http://www.frogsowar.com/2016/8/1/122664...ed-at-best

What about the consultant's conclusions that 12 or 14 members with the 8-game schedule and CCG is a CFP advantage over the round-robin format?

And, a larger footprint is a "hassle"? Wait, what? I thought the Big 12 recognized that having the smallest footprint was a negative.

An extra $5 million per year per school sounds nice and all, but it won't overcome the psychological and actual disadvantages of the current Big 12 configuration.

1 thing- I think you can pretty much write it in blood- if they expand, the conference won't be going back down to 8 conference games. Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Lets say they expand by 2 teams. They would go from 45 conference games(all 45 with the core 10 teams) to 48 conference games(with 15 involving the 2 expansion teams).

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.

(08-02-2016 10:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing- I think you can pretty much write it in blood- if they expand, the conference won't be going back down to 8 conference games. Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Lets say they expand by 2 teams. They would go from 45 conference games(all 45 with the core 10 teams) to 48 conference games(with 15 involving the 2 expansion teams).

Not so fast! Remember, the media partners have rights to OOC home games too. So, they would increase the games that are part of the Big 12 media deal from about 55 games to about 66 games. That works out to an extra game to broadcast nearly every week of the season.

Some candidate schools could bring solid OOC matchups:

-Cincinnati has future home games with UCLA, Indiana, Pitt, and Nebraska

-UConn brings Missouri, Boston College(x2), Illinois, Indiana, NC State, and Tennessee.

-Memphis has UCLA, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., and Missouri

-BYU can strategically retain future home games for the Big 12 media contract, such as Utah (every other year), USC, Stanford(x2), Arizona (x2), Virginia (x2), California, Washington, Michigan St., Wisconsin, Missouri, etc.

Institute a P5 OOC requirement and the legacy Big 12 schools would have room for plenty of solid OOC home games as well. Texas-A&M, Kansas-Missouri, Oklahoma St.-Arkansas, etc.

(08-02-2016 10:23 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing- I think you can pretty much write it in blood- if they expand, the conference won't be going back down to 8 conference games. Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Lets say they expand by 2 teams. They would go from 45 conference games(all 45 with the core 10 teams) to 48 conference games(with 15 involving the 2 expansion teams).

Not so fast! Remember, the media partners have rights to OOC home games too. So, they would increase the games that are part of the Big 12 media deal from about 55 games to about 66 games. That works out to an extra game to broadcast nearly every week of the season.

Some candidate schools could bring solid OOC matchups:

-Cincinnati has future home games with UCLA, Indiana, Pitt, and Nebraska

-UConn brings Missouri, Boston College(x2), Illinois, Indiana, NC State, and Tennessee.

-Memphis has UCLA, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., and Missouri

-BYU can strategically retain future home games for the Big 12 media contract, such as Utah (every other year), USC, Stanford(x2), Arizona (x2), Virginia (x2), California, Washington, Michigan St., Wisconsin, Missouri, etc.

Institute a P5 OOC requirement and the legacy Big 12 schools would have room for plenty of solid OOC home games as well. Texas-A&M, Kansas-Missouri, Oklahoma St.-Arkansas, etc.

The OOC games would be like 1 per season per team for the new teams.

Right now, B12 has about 70 games a year that it controls.
if they expand by 2, and move to 8, that would be 84. But of those extra 14 games, there would be a LOT of bad games included. Also of the 84 games, 23 of them would feature the expansion teams. 61 would feature core B12 teams.

(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. It's apparent and no one seems to care to stop it. There will be a HUGE payday and in less than 10 years UT and OU will bolt with their pockets stuffed for more money. And honestly, this whole sordid affair is all about the haves and the have nots. This is very much a microcosm of our society. Everybody is scrambling to make deals and cut throats to keep up with the power and money so they don't get left behind. The TV networks are destroying college football, it's rivalries, and traditions so the rich execs and P5 can get richer and the G5 can become more marginalized. It's blatant, it's obvious, and it's literally unfolding before our eyes and so few seem to care.
I wish some entity could step in and help control this non-sense before the money grab becomes irreversible and no one but the elite can compete. Unfortunately this is the state of our world. The haves do not want a level playing field. "Greed is good".

(08-02-2016 09:48 AM)YNot Wrote:  What about the consultant's conclusions that 12 or 14 members with the 8-game schedule and CCG is a CFP advantage over the round-robin format?

And, a larger footprint is a "hassle"? Wait, what? I thought the Big 12 recognized that having the smallest footprint was a negative.

An extra $5 million per year per school sounds nice and all, but it won't overcome the psychological and actual disadvantages of the current Big 12 configuration.

I'm not sure that was a "conclusion" so much as it was an "opinion" bought and paid for to justify expansion. It is based on the premise that the current Big XII schedules are too difficult, and to improve the chances that the best teams could be undefeated in conference play you need to let them play more in conference patsies and see the stronger teams less often. That may even be what Oklahoma wants as well.

Obviously, the media partners would hate this almost as much as they would hate paying millions for teams they already have or don't want to have.

(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.

And it is worth every penny of it for the desperate G5's and for the schools and city/regions they represent, every penny to not be left behind. Vision tells us there is going to be a major shift/split at some point. Including taking over hoops as well.

Plus you have the PAC at 12 teams and B1G at 14 teams, playing nine conference games. And a handful of ACC and SEC teams playing a defacto nine conference games (counting the in-state rivalry game).

Absolutely 12 teams/8 conf games would reduce the number of top B12 teams beating up on each other, but I don't think going back to eight will look good to the committee with others playing nine.



OU may dream of wringing the B12 of every last dollar before leaving for greener pastures (literally), but Texas wants nothing of that. Its B12 + LHN position is the most money it can make anywhere in the nation, including independence.

Not saying Texas will sign a GOR extension now, but don't think that adding members now is just a play to maximize dollars and then leave (like OU might be dreaming of).

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

good article. seems to have real sources and seems logical. we shall see.

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

Don't post this in the ACC forum....they don't like seeing UConn to ACC chatter.

(08-02-2016 10:23 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing- I think you can pretty much write it in blood- if they expand, the conference won't be going back down to 8 conference games. Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Lets say they expand by 2 teams. They would go from 45 conference games(all 45 with the core 10 teams) to 48 conference games(with 15 involving the 2 expansion teams).

Not so fast! Remember, the media partners have rights to OOC home games too. So, they would increase the games that are part of the Big 12 media deal from about 55 games to about 66 games. That works out to an extra game to broadcast nearly every week of the season.

Generally those games are not valued as much because they cannot be predicted. Conference games are predictable in who it will be. Annual games, that are reasonably assumed to continue (or have long term contracts) are generally considered (for example Fl/Fl st, UGA/GT, ND/USC, etc), but because you never know from year to year who a team will schedule at home, non conference games are just not valued the same. That is why the PAC 12 and Big Ten initially went to 9 conference games, and played a role in the Big 12 doing it (but behind having an actual round robin).

so while the total number of games may be up, Stever is right that the core content is down, the predictable content.

(08-02-2016 11:10 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:23 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing- I think you can pretty much write it in blood- if they expand, the conference won't be going back down to 8 conference games. Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Lets say they expand by 2 teams. They would go from 45 conference games(all 45 with the core 10 teams) to 48 conference games(with 15 involving the 2 expansion teams).

Not so fast! Remember, the media partners have rights to OOC home games too. So, they would increase the games that are part of the Big 12 media deal from about 55 games to about 66 games. That works out to an extra game to broadcast nearly every week of the season.

Generally those games are not valued as much because they cannot be predicted. Conference games are predictable in who it will be. Annual games, that are reasonably assumed to continue (or have long term contracts) are generally considered (for example Fl/Fl st, UGA/GT, ND/USC, etc), but because you never know from year to year who a team will schedule at home, non conference games are just not valued the same. That is why the PAC 12 and Big Ten initially went to 9 conference games, and played a role in the Big 12 doing it (but behind having an actual round robin).

so while the total number of games may be up, Stever is right that the core content is down, the predictable content.

The acc adding big east schools is s textbook example of this and why the GOR is in every third post about them. You never hear gor mentioned for the sec, no one is held hostage.

This is also why the gor can be broken. If you believe the b12 contract with espn fox is worthless then a GOR is even more worthless as it applies to spefic teams. Its much easier for a team like FSU to say this is not what agreed to than a whole conference.

I am not sure what one has to do with the other. GOR's have loopholes that can be exploited, primarily if a team leaves and you try to withhold their rights and not pay them. Basically ANY contract can be exploited if your attorney is good enough (or the attorney who drafted it was bad enough). But the idea of being "held hostage" doesn't really make sense: The Big ten has had a grant of rights far longer than any other conference, and they are the richest, and the least likely for for a flight risk

(08-02-2016 11:10 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:23 AM)YNot Wrote:  Not so fast! Remember, the media partners have rights to OOC home games too. So, they would increase the games that are part of the Big 12 media deal from about 55 games to about 66 games. That works out to an extra game to broadcast nearly every week of the season.

Generally those games are not valued as much because they cannot be predicted. Conference games are predictable in who it will be. Annual games, that are reasonably assumed to continue (or have long term contracts) are generally considered (for example Fl/Fl st, UGA/GT, ND/USC, etc), but because you never know from year to year who a team will schedule at home, non conference games are just not valued the same. That is why the PAC 12 and Big Ten initially went to 9 conference games, and played a role in the Big 12 doing it (but behind having an actual round robin).

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.

I listed actual games already scheduled between 2017 and 2025, so there would be substantial certainty associated with those games for the current Big 12 contract.

This is another reason why BYU is a great Big 12 candidate; upcoming BYU "OOC" home games that BYU could easily retain:

2017 - Utah, Wisconsin (or Boise St.)
2018 - California, (Utah St. or Hawaii or NIU)
2019 - Utah, USC (or Washington or Boise St.)
2020 - Michigan St., Missouri
2021 - Arizona (in LV), Arizona St. (or Virginia or Boise St.)
2022 - USF (room to move games here)
2023 - Stanford, Boise St.
2024 - TBD (room to move games here)
2025 - Stanford, Virginia

Plus, Notre Dame has agreed to play in Provo in the next 5 or 6 years (in exchange for terminating the other 3 remaining contracted games)

the thing is though that in all those years if BYU got to the Big 12, the most of those games that you list that would get played would be 1. BYU isn't playing Utah and USC in 2019. BYU would have 9 conference games, a P5 game, and 2 other games. Also, lol at the thought that BYU would only get P5 games at home. They're going to have some of these being away as well.

(08-02-2016 11:08 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

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

Don't post this in the ACC forum....they don't like seeing UConn to ACC chatter.

We'd just assume it was UConn to the B1G. That is what the UConn board has been saying for a while now.



Cheers,
Neil

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.

Quote:Approximately six current Big 12 presidents agree that expansion is a must, regardless of the prospective new members.

Iowa State, Kansas, KSU, TCU, Baylor and WVU

Quote:Two more schools are "on the fence"

Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

Quote:two current members still disagree that a 12, 14, or (yes) 16 team league would be better than the current format

Texas and Oklahoma