(09-28-2016 01:24 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Of course it's viable. It would be P too, based on CFP payout tiers. Because all that stuff is based on football strength.

Where that conference would "fail" is only in getting a conference network, the same issue Big 12 has now.

If it isn't financially viable then it isn't viable. A conference of just Texas and Oklahoma doesn't work because they can't generate the revenue necessary to keep everyone together. It'd be the exact same problems the Big 12 has now, only magnified even further by reducing their footprint.

The Big 12 is currently making the 3rd most money among the P5 conferences with ... just Texas and Oklahoma basically generating the revenue.

(09-28-2016 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 01:24 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Of course it's viable. It would be P too, based on CFP payout tiers. Because all that stuff is based on football strength.

Where that conference would "fail" is only in getting a conference network, the same issue Big 12 has now.

If it isn't financially viable then it isn't viable. A conference of just Texas and Oklahoma doesn't work because they can't generate the revenue necessary to keep everyone together. It'd be the exact same problems the Big 12 has now, only magnified even further by reducing their footprint.

The Big 12 is currently making the 3rd most money among the P5 conferences with ... just Texas and Oklahoma basically generating the revenue.

So your position is that a two-state conference, with one of those states being the size of Connecticut, would have no problem staying financially competitive with the rest of the power groups?

Yeah.

Keep in mind that the Big 12 does have a TV deal for primary media rights. One that pays a decent amount per team. Then on top of that, both Texas and OU (and perhaps others) have their own TV deals for secondary rights, as opposed to a conference network, that pay them very well.


So to say the Big 12 isn't financially viable is ludicrous.

(09-28-2016 02:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah.

Keep in mind that the Big 12 does have a TV deal for primary media rights. One that pays a decent amount per team. Then on top of that, both Texas and OU (and perhaps others) have their own TV deals for secondary rights, as opposed to a conference network, that pay them very well.


So to say the Big 12 isn't financially viable is ludicrous.

What I said was that an imaginary conference of just Texas/Oklahoma schools wouldn't work. And it wouldn't. Problems generating eyeballs would be just the start.

And that makes no sense.

Texas and OU are why the Big 12 have such high payouts from the CFP, bowls, and primary TV deal. The imaginary OK/TX conf would have the exact same. To claim otherwise is to say that KU, K St, Iowa St and WV bring huge value to the Big 12. They bring some, but not that much.

(09-28-2016 02:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And that makes no sense.

Texas and OU are why the Big 12 have such high payouts from the CFP, bowls, and primary TV deal. The imaginary OK/TX conf would have the exact same. To claim otherwise is to say that KU, K St, Iowa St and WV bring huge value to the Big 12. They bring some, but not that much.

Then why the sense that the Big 12 needs new markets for the next round of negotiations? I mean, if what you're saying is true, then the conference should be rock-solid.

That's only if they want to try to get a conference network.

(09-28-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's only if they want to try to get a conference network.

Why would they want that?

(09-28-2016 02:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  To claim otherwise is to say that KU ...

Really?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-...1459459516

Now if we can get only get our FB program running well again (that's Mark Mangino you hear cracking up in the background) ...

Any chance T. Boone has created tension here between Ok St and OU? Not a good look for Ok State.

(09-28-2016 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 01:24 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Of course it's viable. It would be P too, based on CFP payout tiers. Because all that stuff is based on football strength.

Where that conference would "fail" is only in getting a conference network, the same issue Big 12 has now.

If it isn't financially viable then it isn't viable. A conference of just Texas and Oklahoma doesn't work because they can't generate the revenue necessary to keep everyone together. It'd be the exact same problems the Big 12 has now, only magnified even further by reducing their footprint.

The Big 12 is currently making the 3rd most money among the P5 conferences with ... just Texas and Oklahoma basically generating the revenue.

the problem with the "all Texas" model or the "mostly Texas" model is similar to the issue that would come from the Big 10 going to 10 conference games or really the Big 12 and the PAC 12 playing 9 conference games

your conference feeds upon itself too much

in the case of an "all Texas conference" or a "mostly Texas conference" if they played a very limited number of conference games and played a great deal of OOC games it could work for a while

but over time when you play too many conference games or when you have too many schools from the same state (and especially combined with too many conference games) you get into a situation where there is a sifting of teams from top to bottom and it becomes ever more difficult for those bottom teams to ever climb out of the bottom and have even a decent season

in the case of a single state focused conference it is because you get too many programs that basically offer the same thing and all the more so now when so many athletes care little about the actual education

what would make Texas Tech different from OkState they are both pretty large public universities in smaller cities with similar degree offerings only OkState happens to be the land grant (no athlete cares about that)

what makes SMU, TCU and Baylor (or Rice) different other than Baylor is in a smaller town compared to the other three, but Baylor is not far from any of the larger metro areas to go get a few pounds of weed and a gun on the bye week

really what makes dem coogs doh, UT, OU and even Texas Tech and OkState all that different other than UT has much better academics and OkState and Texas Tech are further away from larger metro areas

so over time as your programs sift to winners and losers well recruits go to the winners and avoid the losers and the more they avoid the losers the harder it is to climb back out and the more those teams even lose OOC games

and as that all starts to rot it starts to drag down the programs that are at the top as well because most athletes do not want to play for the winner of the losers and recruits just avoid your conference all together

it is what would happen to a 10 conference game Big 10.......possibly tOSU might be able to keep it rolling, but the rest will watch top recruits move away in droves as they have no interest in being 9-3 against a mass of 1-11 and 2-10 Big 10 teams getting throttled 10 times a season in the Big 10

some will ask well what makes a difference when you spread teams out for the Big 12

and the difference is like the Big 8 compared to the SWC where the Big 8 consistently had more teams ranked year in and year out than the SWC

and the reason was with those teams spread out you still have the factor of athletes that will play for the "state team" or one of ONLY two state teams so those programs have an easier time keeping their players home

you get a much more diverse offering of programs Colorado feasted on Texas recruits looking to get to the mountains especially as the SWC dropped off further and further

you have the factor of kids not wanting to travel away from home and being able to stay home and play for a team that has a chance to be a winner Vs a program that has been shoved to the bottom to stay there

then you have the factor of kids that WANT to get away from home, but they can go away from home AND still come home to play by staying in the conference instead of their only real chance to get away from home is to also go outside the conference

when you limit your overall footprint you limit the choices for your recruits in overall diversity of opportunity and when you do that you open them up to looking outside the conference at a much higher rate and then you lose more of them and your sifted to the bottom programs never recover and your conference rots

(09-28-2016 10:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ah, thanks for the explanation on Pickens with regards to promoting SMU.


I have a "for fun only" question to pose you all. It requires you accept the terms of the hypothetical as is. Questioning the terms isn't the point. Like I said, just "for fun".

- assume B12 has to expand and by two
- Houston is in, plus one more
- the second has to be either: SMU or Rice

Who do you pick and why????


Already have schools in both Dallas and Houston. Although you could try to claim that Ft Worth/TCU is far enough away from Dallas/SMU to "not count", while Rice and Houston are right next to each other.

Both schools are filthy rich. However, I also have this thought -- which could be absolutely wrong -- that SMU's alumni wealth comes from being wealthy businessmen and law professionals, while Rice's alumni wealth comes from technology/science (ie nerds). And nerds care far less about donating to athletics. Like I said, could be wrong.

Finally, if there is any school in the south that I think could one day be poised for a Stanford style step change in football success, I think it could be Rice. They have the stadium in place. Have just invested somewhat in facilities. Big market. And are filthy rich .... if they wanted to spend it on hiring a big time coach.

Rice.

4 reasons:
1. "Stanford potential" as you mentioned. Not only do we have the stadium in place we have the AD in place, an alum/student-athlete and former assistant AD from... Stanford. He gets it and is bringing culture change.
2.Houston dislikes Rice less than TCU dislikes SMU. Plus TCU's already "in" so they have more pull than UH in who #12 is.
3. The Bayou Bucket could become the B12's 2nd most storied rivalry game, and
4. I went to Rice.

Seriously, though, while I think B12 could really use a presence in city of Houston, two additions from the city as the only two adds in the next round is probably overkill.

Bogg,

For extra money.


PlayBall,

Sorry, I don't believe that KU football brings much value to the Big 12.


owl,

Well said! I mean, UCLA and USC are both in the PAC ... but yeah.

(09-29-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bogg,

For extra money.

So a Texas/Oklahoma conference would need to expand their footprint to keep their revenue competitive with other major conferences after all?

No. No more than the Big 12 currently doesn't need a conf network to be competitive.

(09-29-2016 12:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  No. No more than the Big 12 currently doesn't need a conf network to be competitive.

Why the sense that the Big 12 is a dead conference walking if they don't get new markets come the next round of media negotiations?

Some people think Texas and/or Oklahoma will get an invite to SEC, Big Ten, ACC or PAC, as soon as the Big 12 GoR expires (in eight years).

That has nothing to do with expansion. Also technically has nothing to do with the TV deal for primary rights.



I suggest we take this to PM, if you want to continue the discussion.