http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansi...79271.html

To sum it up-Nobody knows.

(09-16-2016 08:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansi...79271.html

To sum it up-Nobody knows.

In some ways it seems like Boren is the conference's worst enemy. They are very public with their thoughts -- when they should only be public with their actions. As a school president, he should know that Stream of Consciousness doesn't work in front of a microphone.

Is he just trying to assert that OU is not Bevo's sidekick?

If so, he's taking down 8 other schools to prove it.

This is worse than the Penn State -- Pitt struggles for dominance over the Eastern Independents.

He's just guessing, like all of them (reporters). Knows he can say basically whatever he wants to say, as long as it gets clicks/views -- which it automatically will.

Also comes off as pissy at Boren for latest wishy-washy comments. I guess he's worried that if public feels "jerked around" they'll stop clicking on Big 12 expansion opinion articles.

At some point there will be a time when all these presidents are going to be in one room and there will be some horse trading to get expansion done. If it doesn't happen, its an early leading indicator that the conference is done in 2024. About half that conference can start preparing their fan bases for life in the G5. Personally, I think that thought alone will be what moves the northern schools not named Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to eventually make a deal to expand. Those schools need expansion more than the schools with options (like Oklahoma and Texas).

(09-16-2016 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  At some point there will be a time when all these presidents are going to be in one room and there will be some horse trading to get expansion done. If it doesn't happen, its an early leading indicator that the conference is done in 2024.

Whether or not they expand is not the indicator.

The indicator is the GOR. If the Big 12 expands without extending its GOR and TV contract, it's a dead conference walking.

(09-16-2016 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  At some point there will be a time when all these presidents are going to be in one room and there will be some horse trading to get expansion done. If it doesn't happen, its an early leading indicator that the conference is done in 2024.

Whether or not they expand is not the indicator.

The indicator is the GOR. If the Big 12 expands without extending its GOR and TV contract, it's a dead conference walking.

Not at all. The Big 10 is supposedly thinking that there will be a lot of new players in the marketplace in the mid-2020s, so they did a short term contract. The Big 12 has said similar things. Extending the GOR (which you wouldn't do without a TV contract extension) locks you into a contract that might be well under market in 8 years.

And as someone else pointed out, the negative comments about Boren came from non-Texas, non-Oklahoma administrators. So maybe it is a Big 12 South/Big 12 North split, not Texas/OU.

On the contrary, if it expands -- there is hope.

People need to stop pretending that the current GoR and TV deal (which aren't linked, by the way) have anything to do with this current expansion. That's too much work to fell in one swoop. Too much negotiating and trading.


Get expansion done.


Then you have 8 years to figure out the next TV deal. The GoR can then be done at the same time as the TV deal wraps up, for convenience.

(09-16-2016 10:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  He's just guessing, like all of them (reporters). Knows he can say basically whatever he wants to say, as long as it gets clicks/views -- which it automatically will.

Also comes off as pissy at Boren for latest wishy-washy comments. I guess he's worried that if public feels "jerked around" they'll stop clicking on Big 12 expansion opinion articles.

I'd disagree with this characterization. On the spectrum of conference realignment reporters, I'd put Thamel up there with McMurphy. He's generally not someone that throws s**t against the wall and what he reports is accurate and multi-sourced. This is definitely an opinion piece, but Thamel is significantly more informed and well-versed on expansion issues than 99.9% of the reporters out there. When Thamel says that Houston and Cincinnati are more likely than BYU, UConn or anyone else (which is what he states in this piece), then that carries a fair amount of weight with me because he has a lengthy track record of accurate reporting here.

The people that complain about real reporters like McMurphy and Thamel are generally the fans of schools that don't like hearing their news (and simultaneously prop up horribly sourced people on the Internet and Twitter that tell them what they want to hear).

(09-16-2016 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  He's just guessing, like all of them (reporters). Knows he can say basically whatever he wants to say, as long as it gets clicks/views -- which it automatically will.

Also comes off as pissy at Boren for latest wishy-washy comments. I guess he's worried that if public feels "jerked around" they'll stop clicking on Big 12 expansion opinion articles.

I'd disagree with this characterization. On the spectrum of conference realignment reporters, I'd put Thamel up there with McMurphy. He's generally not someone that throws s**t against the wall and what he reports is accurate and multi-sourced. This is definitely an opinion piece, but Thamel is significantly more informed and well-versed on expansion issues than 99.9% of the reporters out there. When Thamel says that Houston and Cincinnati are more likely than BYU, UConn or anyone else (which is what he states in this piece), then that carries a fair amount of weight with me because he has a lengthy track record of accurate reporting here.

The people that complain about real reporters like McMurphy and Thamel are generally the fans of schools that don't like hearing their news (and simultaneously prop up horribly sourced people on the Internet and Twitter that tell them what they want to hear).

This this this!

(09-16-2016 10:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  At some point there will be a time when all these presidents are going to be in one room and there will be some horse trading to get expansion done. If it doesn't happen, its an early leading indicator that the conference is done in 2024.

Whether or not they expand is not the indicator.

The indicator is the GOR. If the Big 12 expands without extending its GOR and TV contract, it's a dead conference walking.

Not at all. The Big 10 is supposedly thinking that there will be a lot of new players in the marketplace in the mid-2020s, so they did a short term contract. The Big 12 has said similar things. Extending the GOR (which you wouldn't do without a TV contract extension) locks you into a contract that might be well under market in 8 years.

The Big Ten has a GOR that extends far beyond its new TV contract. Most of the Big 12 members would want the same. If they can't get that as part of an expansion, it means UT and OU want to be available to other conferences when the current Big 12 GOR is done.

(09-16-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  At some point there will be a time when all these presidents are going to be in one room and there will be some horse trading to get expansion done. If it doesn't happen, its an early leading indicator that the conference is done in 2024.

Whether or not they expand is not the indicator.

The indicator is the GOR. If the Big 12 expands without extending its GOR and TV contract, it's a dead conference walking.

Not at all. The Big 10 is supposedly thinking that there will be a lot of new players in the marketplace in the mid-2020s, so they did a short term contract. The Big 12 has said similar things. Extending the GOR (which you wouldn't do without a TV contract extension) locks you into a contract that might be well under market in 8 years.

The Big Ten has a GOR that extends far beyond its new TV contract. Most of the Big 12 members would want the same. If they can't get that as part of an expansion, it means UT and OU want to be available to other conferences when the current Big 12 GOR is done.

The Big Ten's GOR extends for the length of its BTN contract.

There is no reason to do a GOR (and whether it legally enforceable could be questioned) if its not tied to a TV contract.

bullet,

Nonsense.

A school's TV rights are a thing that exists on their own, even if there is no TV deal. And as such, if the school leaves the conference prematurely (in the sense of the GoR term), it can't participate in the new conference's TV deal because the former conference still holds those TV rights.

I definitely think 4 is very unlikely. That would just upset the TV relationships too much. Not expanding is an option I guess, but it just seems like unless TV comes in and sweetens the deal to not expand, they've come too far.

To me, all signs point toward a modest expansion to 12, probably with UH and Cincy. It's the "not too hot, not too cold" outcome. TV doesn't love it, but it's better than 14. The conference doesn't love it, but it is better than going through this whole song and dance and not expanding. It removes the "one of these things is not like the other" stigma from the Playoff debate. And it is geographically and market friendly overall.

c'mon froggie - let us in.

Football only addition of BYU and add Cincy as a full member.

BYU keeps other sports in the WCC, so we do not have to deal with Sunday play issue.

Have 12 teams for football and 11 for basketball and other sports.

Play all teams in basketball twice except two. Have certain protected basketball games that will happen twice every year no matter what: KU-OU, OU-OSU, TCU-Baylor, KU-KSU, etc. Games like TCU-ISU could happen once a year every few years an nobody would really care.

We could honestly stick with the double round robin and add two conference games. ACC is moving to 20 conference games in the coming years, so we would not be the only conference with 20 conference games.

No 5th Texas school. Do not have to deal with BYU Sunday play issue. Open up Ohio Market. Cincy has a great basketball program and decent football program.

Because BYU would be a football only addition we could work with the networks as to not have to do a full pro rata increase.

Edit: Maybe even do some sort of scheduling agreement for BYU basketball which includes 5 non-conference games against big 12 teams or something along those lines. Almost like a reverse Notre Dame.

(09-16-2016 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  bullet,

Nonsense.

A school's TV rights are a thing that exists on their own, even if there is no TV deal. And as such, if the school leaves the conference prematurely (in the sense of the GoR term), it can't participate in the new conference's TV deal because the former conference still holds those TV rights.

Its basic contract law. You have to have consideration. If there is no deal then its questionable whether you have consideration. Now maybe the fact that all gave up their rights could be consideration. But its certainly something that could be explored.

(09-16-2016 03:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I definitely think 4 is very unlikely. That would just upset the TV relationships too much. Not expanding is an option I guess, but it just seems like unless TV comes in and sweetens the deal to not expand, they've come too far.

To me, all signs point toward a modest expansion to 12, probably with UH and Cincy. It's the "not too hot, not too cold" outcome. TV doesn't love it, but it's better than 14. The conference doesn't love it, but it is better than going through this whole song and dance and not expanding. It removes the "one of these things is not like the other" stigma from the Playoff debate. And it is geographically and market friendly overall.

With Thamel's article backing up the Sports Business Daily article from a couple of weeks ago, it does seem like Fox and ESPN are very unenamored with 4.

(09-16-2016 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  He's just guessing, like all of them (reporters). Knows he can say basically whatever he wants to say, as long as it gets clicks/views -- which it automatically will.

Also comes off as pissy at Boren for latest wishy-washy comments. I guess he's worried that if public feels "jerked around" they'll stop clicking on Big 12 expansion opinion articles.

I'd disagree with this characterization. On the spectrum of conference realignment reporters, I'd put Thamel up there with McMurphy. He's generally not someone that throws s**t against the wall and what he reports is accurate and multi-sourced. This is definitely an opinion piece, but Thamel is significantly more informed and well-versed on expansion issues than 99.9% of the reporters out there. When Thamel says that Houston and Cincinnati are more likely than BYU, UConn or anyone else (which is what he states in this piece), then that carries a fair amount of weight with me because he has a lengthy track record of accurate reporting here.

The people that complain about real reporters like McMurphy and Thamel are generally the fans of schools that don't like hearing their news (and simultaneously prop up horribly sourced people on the Internet and Twitter that tell them what they want to hear).

But, they were not 100% accurate at times.

bullet,

The GoR exists to compel the group of schools to stay together. That easily satisfies consideration. The presidents certainly weren't tripping on acid when they came up with the GoR in the first place!

(09-16-2016 03:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  At some point there will be a time when all these presidents are going to be in one room and there will be some horse trading to get expansion done. If it doesn't happen, its an early leading indicator that the conference is done in 2024.

Whether or not they expand is not the indicator.

The indicator is the GOR. If the Big 12 expands without extending its GOR and TV contract, it's a dead conference walking.

Not at all. The Big 10 is supposedly thinking that there will be a lot of new players in the marketplace in the mid-2020s, so they did a short term contract. The Big 12 has said similar things. Extending the GOR (which you wouldn't do without a TV contract extension) locks you into a contract that might be well under market in 8 years.

The Big Ten has a GOR that extends far beyond its new TV contract. Most of the Big 12 members would want the same. If they can't get that as part of an expansion, it means UT and OU want to be available to other conferences when the current Big 12 GOR is done.

The Big Ten's GOR extends for the length of its BTN contract.

There is no reason to do a GOR (and whether it legally enforceable could be questioned) if its not tied to a TV contract.

The reason to have or extend a GOR under any circumstances is the same -- to tie members to the conference and make it expensive and cumbersome for anyone to leave before the end of the GOR. If UT and OU say, "Nah, let's wait and test the marketplace," they don't mean they just want the Big 12 to get a good deal for itself, they mean that they want to be available to other conferences sooner rather than later.