I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

who has options, maybe Okla & WV to SEC
B-10 has nobody to pair with Kansas, niether does Pac
Tex schools are not leaving Tex

(05-01-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 12:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now say B1G or SEC makes OU and KU a deal they can't refuse when the Big XII grant of rights is closer to expiration.

I don't think either conference wants to do that unless they are pretty certain that they will also end up with UT.

I think that whether it's the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, their first choice is to bring UT into their conference, but if they can't have that, then their second choice is to leave UT where they are rather than seeing the Horns go to one of the other two.

Here is the issue I have with most of these scenarios. If Texas has to give up the LHN, why would UT ever go west to the Pac12? Every conference wants UT. If they decide the Big12 isn't working, UT will leave, but it wont be for the Pac12. They are not going to put their athletic teams at a disadvantage due to time zone differences. They aren't going to go to the conference who's games end while everyone else is asleep. Texas isn't going to a conference that markets itself to 20% of the population when they could address 80% of the nation in an central/east leaning conference. Big10, ACC, and SEC are all far more likely and make far more sense than the Pac12. The only reason people mention the Pac12 is because they have been the most aggressive suitor for Texas---but they aren't the best match.

Because of that, I think any Pac12 move into the central time zone is extremely unlikely to include UT.

Let me pose an alternate thought.

The time zone issue is quite real but Colorado is only one hour off and Arizona and Arizona State are also one hour off from the first Sunday in November to the second Sunday in March.

A 16 team Pac that places Texas, three other Central schools, Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado (presumably with Utah) in the same division means very minimal time zone issues (getting Arizona and Arizona State to move away from USC and UCLA is its own challenge).

But Pac-xx is quite possibly the easier sale for Texas because of the Pac-Network sub channels.

Still have basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. Then factor in the fact that the Big10 makes twice and much and will sign yet another deal between now and then. I think they end up in the Big10 with Oklahoma. lol...The AAU snobs will just have to hold their nose when near the one sub-par member while they count their money.

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

Kansas and Oklahoma are both low population, low money states. We already learned that lesson with Nebraska.

Both of those belong in the SEC, with Missouri and Arkansas.

(05-01-2017 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 08:35 PM)Chappy Wrote:  They're not going to get even more money to expand now, especially if wall street is forecasting falling profits at ESPN.

I see this flawed hypothesis bandied about here too often: "ESPN's profit growth is negative, therefore it will be paying less for broadcasting rights for college sports".

*BZZZZZZZT*

If ESPN wants to grow profits, then it focuses more on college sports and cuts other crap (NASCAR, Golf, MMA, whatever).

(05-01-2017 11:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN wants Pac-12 football and basketball primarily for west coast afternoon and prime time

Right, but of course the problem with that is west coast people don't support their college teams with P level TV viewership.

(05-01-2017 11:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN doesn't "need" Pac-12 FB or BB games to be played in the central time zone because ESPN is already well-stocked with inventory for those time slots

Correct, there are plenty of P conf teams in the Central Timezone that get P level TV viewership, already.

(05-01-2017 03:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  UT is in the BigXII because ESPN thought it would be cheaper to pay $15M/yr for the LHN and $30M/yr for the BigXII

...

Placing 4 BigXII members in the PAC at 35M/yr would save ESPN/FOX about $115M/year minus whatever they pay the remaining 6 BigXII members.

So by your own figures, Texas is voluntarily taking a $10M/yr paycut to go from a P conf that aligns with is mid-continent geography, to another P conf whose members are mostly hundreds if not thousands of miles away?

That is why Texas is, and wants to remain, in the Big 12.

Not some conspiracy theory about TV networks pulling the strings.

Exactly.

Though there are more positive benefits, there are 2 main reasons that keep Texas in the Big 12:

1. Texas makes more money via the LHN and Big 12 payouts than Texas would make in another conference.

2. The Big 12 is the ONLY conference with members mostly in and around Texas.

Texas in the Big 12 simply works better than Texas in any other conference, at least for now. In the future when the LHN contract expires, things may change.

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

I like what you think about Texas, and I would expand that to OU and KU as well. Although the SEC may posture about wanting Oklahoma, truthfully, it's actually a bad move for the SEC, because it duplicates markets Texas A&M already brings the SEC, and the SEC is NOT big on duplicate markets. A better move would be getting one of the North Carolina flagship schools and one of the Virginia flagship schools from the ACC. But as we all know right now, that isn't going to happen, and no ACC poster needs to tell me that, because I know about the ACC GOR and the ACCN. I'm just saying that's the SEC's preference.

(05-02-2017 02:11 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

I like what you think about Texas, and I would expand that to OU and KU as well. Although the SEC may posture about wanting Oklahoma, truthfully, it's actually a bad move for the SEC, because it duplicates markets Texas A&M already brings the SEC, and the SEC is NOT big on duplicate markets. A better move would be getting one of the North Carolina flagship schools and one of the Virginia flagship schools from the ACC. But as we all know right now, that isn't going to happen, and no ACC poster needs to tell me that, because I know about the ACC GOR and the ACCN. I'm just saying that's the SEC's preference.

Ok, the GOR. Well the SEC is owned by ESPN (not counting the 1 pesky CBS game, and a few 3rd tier games) and The ACC is owned 100% by ESPN. Every single ACC game in every single sport for the next 20 years is owned by ESPN. ESPN would have to do some horse trading among its properties. They could do that if they wanted, where they can't do that with Big 10, Big 12 and PAC who ESPN has to share with Fox.
*The SEC on CBS game of the week contract ends after the 2023-2024 season.

(05-01-2017 10:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

Kansas and Oklahoma are both low population, low money states. We already learned that lesson with Nebraska.

Both of those belong in the SEC, with Missouri and Arkansas.

Who cares? They both have well-funded athletic departments w/ large followings that are capable of winning championships in relevant sports.

Athletic prestige and money/fan interest are what matter. And it's not like they're in decline due to demographic battles.

(05-01-2017 10:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

Kansas and Oklahoma are both low population, low money states. We already learned that lesson with Nebraska.

Both of those belong in the SEC, with Missouri and Arkansas.

Kansas reportedly has the second richest third tier deal in the Big XII.
Far be it from me to stand up for UArk but the state of Arkansas markets combined is roughly the size of Baltimore. It's just spread over several markets (within the state Fayetteville, Little Rock, Jonesboro, outside the state Memphis, Springfield, Monroe, Shreveport).

Oklahoma just with OKC and Tulsa is equal to St. Louis, that's not counting the Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas stations serving Oklahoma population.

With the SEC Network SEC gets paid for every cable and satellite subscriber within the state without regard to the Nielsen market as an in-state subscriber. Roughly identical to all of Mississippi but with only one P5 bringing that audience.

(05-02-2017 02:11 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

I like what you think about Texas, and I would expand that to OU and KU as well. Although the SEC may posture about wanting Oklahoma, truthfully, it's actually a bad move for the SEC, because it duplicates markets Texas A&M already brings the SEC, and the SEC is NOT big on duplicate markets. A better move would be getting one of the North Carolina flagship schools and one of the Virginia flagship schools from the ACC. But as we all know right now, that isn't going to happen, and no ACC poster needs to tell me that, because I know about the ACC GOR and the ACCN. I'm just saying that's the SEC's preference.

TAMU does not deliver Tulsa nor Oklahoma City.

(05-02-2017 08:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:11 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 08:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that Texas ends up as a partial w/ a football scheduling alliance in either the ACC or the Pac.

OU will eventually end up in either the SEC or the B1G. KU will do the same, but my guess is they go to the B1G.

I like what you think about Texas, and I would expand that to OU and KU as well. Although the SEC may posture about wanting Oklahoma, truthfully, it's actually a bad move for the SEC, because it duplicates markets Texas A&M already brings the SEC, and the SEC is NOT big on duplicate markets. A better move would be getting one of the North Carolina flagship schools and one of the Virginia flagship schools from the ACC. But as we all know right now, that isn't going to happen, and no ACC poster needs to tell me that, because I know about the ACC GOR and the ACCN. I'm just saying that's the SEC's preference.

TAMU does not deliver Tulsa nor Oklahoma City.

Hahahaha....My Dads an OU booster. (He supports Sooner wrestling) He'd get a kick out of "A&M delivers OKC and Tulsa". Haha. It's Sooner nation up there. I've met a few Arkansas fans from Tulsa though. I've even met a Tulsa fan in Tulsa. He's a personal friend of Shea Seals.

(05-02-2017 08:10 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Athletic prestige and money/fan interest are what matter.

Nebraska ... Rutgers/Maryland.

Proves you wrong.

(05-02-2017 08:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Kansas reportedly has the second richest third tier deal in the Big XII.
...
Oklahoma just with OKC and Tulsa is equal to St. Louis, that's not counting the Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas stations serving Oklahoma population.

The name of the game for Big Ten expansion is: how many new cable systems can we get the BTN on, due to customer demand to watch teams ____, ____, and ____ on the channel, and how much are those new customers worth to prospective advertisers who might want to advertise on BTN??

You may not agree with that model, and the model may be slowly dying, but at least for the next 5-10 years, that is still the game.

OU and KU don't move that needle, any more than Nebraska was supposed to be able to despite its small state population. Hence why they got it right by going Rutgers/Maryland the next time. Lesson learned!


A Maryland type add would be UConn. Not popular, perhaps not realistic, but it matches. Kansas and OU, on the other hand, are Nebraska type adds.

(05-02-2017 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:10 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Athletic prestige and money/fan interest are what matter.

Nebraska ... Rutgers/Maryland.

Proves you wrong.

(05-02-2017 08:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Kansas reportedly has the second richest third tier deal in the Big XII.
...
Oklahoma just with OKC and Tulsa is equal to St. Louis, that's not counting the Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas stations serving Oklahoma population.

The name of the game for Big Ten expansion is: how many new cable systems can we get the BTN on, due to customer demand to watch teams ____, ____, and ____ on the channel, and how much are those new customers worth to prospective advertisers who might want to advertise on BTN??

You may not agree with that model, and the model may be slowly dying, but at least for the next 5-10 years, that is still the game.

OU and KU don't move that needle, any more than Nebraska was supposed to be able to despite its small state population. Hence why they got it right by going Rutgers/Maryland the next time. Lesson learned!


A Maryland type add would be UConn. Not popular, perhaps not realistic, but it matches. Kansas and OU, on the other hand, are Nebraska type adds.

Nebraska was added to deliver eyeballs. They are a national brand and that matters to the national networks. It gives ESPN clout knowing that a cable/sat system has to sign up for ESPN to appease Husker fans.
The BTN? They provide very little value other than more pressure on systems in places like Kansas City to pay the nominal rate (out-of-state price) to add BTN. Their BTN value is not significant in the total revenue picture.

For years the Huskers were on radio in Little Rock and Fayetteville Arkansas supposedly because local Husker fans chipped in to pay the stations to carry them. Don't think they do that any more because why bother with radio in this day and age but I bet they still have some affiliates in odd places.

(05-02-2017 10:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Nebraska was added to deliver eyeballs. They are a national brand and that matters to the national networks.

Blah, blah, blah.

The exact dreck that Nebraska snake-oil salesmen sold the Big Ten on.

LESSON LEARNED!

(05-02-2017 10:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  a cable/sat system has to sign up for ESPN to appease Husker fans.

.... huh???

Every cable system has ESPN, regardless what state it's located in. It's a mainstay of every standard tier in the nation. Even friggin' Sling had ESPN, to start.

Quote:The BTN? They provide very little value

.... except to the Big Ten conference.

Sure, the BTN revenue pales in comparison to the ESPN and now FOX/ESPN primary rights deal. But it's not an insignificant amount of revenue, for secondary rights content. Probably only Texas and maybe now (or shortly in the future) SEC get more per year per school for secondary rights content.


So .... stands to reason that if a school can enhance that revenue, it would get strong consideration!

(05-02-2017 11:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Nebraska was added to deliver eyeballs. They are a national brand and that matters to the national networks.

Blah, blah, blah.

The exact dreck that Nebraska snake-oil salesmen sold the Big Ten on.

LESSON LEARNED!

(05-02-2017 10:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  a cable/sat system has to sign up for ESPN to appease Husker fans.

.... huh???

Every cable system has ESPN, regardless what state it's located in. It's a mainstay of every standard tier in the nation. Even friggin' Sling had ESPN, to start.

Quote:The BTN? They provide very little value

.... except to the Big Ten conference.

Sure, the BTN revenue pales in comparison to the ESPN and now FOX/ESPN primary rights deal. But it's not an insignificant amount of revenue, for secondary rights content. Probably only Texas and maybe now (or shortly in the future) SEC get more per year per school for secondary rights content.


So .... stands to reason that if a school can enhance that revenue, it would get strong consideration!

Sometimes you get in such a hurry to be critical you miss the point.

Why waste your time saying that, when you could just re-state the point?

Please do

(05-02-2017 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:10 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Athletic prestige and money/fan interest are what matter.

Nebraska ... Rutgers/Maryland.

Proves you wrong.

(05-02-2017 08:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Kansas reportedly has the second richest third tier deal in the Big XII.
...
Oklahoma just with OKC and Tulsa is equal to St. Louis, that's not counting the Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas stations serving Oklahoma population.

The name of the game for Big Ten expansion is: how many new cable systems can we get the BTN on, due to customer demand to watch teams ____, ____, and ____ on the channel, and how much are those new customers worth to prospective advertisers who might want to advertise on BTN??

You may not agree with that model, and the model may be slowly dying, but at least for the next 5-10 years, that is still the game.

OU and KU don't move that needle, any more than Nebraska was supposed to be able to despite its small state population. Hence why they got it right by going Rutgers/Maryland the next time. Lesson learned!


A Maryland type add would be UConn. Not popular, perhaps not realistic, but it matches. Kansas and OU, on the other hand, are Nebraska type adds.

No. It proves that PSU wanted them, and that PSU makes the B1G a huge amount of money, despite literally being on a farm attached to a town that fits in half its football stadium.

It all goes back to money and prestige, which was my point.

(05-02-2017 12:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  It proves that PSU wanted them, and that PSU makes the B1G a huge amount of money

PSU is one vote. It takes more than one vote for a school to be added.

Nice try.


The reason that everyone voted for Rutgers and Maryland is that they were two public flagship, high research schools, in states that offered a lot of new cable subscribers to the BTN, and were going to be easy wins in football to feed PSU, Michigan, Mich St, and Ohio St.

Win-win-win-win, and it worked!


That formula will be followed again, if/when the Big Ten expands again.

(05-02-2017 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:10 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Athletic prestige and money/fan interest are what matter.

Nebraska ... Rutgers/Maryland.

Proves you wrong.

(05-02-2017 08:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Kansas reportedly has the second richest third tier deal in the Big XII.
...
Oklahoma just with OKC and Tulsa is equal to St. Louis, that's not counting the Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas stations serving Oklahoma population.

The name of the game for Big Ten expansion is: how many new cable systems can we get the BTN on, due to customer demand to watch teams ____, ____, and ____ on the channel, and how much are those new customers worth to prospective advertisers who might want to advertise on BTN??

You may not agree with that model, and the model may be slowly dying, but at least for the next 5-10 years, that is still the game.

OU and KU don't move that needle, any more than Nebraska was supposed to be able to despite its small state population. Hence why they got it right by going Rutgers/Maryland the next time. Lesson learned!


A Maryland type add would be UConn. Not popular, perhaps not realistic, but it matches. Kansas and OU, on the other hand, are Nebraska type adds.

Okay Bison the model dies in 5 to 10 years, what then? It will be some kind of pay for view whether streaming on a mobile device or TV it will be subject to the compelling, or lack thereof with regard to content. So you are saying what the Big 10 needs are more large cable markets with craptastic content so that in 10 years the BTN goes belly up and 6 to 8 Big 10 schools want to break off and form a conference that actually has content? It sounds awfully shortsighted to me.

The only rational plan is to expand with brands that have markets. But, there's only 1 of those left and it's in Texas. There's not one to the East. So what then?

I don't really buy the argument that Rutgers and Maryland move the cable network needle more than KU/OU would have.

Both KU/OU would be drawing eyes both within their own state and increasing the number of eyeballs in the footprint.

The state population argument is a bit vague.