current AAC (Big East with a different name) members

VT had been ranked 4 times in their history before they joined the Big East in 1954, 1966, 1986 and the year before they joined 1990

yet they GTFO the Big EAST ASAP as soon as they could

BC 6 times in 39, 40, 42, 83, 84 and 86 before they joined in 1991 and then they GTFO ASAP

how did that help Pitt, UConn or Syracuse be in a more stable Big East?

those teams were all in the Big East and football independent and then those 3 teams went to full memberships as VT joined football only and BC went to full membership

Miami joined as a full member as did Temple

Miami, VT and BC were gone ASAP and Temple basically gave up on football.....how did that help Pitt and UConn and Syracuse be in a more stable Big East after those teams came and went

oh wait it didn't.....Miami and VY had success, but they LEFT ASAP.....Temple practically folded on football

that is not "stability" that is just a bunch of warm bodies together all looking to GTFO and some of the longest term members were the ones that were screwed in that deal

If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years? Are there other P5 conferences eager to snap up the current crop of candidates? And if they do, so what?

If the B12 remnants don't have UT and OU as a lure, are they still not better than any existing G5 conference? They may not be able to command P4 money in 8 years, but they will be able to get significantly more than any current G5.

Why not just stockpile what cash you can for the next 8 years, add exit fees to it at the end, and live off your nest egg for as long as you can?

I agree with what you are saying

what I was saying before is if any program that is thinking the Big 12 needs to add teams to protect their stability in some conference that will probably still be called "The Big 12" without UT and OU then those teams might as well just accept their fate and get prepared to be in the MWC or ACC now or some conference possibly still called the Big 12 that is a new G level conference

I agree with what you are saying

there is no "stability" from the currently available teams, there is pretty much only downsides of being stuck with those teams in the future with or without UT and OU

or being stuck with then and UT and OU stay, but the new TV contracts are pretty much taking a hit because of more teams that did not "elevate" over 8 years

as you said those teams will still be available in the future and the current Big 12 members even if they are watching UT and OU walk away will split the exit fees by fewer teams

the downsides are much larger than any potential upside and the only real "upside" is teams accepting they are going to keep being bad for the next 8 years and hoping that new teams will do what they have given up on in the next 8 years

(07-30-2016 08:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 08:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years?

The idea is that, over the course of the next 8 or so years, with P5 money the schools-in-question will develop into P5-looking schools.

We have a few test cases, the schools the Big East Football Conference brought into the Promised Land in the 2003-05 shuffle, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF and UConn.

Louisville developed--they were competitive with WVU for the last Big 12 invite, and got an ACC invite to replace Maryland. On the other hand, so did TCU in the Mountain West.

It's hard to see how USF is any better off than UCF, who the football schools were originally considering. CR-wise, they're basically twins.

Is Cincinnati any better off than Houston or Memphis? Not obviously.

of course the other "idea" or really the other reality of that position is that teams that are currently not doing great in the Big 12 and that are at risk of being "left behind" would rather just go ahead and accept that they are not going to improve and instead add teams with lower budgets (even with a large bump from the Big 12), extremely high academic side subsidies, low fan support and smaller stajiums to be the ones that do improve and "save the conference"

if that is the position your program is taking then you should just call the AAC or MWC and ask them if you can give them some money as a retainer for a future position in their conference

accepting that the fate of your program in a P level conference rest in the hands of adding G level teams to your conference is accepting that your program is a G level program and you should accept that fate and go with it

(07-30-2016 08:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 08:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years?

The idea is that, over the course of the next 8 or so years, with P5 money the schools-in-question will develop into P5-looking schools.

We have a few test cases, the schools the Big East Football Conference brought into the Promised Land in the 2003-05 shuffle, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF and UConn.

Louisville developed--they were competitive with WVU for the last Big 12 invite, and got an ACC invite to replace Maryland. On the other hand, so did TCU in the Mountain West.

It's hard to see how USF is any better off than UCF, who the football schools were originally considering. CR-wise, they're basically twins.

Is Cincinnati any better off than Houston or Memphis? Not obviously.

Cincinnati did develop. In 8 seasons of Big East football, the Bearcats won 10 games 5 times. They had never won 10 games in a season before joining The Big East.

If anything Cincinnati is the perfect example of how more money, more visibility helps build a program. It took them their first two seasons in The Big East to build to 10 wins after that they consistently competed for the league title. They made it to a pair of BCS games.

Look at Memphis and Houston, both have improved since moving to a more competitive AAC.

If The Big 12 can put their greed aside for a moment they will come to the same conclusion. Invite teams to insulate the conference from other programs leaving.
CJ

(07-30-2016 08:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 08:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 08:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the B12 were to stand pat right now, in exchange for a sizable bump in pay for the next 8 years, where is the downside for the remnants if you assume OT and OU will leave at the end of the current contract?

What teams currently available for expansion will not still be available in 8 years?

The idea is that, over the course of the next 8 or so years, with P5 money the schools-in-question will develop into P5-looking schools.

We have a few test cases, the schools the Big East Football Conference brought into the Promised Land in the 2003-05 shuffle, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF and UConn.

Louisville developed--they were competitive with WVU for the last Big 12 invite, and got an ACC invite to replace Maryland. On the other hand, so did TCU in the Mountain West.

It's hard to see how USF is any better off than UCF, who the football schools were originally considering. CR-wise, they're basically twins.

Is Cincinnati any better off than Houston or Memphis? Not obviously.

Cincinnati did develop. In 8 seasons of Big East football, the Bearcats won 10 games 5 times. They had never won 10 games in a season before joining The Big East.

If anything Cincinnati is the perfect example of how more money, more visibility helps build a program. It took them their first two seasons in The Big East to build to 10 wins after that they consistently competed for the league title. The made it to a pair of BCS games.

Look at Memphis and Houston, both have improved since moving to a more competitive AAC.

If The Big 12 can put their greed aside for a moment they will come to the same conclusion. Invite teams to insulate the conference from other programs leaving.
CJ

of course your "solution" and your opinion on how it played out ignores one thing

REALITY

the REALITY that Cincinnati was "insulated" from nothing they are still in a former BCS conference that now makes much closer to G level money and even though it is the same exact conference it does not even have the same name because the name was sold off

so again what was the big "value" and the big "gain" for a program like Cincinnati in being insulated from ending up in a G level conference that has a couple of left overs from a BCS conference and a new name

at the end of it all they still had to reach out to SMU, dem coogs doh, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, UCF, Temple and Navy

so much for anything you are saying will help the Big 12