Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: What is the Big 12 likely to do?
Nothing. All of them will maintain the status quo.
They are working behind the scenes to find new homes.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Soobahk40050 Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 481
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #21
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

OK/OK State may be worth $150 million.

ESPN pays $80 million for the Sugar/ $55 million for the Orange. OK was in the Orange Bowl in 2015, and in the Sugar Bowl this year (versus Auburn), and in 2016 OK State was in it (versus Ole Miss). The 2016 Sugar Bowl had 8 million viewers (not a playoff game that year).

But adding OK/OK State means adding a great deal of good inventory:
OK-OK State
OK-Alabama
OK-LSU
OK-Auburn
OK-TN
OK-Georgia
OK-Florida
would all be above average games.

OK State would draw a little less, but still valuable matchups. I would certainly be interested in an OK State-TN matchup when it happened.

If OK State-Ole Miss is worth 80 million, then OK-Alabama should easily be worth $100 million, especially with smart scheduling, towards the end of the season as a de facto division championship some years. (And yes I know this is not how it actually works, but for comparisons sake...)

Imagine in the final two weeks of the season you have OK-Alabama first then Alabama-Auburn and OK-OK State. Some years that would be a top five matchup followed by two top ten/top fifteen matchups. Of course, some years would be duds, but imagine the marketing possibilities there. And in some years, do Auburn fans actually root for Bama to beat OK so that Auburn can win the division? Crazy cross-team rooting interests there.

Throw in the other matchups that ESPN gains with the additions, and the teams are easily worth $150 m, with surplus value for ESPN. Even with just the games I listed, that's 7 high profile matchups each season. If they are only worth $20 m each, that's 140 mil for just OK.

Make it OK and Texas and you have Texas-Alabama, Texas-OK, Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-LSU, and more.

I think I'd pay $150 million for that.
08-08-2017 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,789
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #22
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 02:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

OK/OK State may be worth $150 million.

ESPN pays $80 million for the Sugar/ $55 million for the Orange. OK was in the Orange Bowl in 2015, and in the Sugar Bowl this year (versus Auburn), and in 2016 OK State was in it (versus Ole Miss). The 2016 Sugar Bowl had 8 million viewers (not a playoff game that year).

But adding OK/OK State means adding a great deal of good inventory:
OK-OK State
OK-Alabama
OK-LSU
OK-Auburn
OK-TN
OK-Georgia
OK-Florida
would all be above average games.

OK State would draw a little less, but still valuable matchups. I would certainly be interested in an OK State-TN matchup when it happened.

If OK State-Ole Miss is worth 80 million, then OK-Alabama should easily be worth $100 million, especially with smart scheduling, towards the end of the season as a de facto division championship some years. (And yes I know this is not how it actually works, but for comparisons sake...)

Imagine in the final two weeks of the season you have OK-Alabama first then Alabama-Auburn and OK-OK State. Some years that would be a top five matchup followed by two top ten/top fifteen matchups. Of course, some years would be duds, but imagine the marketing possibilities there. And in some years, do Auburn fans actually root for Bama to beat OK so that Auburn can win the division? Crazy cross-team rooting interests there.

Throw in the other matchups that ESPN gains with the additions, and the teams are easily worth $150 m, with surplus value for ESPN. Even with just the games I listed, that's 7 high profile matchups each season. If they are only worth $20 m each, that's 140 mil for just OK.

Make it OK and Texas and you have Texas-Alabama, Texas-OK, Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-LSU, and more.

I think I'd pay $150 million for that.

I would add as well that ESPN will save a lot of money on the back end by not paying as much for Big 12 rights.

If you take out a few schools and even if you have to pay more for them to move elsewhere then you could still get a good portion of remainder of the league for bargain basement price.
08-08-2017 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,896
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

Except your math is off. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair might add 4 million together to the payouts so 56 million total to the rest of the SEC. ESPN currently pays both roughly 17 million each so if their addition takes the SEC to 50 million (which is about right) then they would be paying an additional 33 million for each. So 66 million plus 56 million equals 122 million tops.

And for that they not only get the additional high ratings games that our resident Volunteer pointed out to you but they get 23 different games that will draw a significant % of the DFW viewership. And they get two schools which in the past two decades have been consistent winners. Okie State might well take the Big 12 this year and Gundy is just coming into his prime.

So lets say DFW adds an additional 2 million per ad rates for those 23 games that 46 million. If they both continue to go to bowls that's another 10 million in ad money. And we haven't even gotten to the SEC's extra inventory of solid match ups. So on the DFW front and the bowl ad revenue you have just paid for the additional money to the SEC's member schools. Now all they have to do is earn enough in their conference and OOC matchups to the rest of the nation to cover the 66 million more that ESPN pays for the both of them. That's 14 more home games to telecast and better and increased inventory for the SECN which will also help with subscriptions regardless of the provider. I'd say the 66 million would be covered handsomely, especially with the increased number of high profile match ups.

So yeah they would pay for themselves.

And I would't play down the value of WVU to the ACC. As Notre Dame's brand fades, and it is fading significantly with each succeeding generation, that you are going to need those couch burning hillbillies to prop up your football inventory.

And if the SEC lands OU, even with OSU, we have killed any opportunity for the Big 10 to outpace us in regular TV revenue over the long term. And if the SEC lands OU then look for Texas to head to a coast, either the East or West, but they won't head to the B1G without OU or A&M.
08-08-2017 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,306
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #24
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 02:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

OK/OK State may be worth $150 million.

ESPN pays $80 million for the Sugar/ $55 million for the Orange. OK was in the Orange Bowl in 2015, and in the Sugar Bowl this year (versus Auburn), and in 2016 OK State was in it (versus Ole Miss). The 2016 Sugar Bowl had 8 million viewers (not a playoff game that year).

But adding OK/OK State means adding a great deal of good inventory:
OK-OK State
OK-Alabama
OK-LSU
OK-Auburn
OK-TN
OK-Georgia
OK-Florida
would all be above average games.

OK State would draw a little less, but still valuable matchups. I would certainly be interested in an OK State-TN matchup when it happened.

If OK State-Ole Miss is worth 80 million, then OK-Alabama should easily be worth $100 million, especially with smart scheduling, towards the end of the season as a de facto division championship some years. (And yes I know this is not how it actually works, but for comparisons sake...)

Imagine in the final two weeks of the season you have OK-Alabama first then Alabama-Auburn and OK-OK State. Some years that would be a top five matchup followed by two top ten/top fifteen matchups. Of course, some years would be duds, but imagine the marketing possibilities there. And in some years, do Auburn fans actually root for Bama to beat OK so that Auburn can win the division? Crazy cross-team rooting interests there.

Throw in the other matchups that ESPN gains with the additions, and the teams are easily worth $150 m, with surplus value for ESPN. Even with just the games I listed, that's 7 high profile matchups each season. If they are only worth $20 m each, that's 140 mil for just OK.

Make it OK and Texas and you have Texas-Alabama, Texas-OK, Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-LSU, and more.

I think I'd pay $150 million for that.

Also, all of OU's games are available for selection. CBS could select the Red River Rivalry over an SEC match up just like they will week three when Arkansas hosts TCU.
08-08-2017 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,396
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #25
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.
Texas cannot even handle the B12 competition now. lol
08-08-2017 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,406
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #26
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 09:30 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.
Texas cannot even handle the B12 competition now. lol

That is actually true. Texas should be a bigger powerhouse than Alabama. But yet, They never really are?
08-08-2017 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ewglenn Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,331
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Liberty
Location:
Post: #27
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 11:11 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 09:30 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.
Texas cannot even handle the B12 competition now. lol

That is actually true. Texas should be a bigger powerhouse than Alabama. But yet, They never really are?

It all comes down to coaching. You can have all the talent in the world but they haven't had a coach to get them there. Bama is just a machine right now. I like OU and OSU to the SEC. I would prefer Texas over OSU but the cowboys wouldn't be a bad option.
08-08-2017 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,446
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 152
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #28
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 03:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

Except your math is off. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair might add 4 million together to the payouts so 56 million total to the rest of the SEC. ESPN currently pays both roughly 17 million each so if their addition takes the SEC to 50 million (which is about right) then they would be paying an additional 33 million for each. So 66 million plus 56 million equals 122 million tops.

And for that they not only get the additional high ratings games that our resident Volunteer pointed out to you but they get 23 different games that will draw a significant % of the DFW viewership. And they get two schools which in the past two decades have been consistent winners. Okie State might well take the Big 12 this year and Gundy is just coming into his prime.

So lets say DFW adds an additional 2 million per ad rates for those 23 games that 46 million. If they both continue to go to bowls that's another 10 million in ad money. And we haven't even gotten to the SEC's extra inventory of solid match ups. So on the DFW front and the bowl ad revenue you have just paid for the additional money to the SEC's member schools. Now all they have to do is earn enough in their conference and OOC matchups to the rest of the nation to cover the 66 million more that ESPN pays for the both of them. That's 14 more home games to telecast and better and increased inventory for the SECN which will also help with subscriptions regardless of the provider. I'd say the 66 million would be covered handsomely, especially with the increased number of high profile match ups.

So yeah they would pay for themselves.

And I would't play down the value of WVU to the ACC. As Notre Dame's brand fades, and it is fading significantly with each succeeding generation, that you are going to need those couch burning hillbillies to prop up your football inventory.

And if the SEC lands OU, even with OSU, we have killed any opportunity for the Big 10 to outpace us in regular TV revenue over the long term. And if the SEC lands OU then look for Texas to head to a coast, either the East or West, but they won't head to the B1G without OU or A&M.

Hey there is more than one fan of Rocky Top on here. I don't think FOX or ESPN see any value in keeping the B12 around in its current. As you like to point out JR, about 6 of the 10 schools would be more valuable elsewhere. The B12 existence is more of a political question rather than an economic one. Texas and OU might not want to give up their power, but they like money more.

What I do know is that the SEC can't stay at 14. The current set up is actually preventing the Conference from maximizing its profits due to the scarcity of some great inter divisional games such as AU-UT and AU-FL. If it is 16, add both Oklahoma schools. If the B12 finds a way to soldier on beyond 2025, add ECU.
08-09-2017 03:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,012
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #29
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
Teams that could easily be justified at $20 million are a harder pill to swallow at $50 million, especially if you need to take a little brother. The risk in a no population area may be too great for the reward.
Texas is less valuable to the SEC than it is to the B1G/ACC/PAC, and Oklahoma really has limited appeal because they don't have huge alumni numbers and lack a national fan base.
ESPN may leave some money on the table, but their advances moving forward will be more cautious.
08-09-2017 05:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 507
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #30
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-09-2017 05:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  Teams that could easily be justified at $20 million are a harder pill to swallow at $50 million, especially if you need to take a little brother. The risk in a no population area may be too great for the reward.
Texas is less valuable to the SEC than it is to the B1G/ACC/PAC, and Oklahoma really has limited appeal because they don't have huge alumni numbers and lack a national fan base.
ESPN may leave some money on the table, but their advances moving forward will be more cautious.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change their national appeal. Everyone knows Oklahoma. I'm sure they would be warmly welcomed in any conference (perhaps with a condition or two.)
08-09-2017 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.