The Big 12 is to be pieced out. How do you maximize its value?

The SEC is now in Texas. The PAC and Big 10 and ACC need to be involved if you are to maximize the viewing of 26 million people (30 if you count Oklahoma).

The Big 10 needs a football anchor for the West Division.

The SEC wants DFW.

The PAC needs the markets.

The ACC would be enhanced by a football brand.

If you are the networks you would ideally like to make this happen as frugally as possible.

Oklahoma? Is the only school that gives the Big 10 a football anchor and puts them into the DFW demographic. They would fit the SEC better, but are more valuable to the Big 10.

Kansas? Doesn't really give the Big 10 much they don't already have. Too far away and too detached for the ACC. Texas is a bigger deal for the PAC. The SEC could stand some eyeballs from Southern Illinois, Kansas, parts of Iowa and does need the hoops help.

Texas? Not essential to the SEC. Would be a huge help to the cred of the ACC provided N.D. came all in as part of the deal. The PAC needs them, but are they willing to do what it takes to get them (sell a piece of the PACN to ESPN).

West Virginia? They don't fit the Big 10 profile. They are an outlier even for the SEC. They fit best with the ACC but if the ACC lands Texas I don't think they get in. Out for the PAC.

Oklahoma State / T.C.U.? If OU heads to the Big 10 the SEC's best shot a landing the majority of the DFW market is to add to what the Aggies already have. How do you judge between OSU (larger school, larger athletic budget, and a decent following in DFW) and TCU ( a solid private with a large endowment in Fort Worth, but with deficits in attendance)?

If the PAC wants into the game they will go after T.C.U. If the Frogs deliver more of DFW than does OSU then maybe its the Frogs the SEC needs to take.

If the PAC sells a % of the PACN look for Texas to head west with Texas Tech then O.S.U. makes some sense as between OSU & Texas the PAC would have everything they would want in DFW. Perhaps if things break right Kansas State can go as well. If the Horns head West then WVU becomes much more palatable to finish out the ACC.

So Texas becomes a state that California, Big 10 country, and the Southeast will watch play football each week due to local interest and a stake in the state. That's a huge ratings bonanza.

The Big 10 might take Iowa State simply because it would be part of the compromise that would land them Oklahoma.

The SEC now has eyeballs from the Norther Midwest come basketball season and that helps too.

So if the PAC sells out for Texas this might happen:

The ACC survives and is compensated for doing so.

Big 10 adds Oklahoma and Iowa State

SEC adds Kansas and T.C.U.

PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State.

ACC adds West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't sell out this might happen:

Big 10 adds Oklahoma and Iowa State

ACC adds Texas and Notre Dame

SEC adds Kansas and Oklahoma State

PAC adds Texas Tech and T.C.U. (and maybe Kansas State)

Every major conference now has ties to DFW. That's a huge network coup.

The Big 10 has its football anchor and the SEC has a basketball King.

Either way there are enough votes to dissolve. Those left behind get paid handsomely for a little while.

Now we can move to 4 champs for a national playoff. In time conference semis may evolve but certainly not at first.

The SEC and Big 10 solve their scheduling issues. The ACC has a Northern Football King (N.D.) and a Southern Football King (Texas).

It's a close to parity as we will likely get which is also a plus for the networks.

The Big 10 swallows its preferences and takes Iowa State. The SEC swallows its preferences and takes either T.C.U. or Oklahoma State depending upon the scenario.

This takes into account no conference bias, deals in true compromise, and keeps true to maximizing the involved markets for all concerned.

Discuss without being a homer!

Of the options presented, I think I would take Kansas and TCU as my preference for the SEC. I have always liked the addition of KU.

I know TCU has potential issues, but they also haven't been at the Power level for very long. In time, they'll gain a more consistent following as long as they are playing marquee games and remain somewhat competitive. The potential to really clamp down on the DFW media market is enticing as well. That could never be done with OSU as they are too far removed. Besides, OSU has their own hurdles when it comes to prospects for long term relevancy.

Purely from the networks' perspective, I'm less concerned about geography and more concerned with accessing markets. It makes sense they would want multiple eyes on TX schools and the eyes of TX fans on multiple leagues. There are a few other points that line up with that sort of approach that I think we should consider.

UConn is a solid regional brand just outside the most valuable media market in the country. It's a good school with a great basketball tradition. The football program will probably always be lacking, but if the networks are willing to pay for Rutgers then they're probably willing to pay for UConn.

My biggest question in all this is what do they do with BYU? I think ESPN is going to want them in a major league before it's all over.

All in all, I don't think the networks mind paying for a school as long as the value is there. The biggest problem with the Big 12 is what the ISU AD said the other day...there are several schools getting paid more than they're worth right now.

Perhaps this?

-SEC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and UConn

Why? I think taking Tech will be required to get Texas. From UT's perspective, I think the pressure on them will be immense to make sure Tech is protected. I'm not sure the PAC is willing to both sell their network and add a few schools that don't bring excellent markets or academics. Part of the price for OU not siding with ESPN is their state rival goes to the SEC. A solid brand and new state for the league. Consider also that ESPN has a strong presence in NYC with the ACC, but that's it. Adding SEC interest to the region would help them out and the SEC needs the basketball content.

-B1G takes Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Colorado State

ESPN is not interested in helping out the B1G at this point and FOX isn't really strong enough to pull so many strings. The B1G's issues are compounded by their desire to have AAU schools and elite brands only. OU and KU are very good additions, but the price is taking Iowa State and a G5.

-ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame finally goes all in

-PAC takes TCU and Houston. They're a little too obstinate to sell their network and not wealthy enough to attract large brands. They settle for adding decent brands with growth potential...similar to what they did in taking Utah a few years ago.

Baylor is out for numerous reasons. Kansas State just doesn't have the gravitas or the market to save themselves.

(10-20-2016 06:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Of the options presented, I think I would take Kansas and TCU as my preference for the SEC. I have always liked the addition of KU.

I know TCU has potential issues, but they also haven't been at the Power level for very long. In time, they'll gain a more consistent following as long as they are playing marquee games and remain somewhat competitive. The potential to really clamp down on the DFW media market is enticing as well. That could never be done with OSU as they are too far removed. Besides, OSU has their own hurdles when it comes to prospects for long term relevancy.

Purely from the networks' perspective, I'm less concerned about geography and more concerned with accessing markets. It makes sense they would want multiple eyes on TX schools and the eyes of TX fans on multiple leagues. There are a few other points that line up with that sort of approach that I think we should consider.

UConn is a solid regional brand just outside the most valuable media market in the country. It's a good school with a great basketball tradition. The football program will probably always be lacking, but if the networks are willing to pay for Rutgers then they're probably willing to pay for UConn.

My biggest question in all this is what do they do with BYU? I think ESPN is going to want them in a major league before it's all over.

All in all, I don't think the networks mind paying for a school as long as the value is there. The biggest problem with the Big 12 is what the ISU AD said the other day...there are several schools getting paid more than they're worth right now.

Perhaps this?

-SEC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and UConn

Why? I think taking Tech will be required to get Texas. From UT's perspective, I think the pressure on them will be immense to make sure Tech is protected. I'm not sure the PAC is willing to both sell their network and add a few schools that don't bring excellent markets or academics. Part of the price for OU not siding with ESPN is their state rival goes to the SEC. A solid brand and new state for the league. Consider also that ESPN has a strong presence in NYC with the ACC, but that's it. Adding SEC interest to the region would help them out and the SEC needs the basketball content.

-B1G takes Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Colorado State

ESPN is not interested in helping out the B1G at this point and FOX isn't really strong enough to pull so many strings. The B1G's issues are compounded by their desire to have AAU schools and elite brands only. OU and KU are very good additions, but the price is taking Iowa State and a G5.

-ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame finally goes all in

-PAC takes TCU and Houston. They're a little too obstinate to sell their network and not wealthy enough to attract large brands. They settle for adding decent brands with growth potential...similar to what they did in taking Utah a few years ago.

Baylor is out for numerous reasons. Kansas State just doesn't have the gravitas or the market to save themselves.

I would argue that KU and OSU would be the better option.
OSU: state supported school, huge athletic budget for a "second banana", multiple national championships, top 20 in Learfield Cup standings, cooler logo, better tie in with Missouri and Arkansas to bring them into the "footprint", prevents "state jump" for Kansas to get to Texas (IMO this is HUGE), allows Alabama to be in a pod with Tennessee and Auburn to be reunited with Georgia and the list can go on and on into the night.

I will have two entirely different post on this subject. The first one is going to be about the difficulties that both the Big 12 and PAC 12 are currently facing and about future possibilities.


The dissolution of the Big 12. With mounting pressure inside and outside of the conference. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas choose not to resign the GOR, and inform the Big 12 that they will explore other options. This is the beginning of the end of the Big 12.


The rise of the new SWC. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas announce that they will be forming a new conference. They are quickly joined by Arizona state, Baylor, BYU, Colorado state, Houston, Oklahoma state, New Mexico, SMU, and Texas Tech.

The Newly formed SWC signs contracts with Cotton, Fiesta, and Sugar bowls. Giving them P5 status. They also sign deals with New Mexico and Texas bowls.

The PAC 12 quickly signs UNLV to replace ASU.

The SEC expands with Iowa state, and TCU. The SEC restructures the divisional make up of the conference, and for the first time ask its members to sign a GOR. This is followed up with a new deal by ESPN.

The AAC back fills with Kansas State, and West Virginia.

ESPN forms the SWC network. Both BYU and Texas agree to put all athletic content on the new network.

(10-20-2016 06:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Of the options presented, I think I would take Kansas and TCU as my preference for the SEC. I have always liked the addition of KU.

I know TCU has potential issues, but they also haven't been at the Power level for very long. In time, they'll gain a more consistent following as long as they are playing marquee games and remain somewhat competitive. The potential to really clamp down on the DFW media market is enticing as well. That could never be done with OSU as they are too far removed. Besides, OSU has their own hurdles when it comes to prospects for long term relevancy.

Purely from the networks' perspective, I'm less concerned about geography and more concerned with accessing markets. It makes sense they would want multiple eyes on TX schools and the eyes of TX fans on multiple leagues. There are a few other points that line up with that sort of approach that I think we should consider.

UConn is a solid regional brand just outside the most valuable media market in the country. It's a good school with a great basketball tradition. The football program will probably always be lacking, but if the networks are willing to pay for Rutgers then they're probably willing to pay for UConn.

My biggest question in all this is what do they do with BYU? I think ESPN is going to want them in a major league before it's all over.

All in all, I don't think the networks mind paying for a school as long as the value is there. The biggest problem with the Big 12 is what the ISU AD said the other day...there are several schools getting paid more than they're worth right now.

Perhaps this?

-SEC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and UConn

Why? I think taking Tech will be required to get Texas. From UT's perspective, I think the pressure on them will be immense to make sure Tech is protected. I'm not sure the PAC is willing to both sell their network and add a few schools that don't bring excellent markets or academics. Part of the price for OU not siding with ESPN is their state rival goes to the SEC. A solid brand and new state for the league. Consider also that ESPN has a strong presence in NYC with the ACC, but that's it. Adding SEC interest to the region would help them out and the SEC needs the basketball content.

-B1G takes Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Colorado State

ESPN is not interested in helping out the B1G at this point and FOX isn't really strong enough to pull so many strings. The B1G's issues are compounded by their desire to have AAU schools and elite brands only. OU and KU are very good additions, but the price is taking Iowa State and a G5.

-ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame finally goes all in

-PAC takes TCU and Houston. They're a little too obstinate to sell their network and not wealthy enough to attract large brands. They settle for adding decent brands with growth potential...similar to what they did in taking Utah a few years ago.

Baylor is out for numerous reasons. Kansas State just doesn't have the gravitas or the market to save themselves.

Not to nitpick, but TCU has played football at the power level for the majority of it's football playing history. The breakup of the SWC and formation of the original Big 12 is the first time TCU played in what wouldn't be considered a power conference of its time. We have a heisman winner, AP national title, and have played in every major bowl game (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach).

With that being said TCU did go through a big time down period from the mid 60s to the late 90s resulting in a couple generations of TCU students who didn't become life long fans of TCU athletics at the same rate as those before them or those after them have become.

At the end of the day, small private school...especially those in urban areas (Boston College, Miami, Northwestern, TCU, etc...) will always struggle to gain the types of consistent followings that their larger land grant brothers have.

A previous poster mentioned attendance vs. Oklahoma State...and I will be the first to admit that absolutely I wish TCU had a larger fan base. However, so far this year TCU has had 4 home games at an average of 46,128 while Okie State has had 5 home games at an average of 52,565...not drastically different. Meanwhile Okie State has more than double the enrollment of TCU.

(10-20-2016 08:16 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 06:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Of the options presented, I think I would take Kansas and TCU as my preference for the SEC. I have always liked the addition of KU.

I know TCU has potential issues, but they also haven't been at the Power level for very long. In time, they'll gain a more consistent following as long as they are playing marquee games and remain somewhat competitive. The potential to really clamp down on the DFW media market is enticing as well. That could never be done with OSU as they are too far removed. Besides, OSU has their own hurdles when it comes to prospects for long term relevancy.

Purely from the networks' perspective, I'm less concerned about geography and more concerned with accessing markets. It makes sense they would want multiple eyes on TX schools and the eyes of TX fans on multiple leagues. There are a few other points that line up with that sort of approach that I think we should consider.

UConn is a solid regional brand just outside the most valuable media market in the country. It's a good school with a great basketball tradition. The football program will probably always be lacking, but if the networks are willing to pay for Rutgers then they're probably willing to pay for UConn.

My biggest question in all this is what do they do with BYU? I think ESPN is going to want them in a major league before it's all over.

All in all, I don't think the networks mind paying for a school as long as the value is there. The biggest problem with the Big 12 is what the ISU AD said the other day...there are several schools getting paid more than they're worth right now.

Perhaps this?

-SEC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and UConn

Why? I think taking Tech will be required to get Texas. From UT's perspective, I think the pressure on them will be immense to make sure Tech is protected. I'm not sure the PAC is willing to both sell their network and add a few schools that don't bring excellent markets or academics. Part of the price for OU not siding with ESPN is their state rival goes to the SEC. A solid brand and new state for the league. Consider also that ESPN has a strong presence in NYC with the ACC, but that's it. Adding SEC interest to the region would help them out and the SEC needs the basketball content.

-B1G takes Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Colorado State

ESPN is not interested in helping out the B1G at this point and FOX isn't really strong enough to pull so many strings. The B1G's issues are compounded by their desire to have AAU schools and elite brands only. OU and KU are very good additions, but the price is taking Iowa State and a G5.

-ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame finally goes all in

-PAC takes TCU and Houston. They're a little too obstinate to sell their network and not wealthy enough to attract large brands. They settle for adding decent brands with growth potential...similar to what they did in taking Utah a few years ago.

Baylor is out for numerous reasons. Kansas State just doesn't have the gravitas or the market to save themselves.

Not to nitpick, but TCU has played football at the power level for the majority of it's football playing history. The breakup of the SWC and formation of the original Big 12 is the first time TCU played in what wouldn't be considered a power conference of its time. We have a heisman winner, AP national title, and have played in every major bowl game (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Peach).

With that being said TCU did go through a big time down period from the mid 60s to the late 90s resulting in a couple generations of TCU students who didn't become life long fans of TCU athletics at the same rate as those before them or those after them have become.

At the end of the day, small private school...especially those in urban areas (Boston College, Miami, Northwestern, TCU, etc...) will always struggle to gain the types of consistent followings that their larger land grant brothers have.

A previous poster mentioned attendance vs. Oklahoma State...and I will be the first to admit that absolutely I wish TCU had a larger fan base. However, so far this year TCU has had 4 home games at an average of 46,128 while Okie State has had 5 home games at an average of 52,565...not drastically different. Meanwhile Okie State has more than double the enrollment of TCU.

You're right and I thought about mentioning that.

I didn't because the money and exposure in the SWC era didn't compare to what we've got now. So TCU, after being demoted, had to fight and claw to get back and they certainly did a fine job of it. It's one of the reasons I'm high on them.

Let's take Baylor by comparison...they had the money and exposure of a Power league for nearly 20 years and didn't do much with it. TCU accomplished more while seeking status than Baylor did while possessing it.

Anyway, TCU is still recovering I think from being behind for so many years. I think they could achieve some pretty special things, but it may take some time.

I'm actually in the camp that getting left out of the Big 12 is exactly what TCU needed to light the fire and appropriately invest in athletics. Otherwise I'm pretty sure TCUs first 10 to 12 years in the Big 12 would have looked very similar to Baylor's.

Football is the obvious one but many of our other programs also finally started to get the funding they needed in the early 2000s...especially baseball going from one of the worst facilities in the SWC to having great facilities and now 3 straight CWS trips and 4 total since 2010.

The only question I have is if the PAC would take OK State/Kansas State/Tech even to get Texas. I know they need the content and the time zone stuff, but they pride themselves alot on academics. I wonder if they would take lesser programs with better academics like Rice?

At that point their might be enough to keep a watered down Big 12. I know that defeats the point of the exercise but if we are looking for unbiased evaluation thats what i would say.

I think in the spirit of compromise Big 10 would certainly be okay with Iowa State as a decent bball program and with a great fan base from an AAU school. I personally would be sad to see OK to go to the Big 10 but Kansas/TCU isn't a bad alternative.

I think the ACC would eventually be okay with WVU but it would need to realign its divisions. WVU/Louisville in the north, Clemson/FSU in the South makes for a solid balance, and would basically create an old big east division (Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, VTech, ND, WVU, Louisville, Miami), vs an original ACC.

(10-20-2016 11:03 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  I'm actually in the camp that getting left out of the Big 12 is exactly what TCU needed to light the fire and appropriately invest in athletics. Otherwise I'm pretty sure TCUs first 10 to 12 years in the Big 12 would have looked very similar to Baylor's.

Football is the obvious one but many of our other programs also finally started to get the funding they needed in the early 2000s...especially baseball going from one of the worst facilities in the SWC to having great facilities and now 3 straight CWS trips and 4 total since 2010.

I think your right. TCU got a real wake up call years ago. Since then ya'll have had to take a journeymen's route to get to a P5 conference. I highly doubt TCU will ever be left out again. Thanks to the efforts put fort by its Alumni and fan support.

These plans are way too complicated. The Big 12 has a good paying GOR that expires in ten years. This will be a simple realignment. OU will leave when its economical. That's when it'll get interesting. The small 8 will all work to secure P5 homes. Texas works out the best deal it can get and decides to rule and rearrange the B12.

My three guesses are:

1.
Texas + B12
B1G: OU + KU

2.
Texas + B12
SEC: OU + KU or WVU

3.
Texas + B12
SEC: OU + VT
ACC: WVU (football schools push for best FB product aval. Similar to L'ville addition)

Not sure the B1G would find the value in adding KU without at least a large market or football addition to supplement KU. Not sure UConn/KU adds enough cable boxes or value to equal current payouts even if UConn gave the B1G higher fees in the Boston market

This is the thing I don't get and maybe y'all can help me square this circle; where is the value added for ESPN/FOX in placing the other 7 schools within the P4? The only reason I can determine is if the networks want to maximize value before the end of the GORis to avoid legal entanglements.

But lets say 2023 rolls around and FOX and ESPN offer the conference $37 million. Obviously, UT, OU and KU won't sign the deal but at least the networks have made a goof faith effort to keep the B12 a P5 conference. Then once the Longhorns, Jayhawks and Sooners leave, just offer another deal at 20 millions. The remaining 7 might sue but the case would be in the networks favor IMO.

I just think as JR alluded to in another thread that the B12 overplayed a weak hand and will be subject to the whims of ESPN/FOX when the GOR ends. Either the valuble members find a way to shake themselves free of any entanglements that might bring suit or they can remain locked in the B12 till the rapture.

Regarding preferences for the SEC:

2 teams: TCU, KU
4 teams: TCU, KU, OSU, ISU

(10-20-2016 06:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This is the thing I don't get and maybe y'all can help me square this circle; where is the value added for ESPN/FOX in placing the other 7 schools within the P4? The only reason I can determine is if the networks want to maximize value before the end of the GORis to avoid legal entanglements.

But lets say 2023 rolls around and FOX and ESPN offer the conference $37 million. Obviously, UT, OU and KU won't sign the deal but at least the networks have made a goof faith effort to keep the B12 a P5 conference. Then once the Longhorns, Jayhawks and Sooners leave, just offer another deal at 20 millions. The remaining 7 might sue but the case would be in the networks favor IMO.

I just think as JR alluded to in another thread that the B12 overplayed a weak hand and will be subject to the whims of ESPN/FOX when the GOR ends. Either the valuble members find a way to shake themselves free of any entanglements that might bring suit or they can remain locked in the B12 till the rapture.

Regarding preferences for the SEC:

2 teams: TCU, KU
4 teams: TCU, KU, OSU, ISU

Can we make this happen? I think this would be an amazing add. Two good football adds, and two maybe three if OSU can get their basketball up adds. Plus being in the SEC would help KU and ISU in football.

(10-20-2016 06:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This is the thing I don't get and maybe y'all can help me square this circle; where is the value added for ESPN/FOX in placing the other 7 schools within the P4? The only reason I can determine is if the networks want to maximize value before the end of the GORis to avoid legal entanglements.

But lets say 2023 rolls around and FOX and ESPN offer the conference $37 million. Obviously, UT, OU and KU won't sign the deal but at least the networks have made a goof faith effort to keep the B12 a P5 conference. Then once the Longhorns, Jayhawks and Sooners leave, just offer another deal at 20 millions. The remaining 7 might sue but the case would be in the networks favor IMO.

I just think as JR alluded to in another thread that the B12 overplayed a weak hand and will be subject to the whims of ESPN/FOX when the GOR ends. Either the valuble members find a way to shake themselves free of any entanglements that might bring suit or they can remain locked in the B12 till the rapture.

Regarding preferences for the SEC:

2 teams: TCU, KU
4 teams: TCU, KU, OSU, ISU

For ESPN the upside is that a careful placement of those schools helps to draw those viewers from other regions into being interested in conferences they otherwise might not watch. It is also more profitable to move to a model that ties in all regions of the country for playoff purposes and does so without fail every year.

Then look at what value a great TCU or Baylor brings in against the Big 12 lineup as opposed to that of the Big 10 or SEC. In the Big 12 once Baylor beats OU & UT there is usually nothing left of interest to the rest of the nation. Put them in a Big 10 or SEC and you get 5 maybe 6 really big games that the nation might watch, if not to pull for T.C.U. then to root against an Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan or Florida. There are significant increases in the numbers for those kinds of games.

So it is not like the rest of the league has no value, but that they can only be pitted against two national brands and that diminishes their value now.

Now if you want to put this to the test then ask yourself which of these you would rather have in your conference:
T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, or Kansas State or Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young, South Florida, or Memphis?

I think it is fairly obvious the degrees of separation for most of those. So if anyone is going to 16 to help with regional divisions and scheduling who do you think they would rather consider if they only land one of the Big 12 brands and need another, Oklahoma State / T.C.U. / WVU or Cincy, UConn & Memphis?

There's your answer!

(10-20-2016 07:32 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 06:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This is the thing I don't get and maybe y'all can help me square this circle; where is the value added for ESPN/FOX in placing the other 7 schools within the P4? The only reason I can determine is if the networks want to maximize value before the end of the GORis to avoid legal entanglements.

But lets say 2023 rolls around and FOX and ESPN offer the conference $37 million. Obviously, UT, OU and KU won't sign the deal but at least the networks have made a goof faith effort to keep the B12 a P5 conference. Then once the Longhorns, Jayhawks and Sooners leave, just offer another deal at 20 millions. The remaining 7 might sue but the case would be in the networks favor IMO.

I just think as JR alluded to in another thread that the B12 overplayed a weak hand and will be subject to the whims of ESPN/FOX when the GOR ends. Either the valuble members find a way to shake themselves free of any entanglements that might bring suit or they can remain locked in the B12 till the rapture.

Regarding preferences for the SEC:

2 teams: TCU, KU
4 teams: TCU, KU, OSU, ISU

Can we make this happen? I think this would be an amazing add. Two good football adds, and two maybe three if OSU can get their basketball up adds. Plus being in the SEC would help KU and ISU in football.

Would you be interested in this divisional alignment...

Central: ISU, MIZZ, KU, UK, TEN, VU
West: A&M, OKST, ARK, TCU, LSU, MISS
East: UGA, AU, BAMA, SCAR, UF, MSST

The way I see it, the central provides something the SEC sorely lacks, and that's basketball interest. I'm not in love with UT being cut of from GA and FL, but I've finally warmed up to an idea H1 proposed when he was still here. I think my problem was that he wanted to include WVU.

The SEC implementing this plan would achieve JR's DFW takeover along with striking fear in the hearts of Longhorn and Sooner fans and boosters. While TCU and OKST would never reach the heights of the their in state brothers, the SEC affiliation would further eat away at their recruiting advantage.

(10-20-2016 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 06:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This is the thing I don't get and maybe y'all can help me square this circle; where is the value added for ESPN/FOX in placing the other 7 schools within the P4? The only reason I can determine is if the networks want to maximize value before the end of the GORis to avoid legal entanglements.

But lets say 2023 rolls around and FOX and ESPN offer the conference $37 million. Obviously, UT, OU and KU won't sign the deal but at least the networks have made a goof faith effort to keep the B12 a P5 conference. Then once the Longhorns, Jayhawks and Sooners leave, just offer another deal at 20 millions. The remaining 7 might sue but the case would be in the networks favor IMO.

I just think as JR alluded to in another thread that the B12 overplayed a weak hand and will be subject to the whims of ESPN/FOX when the GOR ends. Either the valuble members find a way to shake themselves free of any entanglements that might bring suit or they can remain locked in the B12 till the rapture.

Regarding preferences for the SEC:

2 teams: TCU, KU
4 teams: TCU, KU, OSU, ISU

For ESPN the upside is that a careful placement of those schools helps to draw those viewers from other regions into being interested in conferences they otherwise might not watch. It is also more profitable to move to a model that ties in all regions of the country for playoff purposes and does so without fail every year.

Then look at what value a great TCU or Baylor brings in against the Big 12 lineup as opposed to that of the Big 10 or SEC. In the Big 12 once Baylor beats OU & UT there is usually nothing left of interest to the rest of the nation. Put them in a Big 10 or SEC and you get 5 maybe 6 really big games that the nation might watch, if not to pull for T.C.U. then to root against an Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan or Florida. There are significant increases in the numbers for those kinds of games.

So it is not like the rest of the league has no value, but that they can only be pitted against two national brands and that diminishes their value now.

Now if you want to put this to the test then ask yourself which of these you would rather have in your conference:
T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, or Kansas State or Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young, South Florida, or Memphis?

I think it is fairly obvious the degrees of separation for most of those. So if anyone is going to 16 to help with regional divisions and scheduling who do you think they would rather consider if they only land one of the Big 12 brands and need another, Oklahoma State / T.C.U. / WVU or Cincy, UConn & Memphis?

There's your answer!

So continuing with your TCU example; the moving of conferences would take them from say $30 mil currently to $43 mil in the SEC (all numbers are just SWAGs). That would include ESPN having to plus up the disbursements from $41 mil due to the look in. That's a delta of $41 mil extra that the Mouse has to dole out. Probably a little more since I don't know how FOX and ESPN split the payments in the B12.

Do you think a semi final conference game and more SEC competition would not only cover that increase but turn a profit? If the TV landscape wasn't on such shaky foundation and ESPN had ten years to play this out then I could see it. But the cable market is starting to resemble speed chess; fast moving yet complicated.

(10-20-2016 08:12 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 06:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  This is the thing I don't get and maybe y'all can help me square this circle; where is the value added for ESPN/FOX in placing the other 7 schools within the P4? The only reason I can determine is if the networks want to maximize value before the end of the GORis to avoid legal entanglements.

But lets say 2023 rolls around and FOX and ESPN offer the conference $37 million. Obviously, UT, OU and KU won't sign the deal but at least the networks have made a goof faith effort to keep the B12 a P5 conference. Then once the Longhorns, Jayhawks and Sooners leave, just offer another deal at 20 millions. The remaining 7 might sue but the case would be in the networks favor IMO.

I just think as JR alluded to in another thread that the B12 overplayed a weak hand and will be subject to the whims of ESPN/FOX when the GOR ends. Either the valuble members find a way to shake themselves free of any entanglements that might bring suit or they can remain locked in the B12 till the rapture.

Regarding preferences for the SEC:

2 teams: TCU, KU
4 teams: TCU, KU, OSU, ISU

For ESPN the upside is that a careful placement of those schools helps to draw those viewers from other regions into being interested in conferences they otherwise might not watch. It is also more profitable to move to a model that ties in all regions of the country for playoff purposes and does so without fail every year.

Then look at what value a great TCU or Baylor brings in against the Big 12 lineup as opposed to that of the Big 10 or SEC. In the Big 12 once Baylor beats OU & UT there is usually nothing left of interest to the rest of the nation. Put them in a Big 10 or SEC and you get 5 maybe 6 really big games that the nation might watch, if not to pull for T.C.U. then to root against an Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan or Florida. There are significant increases in the numbers for those kinds of games.

So it is not like the rest of the league has no value, but that they can only be pitted against two national brands and that diminishes their value now.

Now if you want to put this to the test then ask yourself which of these you would rather have in your conference:
T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Iowa State, West Virginia, or Kansas State or Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young, South Florida, or Memphis?

I think it is fairly obvious the degrees of separation for most of those. So if anyone is going to 16 to help with regional divisions and scheduling who do you think they would rather consider if they only land one of the Big 12 brands and need another, Oklahoma State / T.C.U. / WVU or Cincy, UConn & Memphis?

There's your answer!

So continuing with your TCU example; the moving of conferences would take them from say $30 mil currently to $43 mil in the SEC (all numbers are just SWAGs). That would include ESPN having to plus up the disbursements from $41 mil due to the look in. That's a delta of $41 mil extra that the Mouse has to dole out. Probably a little more since I don't know how FOX and ESPN split the payments in the B12.

Do you think a semi final conference game and more SEC competition would not only cover that increase but turn a profit? If the TV landscape wasn't on such shaky foundation and ESPN had ten years to play this out then I could see it. But the cable market is starting to resemble speed chess; fast moving yet complicated.

T.C.U. is getting close to 32 million in the Big 12. ESPN's share of that is about half. So ESPN would pony up about 26 million.

Conference Semis would add two must see TV games at regional venues. Figure 10 to 15 million per game. Turn a profit? Probably.

Still don't understand the TCU love. Small private school whose fans leave early every game. Their horrible attendance was one of the main reasons the SWC broke up. The SEC is making its presence felt in Texas and in Dallas. The Texas state fair hosts the big 12's red river rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma and hosts the SEC's Southwest Classic between Texas A&M and Arkansas. If UT-A can claim all three major markets, so can A&M if they haven't already. So I see no reason to add a small Dallas private school like TCU or SMU just to enhance the DFW presence.

The only difference between TCU and SMU is Patterson won enough games to get their AD drunk with Dodds at the right time.

(10-21-2016 08:35 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Still don't understand the TCU love. Small private school whose fans leave early every game. Their horrible attendance was one of the main reasons the SWC broke up. The SEC is making its presence felt in Texas and in Dallas. The Texas state fair hosts the big 12's red river rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma and hosts the SEC's Southwest Classic between Texas A&M and Arkansas. If UT-A can claim all three major markets, so can A&M if they haven't already. So I see no reason to add a small Dallas private school like TCU or SMU just to enhance the DFW presence.

We don't need TCU or UT for that matter. From my perspective, it's more a matter of gaining as many viewers as possible. We don't have full penetration in the state and so we could really use a booster if we're going to claim TX as SEC territory. Call me maniacal, but I want to dominate the state of TX.

I like TCU's potential, but no I can't make a great argument based on past accomplishments. Think in terms of schools like Miami. They had no great program if you want to go back a few decades then all of a sudden they turned it on and became relevant despite being a private school with marginal fan support. Miami became one of the most watched teams in the country simply because they won games. That's really the name of the game.

I think if TCU was playing top competition on a weekly basis then their potential increases that much more. They're already beating schools like OU for recruits and part of that is going to be a function of being in the middle of DFW itself rather than just another school out there with a D1 program.

(10-21-2016 08:35 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  The only difference between TCU and SMU is Patterson won enough games to get their AD drunk with Dodds at the right time.

I wouldn't go that far. SMU never recovered from being given the death penalty. TCU has also been competitive at a national level in multiple sports.

Also, I would not support SMU.

(10-20-2016 01:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 12 is to be pieced out. How do you maximize its value?

The SEC is now in Texas. The PAC and Big 10 and ACC need to be involved if you are to maximize the viewing of 26 million people (30 if you count Oklahoma).

The Big 10 needs a football anchor for the West Division.

The SEC wants DFW.

The PAC needs the markets.

The ACC would be enhanced by a football brand.

If you are the networks you would ideally like to make this happen as frugally as possible.

Oklahoma? Is the only school that gives the Big 10 a football anchor and puts them into the DFW demographic. They would fit the SEC better, but are more valuable to the Big 10.

Kansas? Doesn't really give the Big 10 much they don't already have. Too far away and too detached for the ACC. Texas is a bigger deal for the PAC. The SEC could stand some eyeballs from Southern Illinois, Kansas, parts of Iowa and does need the hoops help.

Texas? Not essential to the SEC. Would be a huge help to the cred of the ACC provided N.D. came all in as part of the deal. The PAC needs them, but are they willing to do what it takes to get them (sell a piece of the PACN to ESPN).

West Virginia? They don't fit the Big 10 profile. They are an outlier even for the SEC. They fit best with the ACC but if the ACC lands Texas I don't think they get in. Out for the PAC.

Oklahoma State / T.C.U.? If OU heads to the Big 10 the SEC's best shot a landing the majority of the DFW market is to add to what the Aggies already have. How do you judge between OSU (larger school, larger athletic budget, and a decent following in DFW) and TCU ( a solid private with a large endowment in Fort Worth, but with deficits in attendance)?

If the PAC wants into the game they will go after T.C.U. If the Frogs deliver more of DFW than does OSU then maybe its the Frogs the SEC needs to take.

If the PAC sells a % of the PACN look for Texas to head west with Texas Tech then O.S.U. makes some sense as between OSU & Texas the PAC would have everything they would want in DFW. Perhaps if things break right Kansas State can go as well. If the Horns head West then WVU becomes much more palatable to finish out the ACC.

So Texas becomes a state that California, Big 10 country, and the Southeast will watch play football each week due to local interest and a stake in the state. That's a huge ratings bonanza.

The Big 10 might take Iowa State simply because it would be part of the compromise that would land them Oklahoma.

The SEC now has eyeballs from the Norther Midwest come basketball season and that helps too.

So if the PAC sells out for Texas this might happen:

The ACC survives and is compensated for doing so.

Big 10 adds Oklahoma and Iowa State

SEC adds Kansas and T.C.U.

PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State.

ACC adds West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't sell out this might happen:

Big 10 adds Oklahoma and Iowa State

ACC adds Texas and Notre Dame

SEC adds Kansas and Oklahoma State

PAC adds Texas Tech and T.C.U. (and maybe Kansas State)

Every major conference now has ties to DFW. That's a huge network coup.

The Big 10 has its football anchor and the SEC has a basketball King.

Either way there are enough votes to dissolve. Those left behind get paid handsomely for a little while.

Now we can move to 4 champs for a national playoff. In time conference semis may evolve but certainly not at first.

The SEC and Big 10 solve their scheduling issues. The ACC has a Northern Football King (N.D.) and a Southern Football King (Texas).

It's a close to parity as we will likely get which is also a plus for the networks.

The Big 10 swallows its preferences and takes Iowa State. The SEC swallows its preferences and takes either T.C.U. or Oklahoma State depending upon the scenario.

This takes into account no conference bias, deals in true compromise, and keeps true to maximizing the involved markets for all concerned.

Discuss without being a homer!

The oldest rule in CR is "follow the money" right?
Which of the two scenarios put more money in the pockets of the networks and the schools?
You have to believe that placing better product where the most eyeballs are would be the most profitable.
First from the SEC standpoint:
adding two more Big 8 programs certainly aides Missouri in drawing mid-western viewers.
adding a blue-chip basketball program in Kansas provides some balance (finally) in the SEC
The PAC:
Nobody cares.
Even with great product people on the east coast would want to watch west coast teams because? I'm sorry, I have no answer for that question.
The ACC:
Network eyeballs.
Big time opponents with national exposure
The B1G:
Oklahoma vs. Nebraska....enough said!

I'm not all that up on realignment as y'all are but I don't see the big ten grabbing Iowa state if Kansas is in play and I would think Kansas would prefer the big ten for a variety of reasons. Additionally I don't see Oklahoma having a desire to abandon its Texas pipeline so unless Texas joins the big ten they won't, ou can abandon Texas but would have to go sec. I reject the premise of this thread