Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(05-10-2017 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:53 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:38 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC GOR gets in the way of Oklahoma plus a North Carolina B1G addition (or for that matter Florida State or Georgia Tech or Duke). That gap between the ending of the B12 and the ACC GOR is 8 years, the length of an entire media package, whether digital or cable or whatever those things look like in 2025.
Longer than that - the ACC grant of rights runs through June 2036.
But the point of my comment above is that, given that both are blue-chip basketball properties, the biggest difference between UNC and KU for expansion purposes is market reach. (Another difference is that UNC football, while often disappointing considering their resources, is not a dumpster fire.) The reason UNC isn't at the top of the list is the ACC GOR that runs into 2036.
Market reach is important for the conference networks, but brand-name is more important for the tier 1 media contract. Who will the average college football fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles watch? This is where Kansas football really hurts.
But, Kansas basketball is prime inventory that would add substantial value to any conference, even if men's basketball only delivers 15% of the media contract value. Basketball fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles will watch Kansas basketball, whether they are playing Texas Tech or Ole Miss or Illinois.
This gets overlooked far too often on these boards.
It is all about the Branding.
Duke is a medium size private college - but they have built a NATIONAL Brand.
Oklahoma is a football brand. Regardless of what you think of Oklahoma, Nebraska, the B1G or the Big 12, an Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, especially if it was a conference game, is a NATIONAL event. Oklahoma, by virtue of being Oklahoma, draws eyeballs, even from viewers with no ties to Oklahoma or whatever conference they are in. Same with Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc.
I'd agree with this. While I was an early adopter of the importance of large markets for conference expansion and realignment, it doesn't take away the disproportionate value of large national brands (even if they might be located in smaller markets), as well. In 2009, most people mistakenly didn't even think of the value of large markets and just wanted "What have you done for me lately?" hot names on-the-field/court. Those people weren't looking at how much conference networks were changing how revenue is earned. However, in 2017, it has almost switched around where people (at least the conference realignment observers among us) are being blinded by markets for the sake of markets to the point where they're somehow undervaluing schools like Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball. I can't say this enough: THE BIG TEN WOULD TAKE OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THE NATIONAL VALUE OF THOSE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL PROGRAMS (RESPECTIVELY). (And if the Big Ten would add them, you can surmise that any of the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC would add them.)
Beyond Oklahoma, the strength (or lack thereof) of Kansas football is completely irrelevant because it is one of maybe 4 to 6 schools where the basketball program is so prestigious and nationally-renowned that it completely overrides any other concerns. (The only others are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and maybe Indiana and UCLA.) Kansas basketball is simply a VERY special case here when it comes to conference realignment. Comparing them to even very high-level basketball programs on the next tier (e.g. Louisville, UConn, etc.) is different - even those next tier schools need some type of football competency to be attractive. In contrast, those 6 other schools that are the bluest of the blue bloods (including Kansas) that I've named can go 0-12 in football every year and it legitimately doesn't matter because they can single-handedly prop up their leagues' respective basketball schedules. Note that basketball is actually pretty important programming for conference networks because that provides the the day-to-day programming that keeps the lights on for several months per year.
Kansas may have a shot at the B10, not as certain as you on that....But for a guy from the Midwest, you sure don't get college wrestling for some reason. Kansas doesn't have wrestling unlike all 14 of the other big 10 members. Just sayin...Texans will laugh at this, but wrestling is very important in the Midwest. In the early 90's, there were more people in the stands at Iowa high school wrestling meets than butts in seats at certain SWC basketball games....Rice cough AtM cough
Imo, Kansas over UConn only if Oklahoma accompanies Kansas. Otherwise UConn has greater long-term potential.
(05-10-2017 02:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:53 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Longer than that - the ACC grant of rights runs through June 2036.
But the point of my comment above is that, given that both are blue-chip basketball properties, the biggest difference between UNC and KU for expansion purposes is market reach. (Another difference is that UNC football, while often disappointing considering their resources, is not a dumpster fire.) The reason UNC isn't at the top of the list is the ACC GOR that runs into 2036.
Market reach is important for the conference networks, but brand-name is more important for the tier 1 media contract. Who will the average college football fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles watch? This is where Kansas football really hurts.
But, Kansas basketball is prime inventory that would add substantial value to any conference, even if men's basketball only delivers 15% of the media contract value. Basketball fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles will watch Kansas basketball, whether they are playing Texas Tech or Ole Miss or Illinois.
This gets overlooked far too often on these boards.
It is all about the Branding.
Duke is a medium size private college - but they have built a NATIONAL Brand.
Oklahoma is a football brand. Regardless of what you think of Oklahoma, Nebraska, the B1G or the Big 12, an Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, especially if it was a conference game, is a NATIONAL event. Oklahoma, by virtue of being Oklahoma, draws eyeballs, even from viewers with no ties to Oklahoma or whatever conference they are in. Same with Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc.
I'd agree with this. While I was an early adopter of the importance of large markets for conference expansion and realignment, it doesn't take away the disproportionate value of large national brands (even if they might be located in smaller markets), as well. In 2009, most people mistakenly didn't even think of the value of large markets and just wanted "What have you done for me lately?" hot names on-the-field/court. Those people weren't looking at how much conference networks were changing how revenue is earned. However, in 2017, it has almost switched around where people (at least the conference realignment observers among us) are being blinded by markets for the sake of markets to the point where they're somehow undervaluing schools like Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball. I can't say this enough: THE BIG TEN WOULD TAKE OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THE NATIONAL VALUE OF THOSE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL PROGRAMS (RESPECTIVELY). (And if the Big Ten would add them, you can surmise that any of the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC would add them.)
Beyond Oklahoma, the strength (or lack thereof) of Kansas football is completely irrelevant because it is one of maybe 4 to 6 schools where the basketball program is so prestigious and nationally-renowned that it completely overrides any other concerns. (The only others are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and maybe Indiana and UCLA.) Kansas basketball is simply a VERY special case here when it comes to conference realignment. Comparing them to even very high-level basketball programs on the next tier (e.g. Louisville, UConn, etc.) is different - even those next tier schools need some type of football competency to be attractive. In contrast, those 6 other schools that are the bluest of the blue bloods (including Kansas) that I've named can go 0-12 in football every year and it legitimately doesn't matter because they can single-handedly prop up their leagues' respective basketball schedules. Note that basketball is actually pretty important programming for conference networks because that provides the the day-to-day programming that keeps the lights on for several months per year.
The conference network really set us toward the end of "market" because the issue became how many cable/sat subscribers can they deliver at the in-state price. Rather than the Nielsen markets it became the state as a market.
If we move away from a carriage fee economy to a subscription economy national brands with large and motivated fan bases become the gold standard.
Now it is going to be how many ESPN subscribers can you deliver at $45 a month? How many conference network subscribers can you deliver at $30 a month? How many seven day pass subscribers can you deliver at $20?
The answer for OU and KU is the same as the answer is for Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio State. A LOT.
If those are the right questions going forward, then the "little brothers" of OU and KU are not in a good position at all.
And if that business model lasts long enough, the likes of Ohio State, Texas, and Alabama will ask for a revenue stream that reflects their own power to attract subscriptions, rather than letting all that money flow into a pool shared by all of their conference-mates. Either they each get their own deal, or the distribution within the conference will look something like La Liga in Spain, where more than half of the TV revenue goes to two teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid) out of the 20 in the league.
(05-10-2017 02:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:53 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Longer than that - the ACC grant of rights runs through June 2036.
But the point of my comment above is that, given that both are blue-chip basketball properties, the biggest difference between UNC and KU for expansion purposes is market reach. (Another difference is that UNC football, while often disappointing considering their resources, is not a dumpster fire.) The reason UNC isn't at the top of the list is the ACC GOR that runs into 2036.
Market reach is important for the conference networks, but brand-name is more important for the tier 1 media contract. Who will the average college football fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles watch? This is where Kansas football really hurts.
But, Kansas basketball is prime inventory that would add substantial value to any conference, even if men's basketball only delivers 15% of the media contract value. Basketball fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles will watch Kansas basketball, whether they are playing Texas Tech or Ole Miss or Illinois.
This gets overlooked far too often on these boards.
It is all about the Branding.
Duke is a medium size private college - but they have built a NATIONAL Brand.
Oklahoma is a football brand. Regardless of what you think of Oklahoma, Nebraska, the B1G or the Big 12, an Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, especially if it was a conference game, is a NATIONAL event. Oklahoma, by virtue of being Oklahoma, draws eyeballs, even from viewers with no ties to Oklahoma or whatever conference they are in. Same with Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc.
I'd agree with this. While I was an early adopter of the importance of large markets for conference expansion and realignment, it doesn't take away the disproportionate value of large national brands (even if they might be located in smaller markets), as well. In 2009, most people mistakenly didn't even think of the value of large markets and just wanted "What have you done for me lately?" hot names on-the-field/court. Those people weren't looking at how much conference networks were changing how revenue is earned. However, in 2017, it has almost switched around where people (at least the conference realignment observers among us) are being blinded by markets for the sake of markets to the point where they're somehow undervaluing schools like Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball. I can't say this enough: THE BIG TEN WOULD TAKE OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THE NATIONAL VALUE OF THOSE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL PROGRAMS (RESPECTIVELY). (And if the Big Ten would add them, you can surmise that any of the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC would add them.)
Beyond Oklahoma, the strength (or lack thereof) of Kansas football is completely irrelevant because it is one of maybe 4 to 6 schools where the basketball program is so prestigious and nationally-renowned that it completely overrides any other concerns. (The only others are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and maybe Indiana and UCLA.) Kansas basketball is simply a VERY special case here when it comes to conference realignment. Comparing them to even very high-level basketball programs on the next tier (e.g. Louisville, UConn, etc.) is different - even those next tier schools need some type of football competency to be attractive. In contrast, those 6 other schools that are the bluest of the blue bloods (including Kansas) that I've named can go 0-12 in football every year and it legitimately doesn't matter because they can single-handedly prop up their leagues' respective basketball schedules. Note that basketball is actually pretty important programming for conference networks because that provides the the day-to-day programming that keeps the lights on for several months per year.
Kansas may have a shot at the B10, not as certain as you on that....But for a guy from the Midwest, you sure don't get college wrestling for some reason. Kansas doesn't have wrestling unlike all 14 of the other big 10 members. Just sayin...Texans will laugh at this, but wrestling is very important in the Midwest. In the early 90's, there were more people in the stands at Iowa high school wrestling meets than butts in seats at certain SWC basketball games....Rice cough AtM cough
If the Big Ten called and offered Kansas, with the condition they added Wrestling, you'd have Bill Self in tights before the call was over.
(05-10-2017 02:58 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]If those are the right questions going forward, then the "little brothers" of OU and KU are not in a good position at all.
And if that business model lasts long enough, the likes of Ohio State, Texas, and Alabama will ask for a revenue stream that reflects their own power to attract subscriptions, rather than letting all that money flow into a pool shared by all of their conference-mates. Either they each get their own deal, or the distribution within the conference will look something like La Liga in Spain, where more than half of the TV revenue goes to two teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid) out of the 20 in the league.
The conference as "economic unit" is a new innovation. Until the CFA collapsed and bowls began contracting for the 2nd 3rd and 11th school, the conference wasn't a notable revenue provider.
The "ace in the hole" for the "little brother" schools is the custom of who the TV rights belong to. From a legal standpoint the visitor is half the equation and their intellectual property is being used. We don't worry much about that right now because the members of a conference assign some or all of their TV rights to the conference and in non-conference play we just have a clause in the contract that assigns the TV rights to the home team as part of the game contract.
If Barcelona uh Michigan wants to keep a fat share and Indiana doesn't want to give it to them then Indiana can hold on to their own rights and choose to sell them elsewhere or as we saw back in the days of the NCAA and CFA TV deals, the occasional refusal to sell the game. Indiana might choose to just stream the game for $120 on their website. Or they might demand to be compensated for when they travel to Ann Arbor.
The big boys will get most of what they want if it breaks that way but they won't be able to command massive amounts more unless they want to start playing as an independent and that is well within the realm of the possible.
Right now if Texas wanted to play AState a single shot in Austin it would run them about $1.8 million. I suspect that if Texas offered a home and home with the TV rights to both games assigned to Texas that AState would do the deal for less than $1.8 million.
(05-10-2017 03:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 02:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:53 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]Market reach is important for the conference networks, but brand-name is more important for the tier 1 media contract. Who will the average college football fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles watch? This is where Kansas football really hurts.
But, Kansas basketball is prime inventory that would add substantial value to any conference, even if men's basketball only delivers 15% of the media contract value. Basketball fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles will watch Kansas basketball, whether they are playing Texas Tech or Ole Miss or Illinois.
This gets overlooked far too often on these boards.
It is all about the Branding.
Duke is a medium size private college - but they have built a NATIONAL Brand.
Oklahoma is a football brand. Regardless of what you think of Oklahoma, Nebraska, the B1G or the Big 12, an Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, especially if it was a conference game, is a NATIONAL event. Oklahoma, by virtue of being Oklahoma, draws eyeballs, even from viewers with no ties to Oklahoma or whatever conference they are in. Same with Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc.
I'd agree with this. While I was an early adopter of the importance of large markets for conference expansion and realignment, it doesn't take away the disproportionate value of large national brands (even if they might be located in smaller markets), as well. In 2009, most people mistakenly didn't even think of the value of large markets and just wanted "What have you done for me lately?" hot names on-the-field/court. Those people weren't looking at how much conference networks were changing how revenue is earned. However, in 2017, it has almost switched around where people (at least the conference realignment observers among us) are being blinded by markets for the sake of markets to the point where they're somehow undervaluing schools like Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball. I can't say this enough: THE BIG TEN WOULD TAKE OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THE NATIONAL VALUE OF THOSE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL PROGRAMS (RESPECTIVELY). (And if the Big Ten would add them, you can surmise that any of the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC would add them.)
Beyond Oklahoma, the strength (or lack thereof) of Kansas football is completely irrelevant because it is one of maybe 4 to 6 schools where the basketball program is so prestigious and nationally-renowned that it completely overrides any other concerns. (The only others are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and maybe Indiana and UCLA.) Kansas basketball is simply a VERY special case here when it comes to conference realignment. Comparing them to even very high-level basketball programs on the next tier (e.g. Louisville, UConn, etc.) is different - even those next tier schools need some type of football competency to be attractive. In contrast, those 6 other schools that are the bluest of the blue bloods (including Kansas) that I've named can go 0-12 in football every year and it legitimately doesn't matter because they can single-handedly prop up their leagues' respective basketball schedules. Note that basketball is actually pretty important programming for conference networks because that provides the the day-to-day programming that keeps the lights on for several months per year.
Kansas may have a shot at the B10, not as certain as you on that....But for a guy from the Midwest, you sure don't get college wrestling for some reason. Kansas doesn't have wrestling unlike all 14 of the other big 10 members. Just sayin...Texans will laugh at this, but wrestling is very important in the Midwest. In the early 90's, there were more people in the stands at Iowa high school wrestling meets than butts in seats at certain SWC basketball games....Rice cough AtM cough
If the Big Ten called and offered Kansas, with the condition they added Wrestling, you'd have Bill Self in tights before the call was over.
Hahahaha....you are probably right.
(05-10-2017 12:01 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/stor...101471576/
Quote:“We have really been on an 18- to 24-month look at expanding our league, even beyond 10 to maybe 12 or 14,” LeCrone said. “We are still on that path. That is still our strategic plan. We think that helps us improve in men’s basketball.
“We have quite a good-sized candidate list. We have a number of candidates that are interested in coming into the Horizon League. So we are in a time where we could have, I’m not suggesting the process is over, we could have a member transitioning out and we could have some members that are transitioning in."
Directly implying they could take IUPUI/IPFW this offseason, imo.
(05-10-2017 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]And then today Tramel said this:
https://www.seccountry.com/sec/oklahoma-...l-finebaum
Could it be that all of the Big 10 woofing is designed to fish an offer for the Cowboys too? Ugggggghhhhhhh, yeah.
Trammel seems to be saying OU would try to drag OSU to the P12 or SEC with them, but know they can't to the B1G.
I frankly think all three conferences would tell them the same thing. We want you but not your little brother. Take it or leave it.
(05-10-2017 08:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 12:01 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/stor...101471576/
Quote:“We have really been on an 18- to 24-month look at expanding our league, even beyond 10 to maybe 12 or 14,” LeCrone said. “We are still on that path. That is still our strategic plan. We think that helps us improve in men’s basketball.
“We have quite a good-sized candidate list. We have a number of candidates that are interested in coming into the Horizon League. So we are in a time where we could have, I’m not suggesting the process is over, we could have a member transitioning out and we could have some members that are transitioning in."
Directly implying they could take IUPUI/IPFW this offseason, imo.
(05-10-2017 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]And then today Tramel said this:
https://www.seccountry.com/sec/oklahoma-...l-finebaum
Could it be that all of the Big 10 woofing is designed to fish an offer for the Cowboys too? Ugggggghhhhhhh, yeah.
Trammel seems to be saying OU would try to drag OSU to the P12 or SEC with them, but know they can't to the B1G.
I frankly think all three conferences would tell them the same thing. We want you but not your little brother. Take it or leave it.
I see it differently. I think the OU/B1G pieces are to acclimate the OU fan base should they free themselves from OSU poltically. I think the OU&OSU/SEC pieces are to acclimate the SEC fan base should the conference (at the urging of ESPN) take both to be sure of one. Because if we take both somebody is going to have to make it worth our while and Finebaum now works for that somebody.
(05-10-2017 08:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]And then today Tramel said this:
https://www.seccountry.com/sec/oklahoma-...l-finebaum
Could it be that all of the Big 10 woofing is designed to fish an offer for the Cowboys too? Ugggggghhhhhhh, yeah.
Trammel seems to be saying OU would try to drag OSU to the P12 or SEC with them, but know they can't to the B1G.
I frankly think all three conferences would tell them the same thing. We want you but not your little brother. Take it or leave it.
I think Boren is absolutely still trying to cut a deal for OSU. The B1G and Pac want no part of OSU. The SEC would hold their nose and take OSU, if it was the only absolute way they could get OU. But, the SEC would rather take OU on its own terms, which means no OSU.
This gambit might work. Boren would love to take OU to the B1G, but he'd also like to take care of OSU if possible. Once a politician, always a politician. If he either 1) takes OU to the B1G w/UT and/or KU, or 2) takes OU to the SEC with OSU, he succeeds. He is able to retire with that as his legacy. He also makes up for previous embarrassing mistakes regarding realignment.
My prediction: Neither the B1G nor Pac invite OU. OU goes to the SEC on the SEC's terms. That means no OSU. OSU would actually fit well and perform reasonably in the SEC. The SEC would simply find more value in other options.
(05-10-2017 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 08:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 12:01 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/stor...101471576/
Quote:“We have really been on an 18- to 24-month look at expanding our league, even beyond 10 to maybe 12 or 14,” LeCrone said. “We are still on that path. That is still our strategic plan. We think that helps us improve in men’s basketball.
“We have quite a good-sized candidate list. We have a number of candidates that are interested in coming into the Horizon League. So we are in a time where we could have, I’m not suggesting the process is over, we could have a member transitioning out and we could have some members that are transitioning in."
Directly implying they could take IUPUI/IPFW this offseason, imo.
(05-10-2017 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]And then today Tramel said this:
https://www.seccountry.com/sec/oklahoma-...l-finebaum
Could it be that all of the Big 10 woofing is designed to fish an offer for the Cowboys too? Ugggggghhhhhhh, yeah.
Trammel seems to be saying OU would try to drag OSU to the P12 or SEC with them, but know they can't to the B1G.
I frankly think all three conferences would tell them the same thing. We want you but not your little brother. Take it or leave it.
I see it differently. I think the OU/B1G pieces are to acclimate the OU fan base should they free themselves from OSU poltically. I think the OU&OSU/SEC pieces are to acclimate the SEC fan base should the conference (at the urging of ESPN) take both to be sure of one. Because if we take both somebody is going to have to make it worth our while and Finebaum now works for that somebody.
That's what it boils down to. Either ESPN pays for OU-plus-little-bro or the tandem move is not happening. If TV wanted to pay enough for OU + Ok St to the Pac-12, the Pac-12 presidents would have voted yes a few years ago. Maybe the answer will be different if the conference is the SEC and it's several years later. Maybe not.
The SEC allows you to play a OOC rival at the end of the season. Hence So Car vs Clemson, Kentucky vs Louisville, Georgia vs Georgia Tech, and Florida vs Florida State are around Thanksgiving. So an SEC move would not change that for OU, provided the B12 allowed it.
The P12 is a mixed bag. The claim they own the late season, but they let USC and Stanford play Notre Dame or BYU late.
Personally I'd like to see all conferences allow late season games OOC. Let Pitt play Penn State or West Virginia (more likely) to end the year. Allow Kansas and Missouri to do the same, and ditto Utah and BYU, and Iowa and Iowa State (if these two want, they are pretty much locked in to a mid-September since before time). I think this would benefit all conferences. Most schools wont take advantage of it because they have their biggest rivals in conference scheduled late anyway.
It's a long winded way of saying if OU decides to move, the new conference should not be allowed to affect Bedlam. And were I OU this would be an absolute requirement for any deal I would sign
PAC 12 and OU is dead. I repeat dead. PAC rejected OU and OSU a year after the PAC 16 idea fell apart. PAC wouldn't take OU & OSU a n there own. OU was stunned when they got snubbed by the PAC and they have an idea like screw you guys then. Yeah, OU wanted in the PAC badly 5 years ago. No longer. If people on here understood just how incredibly insulted OU (rightly or wrongly) was after that needlessly embarrassing episode for the proud Sooners....
(05-10-2017 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 08:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 12:01 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/stor...101471576/
Quote:“We have really been on an 18- to 24-month look at expanding our league, even beyond 10 to maybe 12 or 14,” LeCrone said. “We are still on that path. That is still our strategic plan. We think that helps us improve in men’s basketball.
“We have quite a good-sized candidate list. We have a number of candidates that are interested in coming into the Horizon League. So we are in a time where we could have, I’m not suggesting the process is over, we could have a member transitioning out and we could have some members that are transitioning in."
Directly implying they could take IUPUI/IPFW this offseason, imo.
(05-10-2017 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]And then today Tramel said this:
https://www.seccountry.com/sec/oklahoma-...l-finebaum
Could it be that all of the Big 10 woofing is designed to fish an offer for the Cowboys too? Ugggggghhhhhhh, yeah.
Trammel seems to be saying OU would try to drag OSU to the P12 or SEC with them, but know they can't to the B1G.
I frankly think all three conferences would tell them the same thing. We want you but not your little brother. Take it or leave it.
I see it differently. I think the OU/B1G pieces are to acclimate the OU fan base should they free themselves from OSU poltically. I think the OU&OSU/SEC pieces are to acclimate the SEC fan base should the conference (at the urging of ESPN) take both to be sure of one. Because if we take both somebody is going to have to make it worth our while and Finebaum now works for that somebody.
I'm not a university president nor a TV executive but I would think an OU/OKST pairing would get a favorable look from the SEC. There are several schools culturally similar to OKST in the SEC
(05-10-2017 09:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 08:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 12:01 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/stor...101471576/
Quote:“We have really been on an 18- to 24-month look at expanding our league, even beyond 10 to maybe 12 or 14,” LeCrone said. “We are still on that path. That is still our strategic plan. We think that helps us improve in men’s basketball.
“We have quite a good-sized candidate list. We have a number of candidates that are interested in coming into the Horizon League. So we are in a time where we could have, I’m not suggesting the process is over, we could have a member transitioning out and we could have some members that are transitioning in."
Directly implying they could take IUPUI/IPFW this offseason, imo.
(05-10-2017 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]And then today Tramel said this:
https://www.seccountry.com/sec/oklahoma-...l-finebaum
Could it be that all of the Big 10 woofing is designed to fish an offer for the Cowboys too? Ugggggghhhhhhh, yeah.
Trammel seems to be saying OU would try to drag OSU to the P12 or SEC with them, but know they can't to the B1G.
I frankly think all three conferences would tell them the same thing. We want you but not your little brother. Take it or leave it.
I see it differently. I think the OU/B1G pieces are to acclimate the OU fan base should they free themselves from OSU poltically. I think the OU&OSU/SEC pieces are to acclimate the SEC fan base should the conference (at the urging of ESPN) take both to be sure of one. Because if we take both somebody is going to have to make it worth our while and Finebaum now works for that somebody.
I'm not a university president nor a TV executive but I would think an OU/OKST pairing would get a favorable look from the SEC. There are several schools culturally similar to OKST in the SEC
While not ideal there are other ways to make it pay. A&M/OSU annually play OOC games in DFW with other P5 opponents to increase the SEC presence there. The RRR continues regardless of where Texas ends up. And since the Cowboys are no slouch on the field they have content value of their own.
(05-10-2017 10:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 10:32 AM)AntiG Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 09:16 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote: [ -> ]The Big Ten already turned down Oklahoma in 2010.
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/confe.../27669277/
Yes, because they "approached the Big Ten as a package." The B1G would take OU by themselves, but not in a package with OSU, KSU, TTU, etc. The conference only has interest in 3 schools in the B12 - Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas (and I'm sure Rutgers would love West Virginia but that won't happen unless they completely upgrade their academics and research) - and likely are gunning for a Texas and Oklahoma combo to get to 16.
Exactly. People shouldn't mistake the unwillingness of the Big Ten (or for that matter, the SEC, Pac-12 or ACC) to take a *package* of schools where some are objectionable with the belief that ALL of those schools were objectionable. OU alone is worth a ton to every P5 league on its own. Believe me - ALL 5 P5 leagues would take OU *alone* regardless of academics or local market size because they are a massive national brand in football that can power a national TV deal and make a conference network go from a largely regional channel to a legitimate national channel. It's when OU insists on a package with others that aren't worth as much that it becomes objectionable.
Okay, so why didnt the Big Ten just counter Oklahoma and tell them forget about the package deal, you can come alone? It doesnt appear anything was stopping this unless the Big Ten didnt want them.
And what of their ties to OKST? Is this real, imaginary? OKST will never be granted admission into the Big Ten. The PAC may accept them and the SEC has stated little interest in adding 2 schools from such a sparsely populated state.
(05-09-2017 02:55 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:53 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:50 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:22 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:12 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea whether the Big Ten has a serious interest in acquiring either of those schools, but if they were more interested in UNC than KU, this would be one major reason why:
Kansas population: 2.9 million
North Carolina population: 10.1 million
Gordon Gee (Ohio State's former president) said that if they had known how reallignment would shake out, they would have added Missouri and Kansas right after adding Nebraska.
Link? Also i'm sure they are quite happy with the millions of more dollars a year Maryland and Rutgers bring to the table.
"During the meeting, Gee also said he thought it was a mistake not to include Missouri and Kansas in earlier Big Ten expansion plans. Missouri has since joined the SEC."
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-catholics
That doesn't mean the conference would have added those teams. That means Gee wanted to add those teams. Big difference. Delany had a different idea. Guess which one still has a say in the matter?
Yeah but Delanys idea had a 0.5-1% chance of working. He wasnt getting UNC, UVA, Duke to jump ship. In business, you dont swing for grand slams like that. Definitely poor decision making process there.
(05-10-2017 12:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 12:14 AM)clpp01 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote: [ -> ]Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.
They're not in the same division right now
Right now it is slightly acceptable.
It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.
When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.
East/West isn't possible either. With 14 teams that requires either the Cal schools to drop their mandate to play each other annually or for one of the northwest schools to be placed into the eastern division and neither of those would ever be approved.
At 16 while geographically it would work, in reality the mountain schools would simply veto expansion up front without a guarantee that they wouldn't be shipped off to the incoming Big-12 division.
There isn't many ways to make it work for PAC expansion.
Colorado and Utah got in and want to shut the door.
Thats why Scott never should have allowed CO and UT to vote on future expansion matters. They should have been granted full member status in all aspects but expansion. At least for 20 years, etc. They had no other avenues to go to so they would have been hard pressed to say no.
arkstfan,
You are not thinking like a P5 conference commissioner, TV exec, or college President. Very simply put, you do not add schools that do not raise your profile either athletically or academically. The biggest value of Oklahoma State is as Oklahoma's opponent in bedlam. Beyond that they are not much more an asset than say Purdue or Pitt. Not worthless by any means, just not worth a ransom. Apart from Oklahoma their value is dramatically less.
But there are other points. The SEC wants to remake itself, they have added two AAU schools, and an expansion will almost certainly mean they must add a 5th one. OU is fine, but OSU can't be the other. They also want flagships. Or as Frank the Tank puts it, only University of [State] need apply. The other problem is while OU would add Oklahoma, OSU would add nothing further, not many more TV sets (or whatever media we consider in 2025) and nothing more recruiting (a big point). The SEC (or P12 or B1G) would want a school from another State.
The only way OSU moves is as a package of 4 schools that includes Texas and Oklahoma.
As for the Hood-rich who worries about personal insult by Larry Scott to David Boren in rejecting his appeal to take OU and OSU, well, as JRsec mentioned David Boren is not likely to be around when the decision making is done. As Otto Biederman liked to say, "Nothing personal, it's just business"
(05-10-2017 02:58 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 02:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2017 01:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2017 02:53 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]Market reach is important for the conference networks, but brand-name is more important for the tier 1 media contract. Who will the average college football fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles watch? This is where Kansas football really hurts.
But, Kansas basketball is prime inventory that would add substantial value to any conference, even if men's basketball only delivers 15% of the media contract value. Basketball fans in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles will watch Kansas basketball, whether they are playing Texas Tech or Ole Miss or Illinois.
This gets overlooked far too often on these boards.
It is all about the Branding.
Duke is a medium size private college - but they have built a NATIONAL Brand.
Oklahoma is a football brand. Regardless of what you think of Oklahoma, Nebraska, the B1G or the Big 12, an Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, especially if it was a conference game, is a NATIONAL event. Oklahoma, by virtue of being Oklahoma, draws eyeballs, even from viewers with no ties to Oklahoma or whatever conference they are in. Same with Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc.
I'd agree with this. While I was an early adopter of the importance of large markets for conference expansion and realignment, it doesn't take away the disproportionate value of large national brands (even if they might be located in smaller markets), as well. In 2009, most people mistakenly didn't even think of the value of large markets and just wanted "What have you done for me lately?" hot names on-the-field/court. Those people weren't looking at how much conference networks were changing how revenue is earned. However, in 2017, it has almost switched around where people (at least the conference realignment observers among us) are being blinded by markets for the sake of markets to the point where they're somehow undervaluing schools like Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball. I can't say this enough: THE BIG TEN WOULD TAKE OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THE NATIONAL VALUE OF THOSE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL PROGRAMS (RESPECTIVELY). (And if the Big Ten would add them, you can surmise that any of the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC would add them.)
Beyond Oklahoma, the strength (or lack thereof) of Kansas football is completely irrelevant because it is one of maybe 4 to 6 schools where the basketball program is so prestigious and nationally-renowned that it completely overrides any other concerns. (The only others are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and maybe Indiana and UCLA.) Kansas basketball is simply a VERY special case here when it comes to conference realignment. Comparing them to even very high-level basketball programs on the next tier (e.g. Louisville, UConn, etc.) is different - even those next tier schools need some type of football competency to be attractive. In contrast, those 6 other schools that are the bluest of the blue bloods (including Kansas) that I've named can go 0-12 in football every year and it legitimately doesn't matter because they can single-handedly prop up their leagues' respective basketball schedules. Note that basketball is actually pretty important programming for conference networks because that provides the the day-to-day programming that keeps the lights on for several months per year.
The conference network really set us toward the end of "market" because the issue became how many cable/sat subscribers can they deliver at the in-state price. Rather than the Nielsen markets it became the state as a market.
If we move away from a carriage fee economy to a subscription economy national brands with large and motivated fan bases become the gold standard.
Now it is going to be how many ESPN subscribers can you deliver at $45 a month? How many conference network subscribers can you deliver at $30 a month? How many seven day pass subscribers can you deliver at $20?
The answer for OU and KU is the same as the answer is for Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio State. A LOT.
If those are the right questions going forward, then the "little brothers" of OU and KU are not in a good position at all.
And if that business model lasts long enough, the likes of Ohio State, Texas, and Alabama will ask for a revenue stream that reflects their own power to attract subscriptions, rather than letting all that money flow into a pool shared by all of their conference-mates. Either they each get their own deal, or the distribution within the conference will look something like La Liga in Spain, where more than half of the TV revenue goes to two teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid) out of the 20 in the league.
I think La Liga just changed the structure to equal revenue sharing to mirror the EPL.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15