(04-08-2022 09:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:15 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Kansas offers a population of a mere 2.95 million (the 34th "largest" U.S. state by population). The state offers very modest prep football and basketball talent. KU's football program historically has been a semi-disaster.

The Jayhawk men's basketball program is of elite blueblood status and the university offers strong academics. But there are reasons the SEC took Missouri over Kansas that go far beyond the fact that, geographically, the former makes more sense than the latter for the league.

Kansas is deserving, in many respects, of a landing an invite from either the Big Ten or the SEC. But often being "deserving" doesn't cut it in conference realignment.

Kansas also offers the Kansas City Neilson DMA in Missouri. That adds 2 million people to the 2.95 figure.

KC, St. Louis, Charlotte, DC, Cincy, NYC are all examples of media DMA's that have huge numbers in more than one State.

For a city or DMA like Charlotte, if you asked who carries it at the college level it's UNC, Clemson, NC State, South Carolina, Duke, and WF in that order.

The State of NC, plus the DMA footprint of broadcast out of the State or into a major metro puts the media population footprint at about 13 million. That's the effect of the Charlotte and Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville DMA's. Georgia has about 11 million in the same type of footprint. Ga is smaller only because there is not a major metro area broadcasting out or someone broadcasting in.

All accurate and noteworthy info. But a lot of those 2 million folks in the KC Nielsen DMA are not Kansas fans/followers — or even Kansas State fans/followers, for that matter.

And even if, say, 500,000 (a very high estimate) of that 2 million are KU fans, we would need (to be fair and consistent) to "subtract" the tens of thousands of Missouri fans who live in Kansas and near the border.

As noted, Kansas (the state) is home to Kansas State U., which offers its own major fan base. Missouri does not have a KSU equivalent and, as such, likely commands more attention in the state of Missouri than KU does in the state of Kansas.

Bottom line point: the numbers don't work well for KU.

You aren't paid for fans. You are paid per TV set. Everyone in the Kansas City DMA gets Kansas Basketball fed to them.

Unless KState and Mizzou are playing basketball at the same time the KC Chiefs are playing a football game, the sports watching tubes are getting Kansas in the Kansas City DMA.

There are dozens of hours in the week for multiple entities to be the top draw in a market when they are on television. Part of the "viewership" is the platform and the time of day.

True. But "fans" and "TV sets" often go hand-in-hand regarding this topic. In other words, a DMA could be home to 10 million TV viewers. But if none of them like sports, that does little good for the sports programs (college and/or pro) located within that DMA.

I would not be surprised if Kansas Jayhawks sports are vastly more popular to watch on TV in Kansas City, Missouri, than I realize. I don't live in K.C. and will admit I might be clueless regarding this topic. I don't study this info like some on the board.

But my gut feeling is that KU sports are not as popular in Kansas City, Missouri, as some on the board contend.

The Kansas City MSA offers five cities located in Kansas and with populations of 50,000 or more. At quick glance, the collective figure is almost 600,000. How many of those are Missouri fans? How many are KanState fans? How many are not fans of college sports? I have no idea. But we all should agree lots are not KU fans.

I simply feel some on this board — when they offer KU as a strong potential option for addition to the Big Ten or SEC — seemingly conveniently fail to note that just like Kansas City, Missouri, is home to lots of Jayhawk fans and TV viewers who like college sports (and I agree on this), so, too, is the general Kansas City, Kansas, area home to lots of Missouri Tiger fans. I simply see a bit of inconsistency.

Having said all this, I do feel KU would be a very solid addition to either the Big Ten or SEC. Outstanding hoops. And a very good school that is the main player in its state.

But as Quo notes (and I agree), Kansas is not a strong candidate for membership in either the Big Ten or the SEC. Missouri was better for the SEC than KU is for the Big Ten — and Missouri is not as strong in either football or basketball as Kansas is in hoops. But Missouri has the golden ticket and KU does not.

That should tell you something about how leagues operate/think.

First of all, even as a KU fan, I agree that the original premise is extraordinarily unlikely. KU is definitely a “partner” brand - a very good one perhaps, but still not enough to move the needle as the primary target.

The only issue with the Missouri comparison above in the context of this scenario is that they were the same thing - the SEC didn’t grab them alone, nor were they the primary target. They were the partner for what they REALLY wanted in aTm. Missouri’s location, overall population (with 2 significant metro areas shared with a neighboring state), respectable academics and balanced interest across major sports make them a good potential fit in three conferences.

To answer the question, no.

The Big Ten should have invited Syracuse and Kansas when they expanded with all those schools a decade ago.

Syracuse
Rutgers
Maryland
Penn State

Ohio State
Michigan
MSU
Indiana*

Purdue*
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin^

Minnesota^
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas

* and ^ signify permanent rivals.

Of course, we would have Jimmy B saying "where would you rather visit, NYC or Indianapolis? Hmm, let me think about that."

(04-09-2022 09:25 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:15 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Kansas also offers the Kansas City Neilson DMA in Missouri. That adds 2 million people to the 2.95 figure.

KC, St. Louis, Charlotte, DC, Cincy, NYC are all examples of media DMA's that have huge numbers in more than one State.

For a city or DMA like Charlotte, if you asked who carries it at the college level it's UNC, Clemson, NC State, South Carolina, Duke, and WF in that order.

The State of NC, plus the DMA footprint of broadcast out of the State or into a major metro puts the media population footprint at about 13 million. That's the effect of the Charlotte and Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville DMA's. Georgia has about 11 million in the same type of footprint. Ga is smaller only because there is not a major metro area broadcasting out or someone broadcasting in.

All accurate and noteworthy info. But a lot of those 2 million folks in the KC Nielsen DMA are not Kansas fans/followers — or even Kansas State fans/followers, for that matter.

And even if, say, 500,000 (a very high estimate) of that 2 million are KU fans, we would need (to be fair and consistent) to "subtract" the tens of thousands of Missouri fans who live in Kansas and near the border.

As noted, Kansas (the state) is home to Kansas State U., which offers its own major fan base. Missouri does not have a KSU equivalent and, as such, likely commands more attention in the state of Missouri than KU does in the state of Kansas.

Bottom line point: the numbers don't work well for KU.

You aren't paid for fans. You are paid per TV set. Everyone in the Kansas City DMA gets Kansas Basketball fed to them.

Unless KState and Mizzou are playing basketball at the same time the KC Chiefs are playing a football game, the sports watching tubes are getting Kansas in the Kansas City DMA.

There are dozens of hours in the week for multiple entities to be the top draw in a market when they are on television. Part of the "viewership" is the platform and the time of day.

True. But "fans" and "TV sets" often go hand-in-hand regarding this topic. In other words, a DMA could be home to 10 million TV viewers. But if none of them like sports, that does little good for the sports programs (college and/or pro) located within that DMA.

I would not be surprised if Kansas Jayhawks sports are vastly more popular to watch on TV in Kansas City, Missouri, than I realize. I don't live in K.C. and will admit I might be clueless regarding this topic. I don't study this info like some on the board.

But my gut feeling is that KU sports are not as popular in Kansas City, Missouri, as some on the board contend.

The Kansas City MSA offers five cities located in Kansas and with populations of 50,000 or more. At quick glance, the collective figure is almost 600,000. How many of those are Missouri fans? How many are KanState fans? How many are not fans of college sports? I have no idea. But we all should agree lots are not KU fans.

I simply feel some on this board — when they offer KU as a strong potential option for addition to the Big Ten or SEC — seemingly conveniently fail to note that just like Kansas City, Missouri, is home to lots of Jayhawk fans and TV viewers who like college sports (and I agree on this), so, too, is the general Kansas City, Kansas, area home to lots of Missouri Tiger fans. I simply see a bit of inconsistency.

Having said all this, I do feel KU would be a very solid addition to either the Big Ten or SEC. Outstanding hoops. And a very good school that is the main player in its state.

But as Quo notes (and I agree), Kansas is not a strong candidate for membership in either the Big Ten or the SEC. Missouri was better for the SEC than KU is for the Big Ten — and Missouri is not as strong in either football or basketball as Kansas is in hoops. But Missouri has the golden ticket and KU does not.

That should tell you something about how leagues operate/think.

First of all, even as a KU fan, I agree that the original premise is extraordinarily unlikely. KU is definitely a “partner” brand - a very good one perhaps, but still not enough to move the needle as the primary target.

The only issue with the Missouri comparison above in the context of this scenario is that they were the same thing - the SEC didn’t grab them alone, nor were they the primary target. They were the partner for what they REALLY wanted in aTm. Missouri’s location, overall population (with 2 significant metro areas shared with a neighboring state), respectable academics and balanced interest across major sports make them a good potential fit in three conferences.

That is an excellent point. Missouri had/has a "circumstantial" advantage over Kansas in terms of geography and cultural fit (related to both the SEC and Big Ten).

As I have noted in previous post, I feel Kansas would be deserving of an invite to either the Big Ten or the SEC. If the massive conference realignment shake-up JRsec predicts hits (and I feel he will be proved correct), Kansas should land in either league and will be fine.

As a long-time Cincinnati fan, I look forward to the basketball games between KU and UC once the two schools are Big 12 league mates.

From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

(04-08-2022 05:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 08:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  (snip)

What’s the chance?

IMO, very small.

Kansas just doesn't add enough value to merit a slice of their pie, IMO.

The value to the Big 10 of Kansas football is an annual Kansas/Mizzou, and biannual Kansas/OU or Kansas/Texas football game. That means the Big 10 has to not just add Kansas, but set certain parameters and expectations for performance and scheduling. Kansas is an 18th or 20th school for the B10 in my opinion, not a 15th.

Kansas still has 10 times the chance of getting into B1G than what NC State does.

(04-09-2022 02:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 08:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  (snip)

What’s the chance?

IMO, very small.

Kansas just doesn't add enough value to merit a slice of their pie, IMO.

The value to the Big 10 of Kansas football is an annual Kansas/Mizzou, and biannual Kansas/OU or Kansas/Texas football game. That means the Big 10 has to not just add Kansas, but set certain parameters and expectations for performance and scheduling. Kansas is an 18th or 20th school for the B10 in my opinion, not a 15th.

Kansas still has 10 times the chance of getting into B1G than what NC State does.

You’re being kind. NC St has nearly zero chance.

(04-09-2022 02:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

(04-09-2022 03:32 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

Who are they saying that the GoR is not enforceable? To me that’s like a message board fantasy. Would you give me a link from any reputable source?

(04-09-2022 04:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 03:32 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

Who are they saying that the GoR is not enforceable? To me that’s like a message board fantasy. Would you give me a link from any reputable source?

Yes - it’s a huuuuuuuge mistake of a lot of college sports fans in thinking that GORs are somehow rare and/or unusual and/or unenforceable. They’re quite common in the entertainment industry and, assuming that the agreements have the requisite terms, very much enforceable.

The extent to which a GOR is “breakable” is the compensation needs to be for a school to be released from its GOR restrictions. When you’re talking about schools like Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State, that’s going to be a pretty big number each year. That’s why even UT, OU and the SEC have taken every single legal pain to be on the record that they’re not joining the SEC until their Big 12 GOR obligations are completed. They might end up getting our earlier than that, but it will still take a very large financial figure to make that happen.

The question should never be whether a GOR agreement is enforceable because they almost certainly are. Instead, the question is whether switching conferences would yield so much more value that it would be worth it to pay a large figure to get out of that GOR agreement.

(04-09-2022 04:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 03:32 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

Who are they saying that the GoR is not enforceable? To me that’s like a message board fantasy. Would you give me a link from any reputable source?

You mean prohibitive. And they did when they said 10+ years.

It is not whether it’s enforceable, it’s whether it’s prohibiting the end of the ACC. You see the difference?

Anyone that claims a possible end date or the ACC before the expiration of GOR acknowledges it’s not prohibitive. We just disagree the rate of depreciation of ACC membership.

Advice- don’t listen to BIG realignment relics on here that are stuck in 2010 thinking.

(04-08-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Kansas offers a population of a mere 2.95 million (the 34th "largest" U.S. state by population). The state offers very modest prep football and basketball talent. KU's football program historically has been a semi-disaster.

The Jayhawk men's basketball program is of elite blueblood status and the university offers strong academics. But there are reasons the SEC took Missouri over Kansas that go far beyond the fact that, geographically, the former makes more sense than the latter for the league.

Kansas is deserving, in many respects, of a landing an invite from either the Big Ten or the SEC. But often being "deserving" doesn't cut it in conference realignment.

Kansas also offers the Kansas City Neilson DMA in Missouri. That adds 2 million people to the 2.95 figure.

KC, St. Louis, Charlotte, DC, Cincy, NYC are all examples of media DMA's that have huge numbers in more than one State.

For a city or DMA like Charlotte, if you asked who carries it at the college level it's UNC, Clemson, NC State, South Carolina, Duke, WF, and Charlotte in that order.

The State of NC, plus the DMA footprint of broadcast out of the State or into a major metro puts the media population footprint at about 13 million. That's the effect of the Charlotte and Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville DMA's. Georgia has about 11 million in the same type of footprint. Ga is smaller only because there is not a major metro area broadcasting out or someone broadcasting in.

Beg to differ. Columbus (Ga)/Opelika/Auburn/Phoenix City. Jacksonville, Fl just about touches Savannah, so there is another one. I think Atlanta broadcasts out to Fort Payne, AL., but I could be wrong. Not a link to Birmingham yet, but working on it.

As for who carries Atlanta, that would be Georgia, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia State. Columbus (Ga)metro (Columbus/Opelika/Auburn/Phoenix City) would be Auburn, Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Alabama. Jacksonville-Savannah would Florida, Georgia, Florida State, and Georgia Southern.

(04-09-2022 07:25 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 04:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 03:32 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

Who are they saying that the GoR is not enforceable? To me that’s like a message board fantasy. Would you give me a link from any reputable source?

You mean prohibitive. And they did when they said 10+ years.

It is not whether it’s enforceable, it’s whether it’s prohibiting the end of the ACC. You see the difference?

Anyone that claims a possible end date or the ACC before the expiration of GOR acknowledges it’s not prohibitive. We just disagree the rate of depreciation of ACC membership.

Advice- don’t listen to BIG realignment relics on here that are stuck in 2010 thinking.

Fine. So who are saying that the GoR is not prohibitive for 10 plus years? You know it’s only 2022 and the ACC GoR runs through 2036?

I don’t know whether any ACC school would announce its departure a couple of years earlier than the expiriation of the GoR, but the current GoR effectively probihits its member schools from leaving the ACC for the next 10 plus years.

(04-09-2022 09:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 07:25 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 04:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 03:32 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  From the timely published CFN article on the Big Ten expansion:

“Colorado and Kansas? Really? That would be the Big Ten’s smartest and best answer to the SEC getting Texas and Oklahoma?”

The fact that UT (and OU) chose the SEC over the BIG had probably hurted the BIG’s ego a big time. It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years.

10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

Who are they saying that the GoR is not enforceable? To me that’s like a message board fantasy. Would you give me a link from any reputable source?

You mean prohibitive. And they did when they said 10+ years.

It is not whether it’s enforceable, it’s whether it’s prohibiting the end of the ACC. You see the difference?

Anyone that claims a possible end date or the ACC before the expiration of GOR acknowledges it’s not prohibitive. We just disagree the rate of depreciation of ACC membership.

Advice- don’t listen to BIG realignment relics on here that are stuck in 2010 thinking.

Fine. So who are saying that the GoR is not prohibitive for 10 plus years? You know it’s only 2022 and the ACC GoR runs through 2036?

I don’t know whether any ACC school would announce its departure a couple of years earlier than the expiriation of the GoR, but the current GoR effectively probihits its member schools from leaving the ACC for the next 10 plus years.

Does the person that said the following know that it is 2022 with the GoR until 2036?

: “It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years”

They’re implying possible departures before end of GOR. In other words, not prohibitive. So it’s just a matter of when does the value of being in the ACC, and conversely the cost of not moving, facilitate dissolution. I was saying if it can be 10+, it can be 5+.

The cleanest way around the GOR is for there to not be enough members that want to remain making 1/2 the P2, along with others that want to secure a future that is at least at parity in pay to the ACC. Conference pride only lasts so long once it’s known you’re basically spending 9 figures to only delay the end, and for some gambling on the future.

ESPN is the sole rights holder and wants to retain brands in the SE. The brokering of schools will be rather easy. It’s simply a matter of how bloody does it need to get. Do they need to first offer Clemson and another? Do they need to also add an SEC invite to a marginal school like VT to put pressure on their top targets? These questions shouldn’t be answered until SCOTUS ruling. The rules of the marketplace need to be known before transactions occur

(04-09-2022 02:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 08:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  (snip)

What’s the chance?

IMO, very small.

Kansas just doesn't add enough value to merit a slice of their pie, IMO.

The value to the Big 10 of Kansas football is an annual Kansas/Mizzou, and biannual Kansas/OU or Kansas/Texas football game. That means the Big 10 has to not just add Kansas, but set certain parameters and expectations for performance and scheduling. Kansas is an 18th or 20th school for the B10 in my opinion, not a 15th.

Kansas still has 10 times the chance of getting into B1G than what NC State does.

Perhaps, but Kansas was poised to join the Big East when the school thought it was going to be left out.
TCU also fled to the Big East only to be rescued by Big 12 defections.

(04-09-2022 09:47 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:25 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:15 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  All accurate and noteworthy info. But a lot of those 2 million folks in the KC Nielsen DMA are not Kansas fans/followers — or even Kansas State fans/followers, for that matter.

And even if, say, 500,000 (a very high estimate) of that 2 million are KU fans, we would need (to be fair and consistent) to "subtract" the tens of thousands of Missouri fans who live in Kansas and near the border.

As noted, Kansas (the state) is home to Kansas State U., which offers its own major fan base. Missouri does not have a KSU equivalent and, as such, likely commands more attention in the state of Missouri than KU does in the state of Kansas.

Bottom line point: the numbers don't work well for KU.

You aren't paid for fans. You are paid per TV set. Everyone in the Kansas City DMA gets Kansas Basketball fed to them.

Unless KState and Mizzou are playing basketball at the same time the KC Chiefs are playing a football game, the sports watching tubes are getting Kansas in the Kansas City DMA.

There are dozens of hours in the week for multiple entities to be the top draw in a market when they are on television. Part of the "viewership" is the platform and the time of day.

True. But "fans" and "TV sets" often go hand-in-hand regarding this topic. In other words, a DMA could be home to 10 million TV viewers. But if none of them like sports, that does little good for the sports programs (college and/or pro) located within that DMA.

I would not be surprised if Kansas Jayhawks sports are vastly more popular to watch on TV in Kansas City, Missouri, than I realize. I don't live in K.C. and will admit I might be clueless regarding this topic. I don't study this info like some on the board.

But my gut feeling is that KU sports are not as popular in Kansas City, Missouri, as some on the board contend.

The Kansas City MSA offers five cities located in Kansas and with populations of 50,000 or more. At quick glance, the collective figure is almost 600,000. How many of those are Missouri fans? How many are KanState fans? How many are not fans of college sports? I have no idea. But we all should agree lots are not KU fans.

I simply feel some on this board — when they offer KU as a strong potential option for addition to the Big Ten or SEC — seemingly conveniently fail to note that just like Kansas City, Missouri, is home to lots of Jayhawk fans and TV viewers who like college sports (and I agree on this), so, too, is the general Kansas City, Kansas, area home to lots of Missouri Tiger fans. I simply see a bit of inconsistency.

Having said all this, I do feel KU would be a very solid addition to either the Big Ten or SEC. Outstanding hoops. And a very good school that is the main player in its state.

But as Quo notes (and I agree), Kansas is not a strong candidate for membership in either the Big Ten or the SEC. Missouri was better for the SEC than KU is for the Big Ten — and Missouri is not as strong in either football or basketball as Kansas is in hoops. But Missouri has the golden ticket and KU does not.

That should tell you something about how leagues operate/think.

First of all, even as a KU fan, I agree that the original premise is extraordinarily unlikely. KU is definitely a “partner” brand - a very good one perhaps, but still not enough to move the needle as the primary target.

The only issue with the Missouri comparison above in the context of this scenario is that they were the same thing - the SEC didn’t grab them alone, nor were they the primary target. They were the partner for what they REALLY wanted in aTm. Missouri’s location, overall population (with 2 significant metro areas shared with a neighboring state), respectable academics and balanced interest across major sports make them a good potential fit in three conferences.

That is an excellent point. Missouri had/has a "circumstantial" advantage over Kansas in terms of geography and cultural fit (related to both the SEC and Big Ten).

As I have noted in previous post, I feel Kansas would be deserving of an invite to either the Big Ten or the SEC. If the massive conference realignment shake-up JRsec predicts hits (and I feel he will be proved correct), Kansas should land in either league and will be fine.

As a long-time Cincinnati fan, I look forward to the basketball games between KU and UC once the two schools are Big 12 league mates.

Missouri’s geographic, academic, and cultural fit would actually work well with 3 conferences - not just the B1G and SEC, but also the Big XII were it stronger. Being in the KC area I’ve come across fans who would like any of the above. Many would have preferred to stay (well at least until the latest go-round), some would have really preferred the B1G, and some who are thrilled to be in an unambiguously football-first SEC. I’m contrast, KU fans (not surprisingly) lean very strongly B1G if a move is necessary.

I agree that seeing KU/UC games should be fun. I have no illusions about the Big XII being top tier, although I also don’t think that we’ll be the dregs by any means when it comes to actual on-field/court competition. I think it’s going to be a fun league.

(04-09-2022 10:12 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 07:25 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 04:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 03:32 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  10+ years is an odd statement.

They’re suggesting the GOR isn’t prohibitive to schools moving early.
So why wait 10 years? It’s just a matter of time before it’s realized that there’s no value left in remaining in the ACC. If schools believe it’s dead once the end of GOR (or just before), it becomes a race out the door.

NIL in combination with making half the P2, potentially pay to play (SCOTUS) will have even the most delusional ACC decision-maker looking for a way out much sooner.

This is assuming the GOR is even an issue and 12 votes are needed. The SCOTUS ruling could make things interesting in that regard

Who are they saying that the GoR is not enforceable? To me that’s like a message board fantasy. Would you give me a link from any reputable source?

You mean prohibitive. And they did when they said 10+ years.

It is not whether it’s enforceable, it’s whether it’s prohibiting the end of the ACC. You see the difference?

Anyone that claims a possible end date or the ACC before the expiration of GOR acknowledges it’s not prohibitive. We just disagree the rate of depreciation of ACC membership.

Advice- don’t listen to BIG realignment relics on here that are stuck in 2010 thinking.

Fine. So who are saying that the GoR is not prohibitive for 10 plus years? You know it’s only 2022 and the ACC GoR runs through 2036?

I don’t know whether any ACC school would announce its departure a couple of years earlier than the expiriation of the GoR, but the current GoR effectively probihits its member schools from leaving the ACC for the next 10 plus years.

Does the person that said the following know that it is 2022 with the GoR until 2036?

: “It’s not surprising that many BIG Ten fans keep talking about getting the big fish (ND, UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.) although they won’t be availabe for the next 10+ years”

They’re implying possible departures before end of GOR. In other words, not prohibitive. So it’s just a matter of when does the value of being in the ACC, and conversely the cost of not moving, facilitate dissolution. I was saying if it can be 10+, it can be 5+.

The cleanest way around the GOR is for there to not be enough members that want to remain making 1/2 the P2, along with others that want to secure a future that is at least at parity in pay to the ACC. Conference pride only lasts so long once it’s known you’re basically spending 9 figures to only delay the end, and for some gambling on the future.

ESPN is the sole rights holder and wants to retain brands in the SE.[/i] The brokering of schools will be rather easy. It’s simply a matter of how bloody does it need to get. Do they need to first offer Clemson and another? Do they need to also add an SEC invite to a marginal school like VT to put pressure on their top targets? These questions shouldn’t be answered until SCOTUS ruling. The rules of the marketplace need to be known before transactions occur

Look at the bolded statement, B12 fan too. I won't deny that the ACC is in trouble, but E$PN (it's how I have always referred to them) does not control the B1G, and therefore will hold the ACC to the GOR. Therefore, no movement unless one of two things happen: 1. the B1G discontinues their contract with FOX and goes with E$PN or (2) the ACC GOR expires.

(04-10-2022 03:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:47 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:25 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:15 PM)Statefan Wrote:  You aren't paid for fans. You are paid per TV set. Everyone in the Kansas City DMA gets Kansas Basketball fed to them.

Unless KState and Mizzou are playing basketball at the same time the KC Chiefs are playing a football game, the sports watching tubes are getting Kansas in the Kansas City DMA.

There are dozens of hours in the week for multiple entities to be the top draw in a market when they are on television. Part of the "viewership" is the platform and the time of day.

True. But "fans" and "TV sets" often go hand-in-hand regarding this topic. In other words, a DMA could be home to 10 million TV viewers. But if none of them like sports, that does little good for the sports programs (college and/or pro) located within that DMA.

I would not be surprised if Kansas Jayhawks sports are vastly more popular to watch on TV in Kansas City, Missouri, than I realize. I don't live in K.C. and will admit I might be clueless regarding this topic. I don't study this info like some on the board.

But my gut feeling is that KU sports are not as popular in Kansas City, Missouri, as some on the board contend.

The Kansas City MSA offers five cities located in Kansas and with populations of 50,000 or more. At quick glance, the collective figure is almost 600,000. How many of those are Missouri fans? How many are KanState fans? How many are not fans of college sports? I have no idea. But we all should agree lots are not KU fans.

I simply feel some on this board — when they offer KU as a strong potential option for addition to the Big Ten or SEC — seemingly conveniently fail to note that just like Kansas City, Missouri, is home to lots of Jayhawk fans and TV viewers who like college sports (and I agree on this), so, too, is the general Kansas City, Kansas, area home to lots of Missouri Tiger fans. I simply see a bit of inconsistency.

Having said all this, I do feel KU would be a very solid addition to either the Big Ten or SEC. Outstanding hoops. And a very good school that is the main player in its state.

But as Quo notes (and I agree), Kansas is not a strong candidate for membership in either the Big Ten or the SEC. Missouri was better for the SEC than KU is for the Big Ten — and Missouri is not as strong in either football or basketball as Kansas is in hoops. But Missouri has the golden ticket and KU does not.

That should tell you something about how leagues operate/think.

First of all, even as a KU fan, I agree that the original premise is extraordinarily unlikely. KU is definitely a “partner” brand - a very good one perhaps, but still not enough to move the needle as the primary target.

The only issue with the Missouri comparison above in the context of this scenario is that they were the same thing - the SEC didn’t grab them alone, nor were they the primary target. They were the partner for what they REALLY wanted in aTm. Missouri’s location, overall population (with 2 significant metro areas shared with a neighboring state), respectable academics and balanced interest across major sports make them a good potential fit in three conferences.

That is an excellent point. Missouri had/has a "circumstantial" advantage over Kansas in terms of geography and cultural fit (related to both the SEC and Big Ten).

As I have noted in previous post, I feel Kansas would be deserving of an invite to either the Big Ten or the SEC. If the massive conference realignment shake-up JRsec predicts hits (and I feel he will be proved correct), Kansas should land in either league and will be fine.

As a long-time Cincinnati fan, I look forward to the basketball games between KU and UC once the two schools are Big 12 league mates.

Missouri’s geographic, academic, and cultural fit would actually work well with 3 conferences - not just the B1G and SEC, but also the Big XII were it stronger. Being in the KC area I’ve come across fans who would like any of the above. Many would have preferred to stay (well at least until the latest go-round), some would have really preferred the B1G, and some who are thrilled to be in an unambiguously football-first SEC. I’m contrast, KU fans (not surprisingly) lean very strongly B1G if a move is necessary.

I agree that seeing KU/UC games should be fun. I have no illusions about the Big XII being top tier, although I also don’t think that we’ll be the dregs by any means when it comes to actual on-field/court competition. I think it’s going to be a fun league.

The future Big 12 should be very respectable ("sufficiently power," as I like to say) in football, outstanding in men's hoops and top-notch in baseball. And of the future 12 schools, I recall recently counting eight have medical schools. That's prestigious.

On a side note, Nashville is home to a decent number of Missouri fans (my ex-boss is one, as is the wife of one of my best friends).

(04-10-2022 06:07 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 03:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:47 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:25 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  True. But "fans" and "TV sets" often go hand-in-hand regarding this topic. In other words, a DMA could be home to 10 million TV viewers. But if none of them like sports, that does little good for the sports programs (college and/or pro) located within that DMA.

I would not be surprised if Kansas Jayhawks sports are vastly more popular to watch on TV in Kansas City, Missouri, than I realize. I don't live in K.C. and will admit I might be clueless regarding this topic. I don't study this info like some on the board.

But my gut feeling is that KU sports are not as popular in Kansas City, Missouri, as some on the board contend.

The Kansas City MSA offers five cities located in Kansas and with populations of 50,000 or more. At quick glance, the collective figure is almost 600,000. How many of those are Missouri fans? How many are KanState fans? How many are not fans of college sports? I have no idea. But we all should agree lots are not KU fans.

I simply feel some on this board — when they offer KU as a strong potential option for addition to the Big Ten or SEC — seemingly conveniently fail to note that just like Kansas City, Missouri, is home to lots of Jayhawk fans and TV viewers who like college sports (and I agree on this), so, too, is the general Kansas City, Kansas, area home to lots of Missouri Tiger fans. I simply see a bit of inconsistency.

Having said all this, I do feel KU would be a very solid addition to either the Big Ten or SEC. Outstanding hoops. And a very good school that is the main player in its state.

But as Quo notes (and I agree), Kansas is not a strong candidate for membership in either the Big Ten or the SEC. Missouri was better for the SEC than KU is for the Big Ten — and Missouri is not as strong in either football or basketball as Kansas is in hoops. But Missouri has the golden ticket and KU does not.

That should tell you something about how leagues operate/think.

First of all, even as a KU fan, I agree that the original premise is extraordinarily unlikely. KU is definitely a “partner” brand - a very good one perhaps, but still not enough to move the needle as the primary target.

The only issue with the Missouri comparison above in the context of this scenario is that they were the same thing - the SEC didn’t grab them alone, nor were they the primary target. They were the partner for what they REALLY wanted in aTm. Missouri’s location, overall population (with 2 significant metro areas shared with a neighboring state), respectable academics and balanced interest across major sports make them a good potential fit in three conferences.

That is an excellent point. Missouri had/has a "circumstantial" advantage over Kansas in terms of geography and cultural fit (related to both the SEC and Big Ten).

As I have noted in previous post, I feel Kansas would be deserving of an invite to either the Big Ten or the SEC. If the massive conference realignment shake-up JRsec predicts hits (and I feel he will be proved correct), Kansas should land in either league and will be fine.

As a long-time Cincinnati fan, I look forward to the basketball games between KU and UC once the two schools are Big 12 league mates.

Missouri’s geographic, academic, and cultural fit would actually work well with 3 conferences - not just the B1G and SEC, but also the Big XII were it stronger. Being in the KC area I’ve come across fans who would like any of the above. Many would have preferred to stay (well at least until the latest go-round), some would have really preferred the B1G, and some who are thrilled to be in an unambiguously football-first SEC. I’m contrast, KU fans (not surprisingly) lean very strongly B1G if a move is necessary.

I agree that seeing KU/UC games should be fun. I have no illusions about the Big XII being top tier, although I also don’t think that we’ll be the dregs by any means when it comes to actual on-field/court competition. I think it’s going to be a fun league.

The future Big 12 should be very respectable ("sufficiently power," as I like to say) in football, outstanding in men's hoops and top-notch in baseball. And of the future 12 schools, I recall recently counting eight have medical schools. That's prestigious.

On a side note, Nashville is home to a decent number of Missouri fans (my ex-boss is one, as is the wife of one of my best friends).

The Big 12 should be just as good as the ACC & PAC in football. Both in reputation and on the field.

And in basketball, the Big 12 is the clear #1 conference now from top-to-bottom. Even a storied program like Cincinnati will probably be in the lower half of the conference.

As a UC fan, I think the Big 12 situation for us is actually better than the Big East situation from '05-'12. Big East basketball was awesome, and the NYC coverage was great for the university, but the respect never materialized in football no matter how good the teams were on the field.

Big Ten will add any team that brings One Hundred Million Dollars Per Year in Value …..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

(04-10-2022 07:00 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Big Ten will add any team that brings One Hundred Million Dollars Per Year in Value …..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro