CSNbbs

Lawmakers push Houston for Big 12

Associated Press
HOUSTON -- About two dozen Texas lawmakers are supporting efforts to get the University of Houston admitted to the Big 12 Conference.

State Reps. Garnet Coleman and Bill Callegari, both from the Houston area, co-wrote a letter Thursday asking Big 12 officials to consider adding the university to the conference.

"UH is the third largest university in Texas, and is on track to rank among the top research universities in this state," the letter says. "Despite UH's local and statewide prominence, the university does not belong to a strong BCS conference such as the Big 12. The Cougars, the city of Houston, and the state of Texas deserve better."

Houston is a member of Conference USA and was a member of the Southwest Conference until 1995.

Conference USA officials did not immediately respond Thursday to messages left by The Associated Press. Big 12 officials said commissioner Dan Beebe was not available to comment.

The Big 12 is set to lose two schools after Nebraska committed to the Big Ten and Colorado to the Pac-10. Beebe has said the league has no plans to add any teams from within its five-state area, which includes Texas.

Coleman said he is not deterred by Beebe's stance.

"I don't quit," Coleman told the Houston Chronicle. "I don't start something I'm not going to finish. If I didn't think this was a worthy endeavor, I wouldn't have started it. This is the beginning of this effort, not the end."

Earlier this week, Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder said he believed that any new member of the Big 12 would have to bring $15 million in value.

"I don't really think right now that there's anybody that brings that kind of value, and then it would complicate matters if you had 11 schools," he said. "I think 10's a good number. I really believe that it gives our conference champion a better chance to advance to the BCS Championship Game."


Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press
article

not having a championship game means they're leaving money on the table. Greed is a major driving force in the BC$ AQ conferences and that stance won't last long.

(06-18-2010 09:06 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote: [ -> ]not having a championship game means they're leaving money on the table. Greed is a major driving force in the BC$ AQ conferences and that stance won't last long.

Right, and even if these games don't make a lot of money they bring the media to town and it will showcase JJ's billion dollar stadium.

Also, the strategic vision of the AQ's seems to have these 12 team conferences and championship games woven through them. The ACC and SEC already have them, the Big 10 and PAC 10 seem to be moving in that direction so it only makes sense for the Big XII to get back there.

(06-18-2010 09:06 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote: [ -> ]not having a championship game means they're leaving money on the table. Greed is a major driving force in the BC$ AQ conferences and that stance won't last long.

The Big XII championship game wasn't a moneymaker along the lines of the SEC.

Plus, the coaches (read: Mack Brown) hated it.

Not having a championship game makes it easier to get to the NC game.

(06-18-2010 09:06 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote: [ -> ]not having a championship game means they're leaving money on the table. Greed is a major driving force in the BC$ AQ conferences and that stance won't last long.

Sports Business Journal says their best income for the title game was $12 million.

To add two schools you need someone worth a combined $34 million. You get $12 million for the title game so that is $22 million they have to bring or $11 million each. By contrast that is double what South Florida received from the Big East and 4X what Houston gets in CUSA. Within the business the belief was that not splitting with Colorado nearly offset what the league as a whole lost with Nebraska.

ESPN was willing to freeze the contract and not renegotiate when the two left, that doesn't mean they are going to amp up the money for new teams unless they are blockbusters. Arkansas brings more value than Colorado but less than Nebraska. Houston and TCU certainly don't bring those numbers to the table and I really doubt Louisville and Cincinnati do.

The Big XII is most likely not leaving money on the table by not having a title game, they are netting MORE by not having one.

ESPN Blog - Hope Houston isn't holding their breath
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...its-breath

(06-18-2010 09:23 AM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-18-2010 09:06 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote: [ -> ]not having a championship game means they're leaving money on the table. Greed is a major driving force in the BC$ AQ conferences and that stance won't last long.

Right, and even if these games don't make a lot of money they bring the media to town and it will showcase JJ's billion dollar stadium.

Also, the strategic vision of the AQ's seems to have these 12 team conferences and championship games woven through them. The ACC and SEC already have them, the Big 10 and PAC 10 seem to be moving in that direction so it only makes sense for the Big XII to get back there.

The strategic vision isn't 12 team leagues and championship games. The vision is for maximum revenue per team, title games are merely a tool to use when appropriate. There is no serious Big East talk of a title game because they can't do it and make more per team.

(06-18-2010 09:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]The strategic vision isn't 12 team leagues and championship games. The vision is for maximum revenue per team, title games are merely a tool to use when appropriate. There is no serious Big East talk of a title game because they can't do it and make more per team.

So how does the PAC10 adding Utah and Colorado agree with what you just said? Are they going to add a title game? Will the Big 10 + 2 add a championship game? I think they probably will.

You know that the Big East is nobodies model on how to shape a conference; right?

Pac-10 believes that they are at the point where the 12 team model provides the greatest per team revenue. There is nothing magic about 12 and title game despite what hundreds of hack writers want to tell you.

Considering the Big East maintained BCS status and increased revenue per team in the wake of losing a then nationally relevant Miami, Va.Tech, and a major market in Boston, I wouldn't be so down on them.

They don't have the resources to build a mansion but they stared becoming CUSA or MWC in the face and came out stronger.

(06-18-2010 12:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Pac-10 believes that they are at the point where the 12 team model provides the greatest per team revenue. There is nothing magic about 12 and title game despite what hundreds of hack writers want to tell you.

Considering the Big East maintained BCS status and increased revenue per team in the wake of losing a then nationally relevant Miami, Va.Tech, and a major market in Boston, I wouldn't be so down on them.

They don't have the resources to build a mansion but they stared becoming CUSA or MWC in the face and came out stronger.

So, in your opinion, do the PAC and Big 10+2 break into two divisions and play a title game once the new schools are full members? If your answer is yes, then 4 AQ's would be playing title games and I would venture to guees that the Big XII - 2 would not want to fall any further behind their peers.

Pac-10 doesn't have a choice. They hosed themselves jumping on Colorado to try to block Baylor as part of Texas politics before they had Texas signed sealed and delivered. They have to add a title game to recover enough revenue to keep the expansion from being a bust.

Big XII doesn't have that problem. They can make more money at 10.

The only way they are concerned about where they are vs. their peers is in dollars earned. The Pac-10 deal by all accounts was based on shakey projections and would take a few years to reach what Texas will get next year with Colorado and Nebraska not sharing.

None of the parties making decisions gives a damn whether they keep pace with a title game, they just want to align in such a way that they make a lot of money.

If they crunched the numbers and found that adding Cincinnati and Louisville or BYU and TCU would produce more income than a 10 team Big XII they'll be all over it proclaiming that it is essential that their champion be tested with a title game before the bowls.

It's dump truck of manure. All about the dollars.

So the PAC = yes; what about the Big 10?

Of course Big 10 adds one. How hard is maximum revenue to grasp? They've got the tools to go play a title game because they added one of the most valuable programs in the nation taking them to 12. Not grabbing another $13-$15 million on top of that is silly.

BUT THE BIG XII AT THIS POINT IS NOT GOING TO ADD TEAMS TO HAVE A TITLE GAME. THEY WILL ADD TEAMS IF THE TOTAL PICTURE DELIVERS MORE MONEY PER SCHOOL.

(06-18-2010 01:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Of course Big 10 adds one. How hard is maximum revenue to grasp? They've got the tools to go play a title game because they added one of the most valuable programs in the nation taking them to 12. Not grabbing another $13-$15 million on top of that is silly.

BUT THE BIG XII AT THIS POINT IS NOT GOING TO ADD TEAMS TO HAVE A TITLE GAME. THEY WILL ADD TEAMS IF THE TOTAL PICTURE DELIVERS MORE MONEY PER SCHOOL.

Thank You.

I disagree about the overall picture of Utah and Colorado being a failure. They are not the home run that the 6 were but still nice grabs in nice markets. Boise St. is no market gold but they are a great team that adds to a conf. same can be said for Utah. Baylor was NEVER on the table, it was a spin job by orangebloods.

The Big 12 per school money is a projection right? Not official? I know that the ESPN deal ends in Dec 2016, so in the summer of 2016 we could have the same sh*t happen again threat of UT/OU/OSU/TT to the P12 and A&M to SEC. The next time I bet they'd have to bring in a couple of schools to generate a better deal. Also if the Longhorn net is a success Texas could go Indy, Don't know where the other sports would go though.

Right now nothings gonna happen but UT will eventually do what the state legislature tells it to do. That's the way things get done in this state. It's the way the B12 was formed, and it will be the way it get's revised. Now UH has the numbers in the state house of reps.

(06-18-2010 09:40 PM)fireant Wrote: [ -> ]Right now nothings gonna happen but UT will eventually do what the state legislature tells it to do. That's the way things get done in this state. It's the way the B12 was formed, and it will be the way it get's revised. Now UH has the numbers in the state house of reps.

It has been written there are 24 members of the State Legislature pushing for UH. There are 150 members of the legislature a substantial number of which are UT alums. 24 is not a persuasive number.

It was the governor not the legislature who told UT to take Baylor with them to the Big 12 and the current governor won't do that for UH. In other matters UT is very good at getting the legislature to tell UT to do what UT wants to do.

As ArkStateFan has pointed out the money advantages of having the ten member conference. UH would not bring so much to the table that it would be economically advantages to bring them in as the 11th member. The UT alums in the legislature won't force UT to take a reduction in income and 24 reps won't overcome that balance.

Big XII/10 conf commissioner said Sat the Big 12/10 is not interested in expanding within the conference footprint. This is read to mean no UH, no TCU and probably no Arkansas (though that is a moot point, Ark has no interest).