(08-02-2016 09:28 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  http://www.frogsowar.com/2016/8/1/122664...ed-at-best

Very interesting article. I was intrigued by the scenario of Cincy/Houston adds as full members and the BYU/Boise State adds as football only from a football perspective.

But with the information in the article about FOX's stance not being the same as ESPN's regarding expansion and their need for more eastern exposure, it doesn't look like that scenario will win the day.

Cheers,
Neil

(08-02-2016 12:24 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 11:10 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  so while the total number of games may be up, Stever is right that the core content is down, the predictable content.

OR, those games can be WAY more valuable than a conference game. Oklahoma hosts Ohio St. OOC this year and UCLA, Michigan, and Nebraska in upcoming seasons. Texas hosts Notre Dame this year and has USC, LSU, Ohio St., and Michigan coming to Austin in future years. Texas Tech just scheduled Oregon and WVU has an annual helping of ACC and SEC opponents on the home slate: Missouri, Virginia Tech(x2), Pitt (x2), Tennessee, Maryland, Penn St.

Those games are all better than the average Big 12 conference matchup.)

No one said they can't be more valuable. They are not predictable for a long term, generally ten plus year contract. Any of those games could be cancelled for one reason or another. Conference games remain. Teams who have a history of annually playing certain teams, or even just a history of always playing marquee OOC games are considered. The idea that maybe, for example, Houston might play Florida St, or UCLA, or Ohio St, is not going to be worth more to networks than the guarantee that they will play a ninth conference game. That is what Stever is getting at, and he is right. It was precisely the reason why the Big Ten and Pac 12 went to nine conference games, why the ACC originally did (and only changed with the ND deal), and is pondering it again, and why they added more conference basketball games, and why the Big 12 prefers nine games now. They are more valuable for a TV contract.

- Note that 9 games is probably not as valuable for the SEC, because a chunk of their value is having multiple "name" teams with good looking win/loss records near the end of the season, that would be drastically altered for the worse if they had more games against each other. And because it would be counterproductive, because of that, because they tend to already get the benefit of the doubt in terms of how tough each team's competition on the schedule is.

(08-02-2016 12:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Here's a really dumb question for somebody to answer. How would expansion make the Big 12 more money? It seems that it would only make the invitees more money. They could hold a championship game with 10 members now. All other revenues would get split more ways. I'm sure I must be missing something.

Think of it like a reverse auction. By exploiting a loophole in the TV contract, the B12 is selling its brand to the lowest bidder that meets the approval of the conference. The new teams will get reduced shares (5-10 mil) and that addition money is what gets divvyed up amongst the original members.

(08-02-2016 12:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Here's a really dumb question for somebody to answer. How would expansion make the Big 12 more money? It seems that it would only make the invitees more money. They could hold a championship game with 10 members now. All other revenues would get split more ways. I'm sure I must be missing something.

The theory goes, the new members would only get about half of the pro rata increases, or something similar. The rest of the teams would collect the rest.

I think a better theory goes something like: it helps the conference survive and helps it get into the CFP more often, thus increasing its perceived value to networks, and thus getting a richer contract when it comes up next time.

(08-02-2016 10:04 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's pretty obvious what's happening.

Bring in 4 desperate G5s at pro rata with the stipulation they surrender half to three quarters of their shares to the existing schools. Meanwhile UT and OU refuse to sign any GOR extension so they can blackmail the conference with the threat of leaving when the GOR comes up to either get more preferential treatment/money for themselves or they bail.

Yep 10th... some things never change do they. Glad you and I are out of that mess.

Like I said: OU might think that's a brilliant plan, but there's a huge screen door on that submarine. Namely, Texas wants no part of that plan, and OU can't get where they want to go without Texas as a partner.

Unless OU decides it can stomach joining TAMU in the SEC after all. Then that plan could work, in a unilateral sense for OU.

(08-02-2016 01:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Like I said: OU might think that's a brilliant plan, but there's a huge screen door on that submarine. Namely, Texas wants no part of that plan, and OU can't get where they want to go without Texas as a partner.

Unless they decide that they can stomach joining TAMU in the SEC after all.

One problem.

If OU leaves then KU is out the door too. That leaves UT with the following hypothetical conference schedule:

@TTU
Baylor
KSU
@ISU
Memphis
@OSU
Central Florida
@Cincinatti
TCU

If you honestly think the burnt orange ego (which is carping and complaining about how crappy their current 2016 home schedule is) would stick around for that....well hey belief is a beautiful thing!

KU would go to the SEC with OU? They'd get Mizzou back, and the state political cultures certainly match. Maybe it would work out well for them.

SEC could certainly use some more low end football programs to help boost the wins up for their multitude of elite programs.

(08-02-2016 01:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 12:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Here's a really dumb question for somebody to answer. How would expansion make the Big 12 more money? It seems that it would only make the invitees more money. They could hold a championship game with 10 members now. All other revenues would get split more ways. I'm sure I must be missing something.

The theory goes, the new members would only get about half of the pro rata increases, or something similar. The rest of the teams would collect the rest.

Wow, so it really is a blatant money grab. Thanks.

And the new members would be happy for two reasons...one) the pro rate increase would still be twice as much as they currently make and two) they'd be a "power 5" team and that reputation is meaning more and more in college sports.

Missouri's financial problems are making them more and more vulnerable as well...so my UT/OU/KU/Mizzou to Big Ten theory in 2024 is still in play. The remaining Big 12 teams (9 or 11) would still be a strong notch above MWC/AAC...so they'd survive, thanks to this present expansion. Which, in that sense, is a win for them (i.e. KSt, OkSt, Baylor, TCU, etc.).

(08-02-2016 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think a better theory goes something like: it helps the conference survive and helps it get into the CFP more often, thus increasing its perceived value to networks, and thus getting a richer contract when it comes up next time.

I am pretty sure that is what they are selling. But the networks, at least with these "public" leaks, don't seem to be buying.

(08-02-2016 02:59 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  And the new members would be happy for two reasons...one) the pro rate increase would still be twice as much as they currently make and two) they'd be a "power 5" team and that reputation is meaning more and more in college sports.

But as quo pointed out, that gets back to why the networks are pissed in the first place. Doing such a thing, is basically a blatant admission they don't feel those in question are worth said increase.