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
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,865
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 694
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-11-2017 09:02 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-10-2017 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-10-2017 08:35 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 05:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Looking at the financial situation, the PAC is in worse shape. The PAC has more desirable brands for the B1G & geographically fit into the B12. A couple B12 teams could slip to the SEC & ACC to make more room in the B12 for PAC schools. BYU & possibly Boise can more easily be assembled into the B12 than the PAC. I can see the B12 outlasting the PAC & this could be why all is quite on the B12 front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to factor in that the Big 12 is currently getting overpaid. The networks threw them a lifeline to get control of the situation when schools started bailing.

The PAC does take make less money currently, but their demographics are much, much better. They also have a network that they can use as a bargaining chip with the networks.

By contrast, the vast majority of value in the Big 12 is concentrated in 2-4 schools. The networks will have little motivation to pay everyone a competitive rate if the league insists on the status quo. The networks stand to make a lot more money by moving a piece or two to other leagues. Come 2025, if UT and OU want competitive P5 money they are going to have to move. That, of course, creates instability for everyone else.


It would certainly make more sense to move 4-6 B12 schools to the PAC but what if Texas &/or Oklahoma don't want to go? I think they would be foolish to turn down a 6 team eastern division of the PAC but they aren't known for making wise decisions. Oklahoma, Texas, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State would be a solid division. The SEC could add TCU & the ACC could grab WV for 15 apiece, 3x5. UCONN would still be there for the B1G if they so desired. Texas & Oklahoma can throw a monkey wrench into this though & give the B1G a chance to pickup some PAC brands.

(Playing devils advocate.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lenville it would still be more practical just to split 8 between the SEC and ACC. That's enough to kill the conference and end the GOR.
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State / SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, West Virginia / ACC

Add Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech to Texas, T.C.U. & Texas Tech and you have a very nice Gulf Division.

Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Clemson, Wake Forest, and N.C. State form the Coastal

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, West Virginia and Virginia Tech form the Atlantic

Notre Dame remains a partial.

The SEC would have:
Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.

ESPN gets their rights and it's all over.


By ESPN merging the B12 & PAC they would be coast to coast & not restricted to just the southeast & east coast. They would take over the PACN & expand it into the Midwest.

Except the PAC has fewer actual viewers per 1000 people than any other conference. And they have the worst natural time slot. The PAC this year fell to 5th in overall revenue, and they aren't being overpaid or underpaid. I can't see ESPN raising the payout rate to the PAC to add those Big 12 schools which are overpaid. It's not impossible, just not likely.

Divvying the B12 up between the SEC & ACC creates some issues. ND for example, with ND remaining as a partial you can't have a champs only CFP. Do the SEC & ACC want to go to 18 or more? The more you have the more you have to split the CFP $ with. The more members you have the harder it is to maintain old rivalries.

I agree about N.D. and would say that one conference might be able to take 4 profitably but two conferences doing it and making it profitable is more difficult, not impossible but difficult. And as far as the CFP money is concerned it would actually go up. The Big 12 gets a cut now. You would only be dividing the pot 4 ways instead of 5 and 8 schools does not equal the present Big 12 share.

By controlling 3 power conferences you control autonomy, ESPN would get whatever they want.

The SEC could still get into DFW by adding TCU & stopping at 15. Go to conference SF's in a 3x5, autonomy majority would make this easy. SF's creates additional revenue that isn't shared.

ACC adds ND for 15 & adds SF's as well. Perhaps WV for 16.

For the record, as far as I know I was first talking about conference semis well before anyone who has ever posted on this board. I first proposed that idea to H1 in one of our discussions. It is the way to expand the playoffs and maximize the revenue, not just for television but for attendance, concessions, and merchandising for each conference school as it would hold the interest of many more fan bases deep into the season than what we have now. So no matter what form expansion takes, expanding the internal playoffs of conferences will be more productive IMO than just expanding the CFP. The networks will push for an expanded CFP because they make more from that. The conferences will make more from doing it internally. We need to resist the networks on this issue.

And while a 3 x 5 would work, it is still much easier to schedule 16.


Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, TT, Kansas & Iowa State to the PAC combined with TCU to the SEC & WV to the ACC is 8 & enough to dissolve the B12. Kansas State, Baylor, BYU & Boise to the AAC would give ESPN a strong tweener conference for marketing. They would also make a great streaming test subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-11-2017 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,761
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 318
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #42
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-11-2017 12:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 09:02 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-10-2017 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-10-2017 08:35 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You have to factor in that the Big 12 is currently getting overpaid. The networks threw them a lifeline to get control of the situation when schools started bailing.

The PAC does take make less money currently, but their demographics are much, much better. They also have a network that they can use as a bargaining chip with the networks.

By contrast, the vast majority of value in the Big 12 is concentrated in 2-4 schools. The networks will have little motivation to pay everyone a competitive rate if the league insists on the status quo. The networks stand to make a lot more money by moving a piece or two to other leagues. Come 2025, if UT and OU want competitive P5 money they are going to have to move. That, of course, creates instability for everyone else.


It would certainly make more sense to move 4-6 B12 schools to the PAC but what if Texas &/or Oklahoma don't want to go? I think they would be foolish to turn down a 6 team eastern division of the PAC but they aren't known for making wise decisions. Oklahoma, Texas, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State would be a solid division. The SEC could add TCU & the ACC could grab WV for 15 apiece, 3x5. UCONN would still be there for the B1G if they so desired. Texas & Oklahoma can throw a monkey wrench into this though & give the B1G a chance to pickup some PAC brands.

(Playing devils advocate.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lenville it would still be more practical just to split 8 between the SEC and ACC. That's enough to kill the conference and end the GOR.
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State / SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, West Virginia / ACC

Add Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech to Texas, T.C.U. & Texas Tech and you have a very nice Gulf Division.

Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Clemson, Wake Forest, and N.C. State form the Coastal

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, West Virginia and Virginia Tech form the Atlantic

Notre Dame remains a partial.

The SEC would have:
Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.

ESPN gets their rights and it's all over.


By ESPN merging the B12 & PAC they would be coast to coast & not restricted to just the southeast & east coast. They would take over the PACN & expand it into the Midwest.

Except the PAC has fewer actual viewers per 1000 people than any other conference. And they have the worst natural time slot. The PAC this year fell to 5th in overall revenue, and they aren't being overpaid or underpaid. I can't see ESPN raising the payout rate to the PAC to add those Big 12 schools which are overpaid. It's not impossible, just not likely.

(I would suspect that adding Texas & Oklahoma to the PAC would enhance their ratings & open up more time slots. Plus moving from Fox to ESPN would automatically raise their viewership numbers. Wouldn't controlling those markets also be beneficial to ESPN in selling advertising slots like they do in the east? They would control a large majority of the advertising across the country for the entire day. Priceless? You have also suggested that we are moving towards a content driven market, this PAC would have ample content. Can you imagine the ratings for USC playing at Oklahoma at 3 pm EST? Texas & Oregon? ESPN has the ability to solve the PACN distribution problem as well. Perhaps bundling the SECN, ACCN & the PACN?)

Divvying the B12 up between the SEC & ACC creates some issues. ND for example, with ND remaining as a partial you can't have a champs only CFP. Do the SEC & ACC want to go to 18 or more? The more you have the more you have to split the CFP $ with. The more members you have the harder it is to maintain old rivalries.

I agree about N.D. and would say that one conference might be able to take 4 profitably but two conferences doing it and making it profitable is more difficult, not impossible but difficult. And as far as the CFP money is concerned it would actually go up. The Big 12 gets a cut now. You would only be dividing the pot 4 ways instead of 5 and 8 schools does not equal the present Big 12 share.

By controlling 3 power conferences you control autonomy, ESPN would get whatever they want.

(I think this would be extremely valuable to ESPN & alone might be worth the elevation of the PAC financially.)

The SEC could still get into DFW by adding TCU & stopping at 15. Go to conference SF's in a 3x5, autonomy majority would make this easy. SF's creates additional revenue that isn't shared.

ACC adds ND for 15 & adds SF's as well. Perhaps WV for 16.

For the record, as far as I know I was first talking about conference semis well before anyone who has ever posted on this board. I first proposed that idea to H1 in one of our discussions. It is the way to expand the playoffs and maximize the revenue, not just for television but for attendance, concessions, and merchandising for each conference school as it would hold the interest of many more fan bases deep into the season than what we have now. So no matter what form expansion takes, expanding the internal playoffs of conferences will be more productive IMO than just expanding the CFP. The networks will push for an expanded CFP because they make more from that. The conferences will make more from doing it internally. We need to resist the networks on this issue.

(I actually like the idea of the conference SF's. Kudos to you for the idea. It allows an expansion of the CFP without an actual expansion of the CFP. It also allows the conferences to keep the extra revenue created by the SF's instead of sharing it with everyone. I suspect that this would be hugely profitable for the SEC. We agree here.)

And while a 3 x 5 would work, it is still much easier to schedule 16.


(I wouldn't mind dropping divisions all together. This alone would solve some scheduling issues. If the SEC wants 16 that's great as well. In this scenario I believe it would be TCU & WV. The ACC would get ND for 15 & then Cincinnati if 16.)

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, TT, Kansas & Iowa State to the PAC combined with TCU to the SEC & WV to the ACC is 8 & enough to dissolve the B12. Kansas State, Baylor, BYU & Boise to the AAC would give ESPN a strong tweener conference for marketing. They would also make a great streaming test subject.

(My response in parentheses).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-12-2017 07:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,772
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 515
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #43
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
ESPN already controls all time slots that matter without the Pac-12. I'm not sure they deliver the West Coast like the other P5s deliver their regions.

I do think before expanding to 18 that the ACC and SEC need to be sure of conference championship rule changes...
08-12-2017 09:45 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 501
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #44
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-12-2017 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ESPN already controls all time slots that matter without the Pac-12. I'm not sure they deliver the West Coast like the other P5s deliver their regions.

I do think before expanding to 18 that the ACC and SEC need to be sure of conference championship rule changes...

I would hope the conferences were smart enough. I'm an advocate of no divisions. At 18, each school could have 3 permanent rivals and play 7 one year and 7 the other OR play 5 permanent rivals and play a different 3 every 4 years
08-12-2017 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,865
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 694
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-12-2017 10:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-12-2017 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ESPN already controls all time slots that matter without the Pac-12. I'm not sure they deliver the West Coast like the other P5s deliver their regions.

I do think before expanding to 18 that the ACC and SEC need to be sure of conference championship rule changes...

I would hope the conferences were smart enough. I'm an advocate of no divisions. At 18, each school could have 3 permanent rivals and play 7 one year and 7 the other OR play 5 permanent rivals and play a different 3 every 4 years

To both of you: I agree but I sincerely believe that all that need happen is already being discussed. 1. The G5 is discussing the playoff concept. A few more years of increased revenue disparity and they will go this route. When they do we already have what we need to implement our changes without a procedural vote. We, if you remember, have been granted autonomy. If the G5 essentially isolates us by having their own playoff then it becomes simply our prerogative as to how to do the same for ourselves. Conference composition and alignment should fall under autonomy. This will be agreed upon by all P conferences unanimously if we move to an all champs playoff format. With an all champs format no conference gains an advantage over another by how they select a champion since everyone's champion gets into the CFP. Therefore no advantage exists. When the ACC wanted a rule change a year ago going divisionless could easily be seen as a potential advantage with regard to scheduling in such a manner that a second entrant might become more viable. That's why Delany and then Slive voted against it. If we have 4 conferences in the P structure and everyone's champ gets in and there is no 2nd team from one conference that could get in, then nobody will care how you schedule or select your champion.

So a G5 playoff means they aren't expecting to get into ours. And moving to 4 P conferences with a champs only playoff eliminates any objections to each conference having autonomy in selecting their own method for determining a champion.
08-12-2017 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 472
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #46
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-12-2017 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-12-2017 10:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-12-2017 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ESPN already controls all time slots that matter without the Pac-12. I'm not sure they deliver the West Coast like the other P5s deliver their regions.

I do think before expanding to 18 that the ACC and SEC need to be sure of conference championship rule changes...

I would hope the conferences were smart enough. I'm an advocate of no divisions. At 18, each school could have 3 permanent rivals and play 7 one year and 7 the other OR play 5 permanent rivals and play a different 3 every 4 years

To both of you: I agree but I sincerely believe that all that need happen is already being discussed. 1. The G5 is discussing the playoff concept. A few more years of increased revenue disparity and they will go this route. When they do we already have what we need to implement our changes without a procedural vote. We, if you remember, have been granted autonomy. If the G5 essentially isolates us by having their own playoff then it becomes simply our prerogative as to how to do the same for ourselves. Conference composition and alignment should fall under autonomy. This will be agreed upon by all P conferences unanimously if we move to an all champs playoff format. With an all champs format no conference gains an advantage over another by how they select a champion since everyone's champion gets into the CFP. Therefore no advantage exists. When the ACC wanted a rule change a year ago going divisionless could easily be seen as a potential advantage with regard to scheduling in such a manner that a second entrant might become more viable. That's why Delany and then Slive voted against it. If we have 4 conferences in the P structure and everyone's champ gets in and there is no 2nd team from one conference that could get in, then nobody will care how you schedule or select your champion.

So a G5 playoff means they aren't expecting to get into ours. And moving to 4 P conferences with a champs only playoff eliminates any objections to each conference having autonomy in selecting their own method for determining a champion.

A weaker SEC in the past few years actually helps with a champs only format. When you're on top, you have no need to push for a champs only format because you may get two in. Now, we may not have that to worry about, plus more data from the CFP may show that getting two in is a longshot anyway. Or, it may just happen naturally with the Sugar/Rose Bowl.
08-12-2017 01:39 PM
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.