(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC

No doubt UT would ask for either a larger share of conference revenue or the ability to keep LHN and some revenue that would otherwise be shared for themselves. They have the leverage to ask for that, and whatever you think of them, they're entitled to put their own interests first just like any other school would.

And, it's fair to question whether it's really "better" to prioritize giving an equal share to programs like Purdue or Washington State that don't add as much to the conference's media value, instead of bringing a huge earner like Texas into the fold by giving them a share proportionate to the media value they bring.

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mandel believes the Big 12 will have to become mathematically correct again. But also that it will disintegrate in about 10 years with its top programs joining a supersized Pac.

Those two ideas might be at cross purposes. Adding more schools to the Big 12 might make it more complicated for UT and others to leave the conference in the near future.

Also, even though a Pac including UT is a stronger competitor in the conference money race than either the Pac-12 or Big 12 will ever be, it might never happen because egos and politics are also part of the process. Events don't automatically flow straight in the direction of the most money. The movement is often a zig-zag or meander in that direction.

Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC and thus has to "subvert" the LHN for the sake of the P12N, BTN or SECN.

That's just not right.

You sound like a socialist! It isn't right if they earn it? Maybe we should expand that. It isn't right that the Big 10 gets all that money from the BTN. It should be shared equally with all the conferences.

Sorry, there's nothing more hypocritical than a Big 10 fan accusing anybody else of unwarranted greed.

(01-20-2016 05:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:55 PM)YNot Wrote:  Most of the Big 12 and pretty much all of the ACC schools want and would benefit from conference networks.

So, create a new Big 12/ACC network (the BIG SPORTS network). Markets from Boston to Raleigh to Miami to Dallas to Kansas City. Tons of inventory to make it more attractive and a broader reach than the B1G, SEC, and PAC networks.

No realignment needed.

But, if you want some realignment, take it a step or two further....spin off a new NCAA conference so that you end up with three 8-team FBS conferences and two major independents that are part of the BIG SPORTS Network.

Each of the three conferences plays a 7-game round-robin schedule and holds a conference championship game. The BIG SPORTS Network members also play a bunch of cross-conference OOC games (including annual rivalry games like UNC-NC State and UVA-Virginia Tech, and including games against the two independents (who agree to play 6 BIG SPORTS Network opponents per season):

ACC
North Carolina
Duke
Virginia
Georgia Tech
Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College
*UConn

(NEW) EAST COAST CONFERENCE
Florida St.
Clemson
Louisville
Miami
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
WVU

BIG 12
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
Kansas
Kansas St.
Iowa St.

INDEPENDENTS:
Notre Dame, Texas

The conferences also play each other often in Olympic sports, with Texas being an Olympic sports member of the Big 12 and Notre Dame an Olympic sports member of the ACC.

In men's basketball, each conference plays a full H-H round robin and between 6 and 8 cross-conference games as part of the BIG SPORTS Network.

interesting idea

(01-20-2016 04:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Funny how the Big 12 gets an NCAA rule passed that was explicitly crafted by it to AVOID having to expand, and yet since then, all these writers have come out of the woodwork to say that expansion is inevitable?

I mean, I get quoting Boren. OU's position on expansion is obviously important, but this goes beyond this.

I sometimes think sportswriters HOPE expansion happens, it gives them something to write about.

This. Its definitely the sort of thing they want. It gives them increased relevance and exposure and thus makes them much more valuable.

(01-21-2016 09:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mandel believes the Big 12 will have to become mathematically correct again. But also that it will disintegrate in about 10 years with its top programs joining a supersized Pac.

Those two ideas might be at cross purposes. Adding more schools to the Big 12 might make it more complicated for UT and others to leave the conference in the near future.

Also, even though a Pac including UT is a stronger competitor in the conference money race than either the Pac-12 or Big 12 will ever be, it might never happen because egos and politics are also part of the process. Events don't automatically flow straight in the direction of the most money. The movement is often a zig-zag or meander in that direction.

Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC and thus has to "subvert" the LHN for the sake of the P12N, BTN or SECN.

That's just not right.

You sound like a socialist! It isn't right if they earn it? Maybe we should expand that. It isn't right that the Big 10 gets all that money from the BTN. It should be shared equally with all the conferences.

Sorry, there's nothing more hypocritical than a Big 10 fan accusing anybody else of unwarranted greed.

Thats really funny you should say that. How did the University of Texas come to be? Was it government funds used for the greater good of Texas residents?

Also I love when people say that like it's some bad thing. Then they usually go on to support farm subsidies and attend land grant universities.

(01-21-2016 01:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC

No doubt UT would ask for either a larger share of conference revenue or the ability to keep LHN and some revenue that would otherwise be shared for themselves. They have the leverage to ask for that, and whatever you think of them, they're entitled to put their own interests first just like any other school would.

And, it's fair to question whether it's really "better" to prioritize giving an equal share to programs like Purdue or Washington State that don't add as much to the conference's media value, instead of bringing a huge earner like Texas into the fold by giving them a share proportionate to the media value they bring.

Absolutely not. If that's how the PAC wants to play it, then they're all yours!

If you want to be in a conference then it's a conference of equals. No other way to play it, if you want the conference to be stable.

But I'm warning you: while you might be able to spin it as "a justified pay-off for a big earner", they'll ruin your conference just like they ruined the SWC and now the XII.

No thanks and twice on Sunday.

(01-21-2016 09:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mandel believes the Big 12 will have to become mathematically correct again. But also that it will disintegrate in about 10 years with its top programs joining a supersized Pac.

Those two ideas might be at cross purposes. Adding more schools to the Big 12 might make it more complicated for UT and others to leave the conference in the near future.

Also, even though a Pac including UT is a stronger competitor in the conference money race than either the Pac-12 or Big 12 will ever be, it might never happen because egos and politics are also part of the process. Events don't automatically flow straight in the direction of the most money. The movement is often a zig-zag or meander in that direction.

Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC and thus has to "subvert" the LHN for the sake of the P12N, BTN or SECN.

That's just not right.

You sound like a socialist! It isn't right if they earn it? Maybe we should expand that. It isn't right that the Big 10 gets all that money from the BTN. It should be shared equally with all the conferences.

Sorry, there's nothing more hypocritical than a Big 10 fan accusing anybody else of unwarranted greed.

Please don't try to bring politics into it.

This is bot a forum for politics discussion.

(01-21-2016 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC

No doubt UT would ask for either a larger share of conference revenue or the ability to keep LHN and some revenue that would otherwise be shared for themselves. They have the leverage to ask for that, and whatever you think of them, they're entitled to put their own interests first just like any other school would.

And, it's fair to question whether it's really "better" to prioritize giving an equal share to programs like Purdue or Washington State that don't add as much to the conference's media value, instead of bringing a huge earner like Texas into the fold by giving them a share proportionate to the media value they bring.

Absolutely not. If that's how the PAC wants to play it, then they're all yours!

If you want to be in a conference then it's a conference of equals. No other way to play it.

But I'm warning you: while you might be able to spin it as "a justified pay-off for a bog earner", they'll ruin your conference just like they ruined the SWC and now the XII.

No thanks and twice on Sunday.

I'm with you. Texas is a conference virus. It starts out as a healthy conference then texas enters and it slowly starts to die. Pieces start to fall off then just before it dies Texas escapes to find another host to infect.

(01-21-2016 09:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mandel believes the Big 12 will have to become mathematically correct again. But also that it will disintegrate in about 10 years with its top programs joining a supersized Pac.

Those two ideas might be at cross purposes. Adding more schools to the Big 12 might make it more complicated for UT and others to leave the conference in the near future.

Also, even though a Pac including UT is a stronger competitor in the conference money race than either the Pac-12 or Big 12 will ever be, it might never happen because egos and politics are also part of the process. Events don't automatically flow straight in the direction of the most money. The movement is often a zig-zag or meander in that direction.

Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC and thus has to "subvert" the LHN for the sake of the P12N, BTN or SECN.

That's just not right.

You sound like a socialist! It isn't right if they earn it? Maybe we should expand that. It isn't right that the Big 10 gets all that money from the BTN. It should be shared equally with all the conferences.

Sorry, there's nothing more hypocritical than a Big 10 fan accusing anybody else of unwarranted greed.

I think you're severely misunderstand the position of many people here. In the Big 12, Texas, Oklahoma and when it comes to basketball Kansas are the main revenue generators in the conference media contracts. In the Big Ten, for example's sake, Texas wouldn't be 1 of 2 (or 2.5) major drivers of the national value, but rather 1 of 5 or 6 (maybe 6.5 if we count Indiana in the same way Kansas counts for the Big 12) major revenue drivers. So even if Texas is the single largest revenue driver in college sports, in a conference like the Big Ten there are others in that same high casual fan interest echelon with them in Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, call it a split share between Michigan State and Wisconsin and perhaps Indiana in basketball. So do they deserve more revenue than the rest of the conference in that situation if the rest of the conference has always equally shared media and post-season revenue? I'd say no way. They're no longer the biggest fish in one of the smaller (P5) ponds but rather a big fish in a big pond. The SEC would work the same way as would the Pac-12 to a lesser extent.

(01-21-2016 10:33 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC

No doubt UT would ask for either a larger share of conference revenue or the ability to keep LHN and some revenue that would otherwise be shared for themselves. They have the leverage to ask for that, and whatever you think of them, they're entitled to put their own interests first just like any other school would.

And, it's fair to question whether it's really "better" to prioritize giving an equal share to programs like Purdue or Washington State that don't add as much to the conference's media value, instead of bringing a huge earner like Texas into the fold by giving them a share proportionate to the media value they bring.

Absolutely not. If that's how the PAC wants to play it, then they're all yours!

If you want to be in a conference then it's a conference of equals. No other way to play it, if you want the conference to be stable.

But I'm warning you: while you might be able to spin it as "a justified pay-off for a big earner", they'll ruin your conference just like they ruined the SWC and now the XII.

No thanks and twice on Sunday.

I'm with you. Texas is a conference virus. It starts out as a healthy conference then texas enters and it slowly starts to die. Pieces start to fall off then just before it dies Texas escapes to find another host to infect.

That's a good way to put it!

They need to be independent.

(01-21-2016 10:36 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 09:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mandel believes the Big 12 will have to become mathematically correct again. But also that it will disintegrate in about 10 years with its top programs joining a supersized Pac.

Those two ideas might be at cross purposes. Adding more schools to the Big 12 might make it more complicated for UT and others to leave the conference in the near future.

Also, even though a Pac including UT is a stronger competitor in the conference money race than either the Pac-12 or Big 12 will ever be, it might never happen because egos and politics are also part of the process. Events don't automatically flow straight in the direction of the most money. The movement is often a zig-zag or meander in that direction.

Plus I will continue to contend, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that Texas will demand an unequal share of the revenue if it joins the PAC, B1G or SEC and thus has to "subvert" the LHN for the sake of the P12N, BTN or SECN.

That's just not right.

You sound like a socialist! It isn't right if they earn it? Maybe we should expand that. It isn't right that the Big 10 gets all that money from the BTN. It should be shared equally with all the conferences.

Sorry, there's nothing more hypocritical than a Big 10 fan accusing anybody else of unwarranted greed.

I think you're severely misunderstand the position of many people here. In the Big 12, Texas, Oklahoma and when it comes to basketball Kansas are the main revenue generators in the conference media contracts. In the Big Ten, for example's sake, Texas wouldn't be 1 of 2 (or 2.5) major drivers of the national value, but rather 1 of 5 or 6 (maybe 6.5 if we count Indiana in the same way Kansas counts for the Big 12) major revenue drivers. So even if Texas is the single largest revenue driver in college sports, in a conference like the Big Ten there are others in that same high casual fan interest echelon with them in Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, call it a split share between Michigan State and Wisconsin and perhaps Indiana in basketball. So do they deserve more revenue than the rest of the conference in that situation if the rest of the conference has always equally shared media and post-season revenue? I'd say no way. They're no longer the biggest fish in one of the smaller (P5) ponds but rather a big fish in a big pond. The SEC would work the same way as would the Pac-12 to a lesser extent.

I think you vastly overestimate the drawing power of Texas. I think there are plenty of people in this country that don't like that state and what it stands for and tries to be. And therefore, will not watch Texas football if they have a choice.

Texas and the LHN make their revenue off of Texas alumni and Texans.

I think its crazy the big 12 doesn't offer BYU a spot to get back to 11-12. IF the align the divisions with this setup travel is no big deal compared to other additions:

OU, OK state, KU, K state, Io State, BYU

let texas pick whoever they want for spot 12. Anybody from houston, cincy or uconn work to go with the 4 texas school's and wvu in a division.

What are the reasons to expand?

Money? Obviously this is a big one, but if only minimal to modest increases, prob not a big factor.

If there isn't a pot of gold, what are other reasons?

Power/ influence? I don't think any league is going to threaten the Big 10 and SEC in terms of power, no matter what they do.

Postseason positioning? I think having more teams is probably a slight net positive, but not much. Probably not a reason to expand on its own.

Perception? This is the big one in Boren's mind and I do think a valid reason. By being smaller/ different the league appears weaker. It's a valid reason to expand, I think. And expansion assuages OU and Boren's concerns and provides stability giving the appearance that the conference isn't totally run by UT.

But...

What are the reasons not to expand?

Money? I think there is a real question that the per team revenue could go down, especially if there isn't a conference network pot of gold. If there is a revenue gradient toward the SEC and Big 10, it could push the big fish out of the league quicker.

Flexibility? Does expanding limit options down the road, especially scenarios where the ACC gets raided.

Loss of center of balance? The round robin, 1-35 centric, historical rivals focused model is a stabilizing force right now. If the league spreads to 3 time zones or far flung divisions at the expense of traditional rivalries is that a destabilizing force, especially if money isn't significantly better? I wonder about that.

I think the key is money. And the corollary to that key is the conference network. A profitable conference network model pushes the pros to expansion. If impossible or not very profitable, I don't see how expansion happens. And either way I don't think as long as there is a revenue/power gradient to the SEC/Big 10 the league will ever be "stable".

Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

(01-21-2016 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Money is going to be an important factor no matter what.

The Big XII can add 2 members without any reduction in revenue shares. The benefits would include bridging the WVU footprint gap, the addition of TV markets (for a future conference network) and recruiting territory , improving the chances for long-term survival as a conference and actually having 12 schools.

The best way to check the big 10/sec is to make OU happy in the big 12. To delay expansion in the big 12 because texas thinks they might be able to pull acc school's is pretty crazy, see the nd to the big 12 talks. To let OU simmer only opens the door to OU going to the either the big 10/sec which ko's the big 12. I think you can give OU 2 out of their 3 demands real quick. LHN is a problem.

big 12

north: OU, Ok state, KU, K state, Io State, BYU
south: Texas, Texas tech, tcu, baylor, wvu, cincy or uconn

football format 5-2-1
hoop format 10-6
title game in dallas or san A
hoop tourney in KC

(01-21-2016 11:52 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Money is going to be an important factor no matter what.

The Big XII can add 2 members without any reduction in revenue shares. The benefits would include bridging the WVU gap, the addition of TV markets and recruiting territory (for a future conference network), improving the chances for long-term survival as a conference and actually having 12 schools.

There are definitely benefits, but what are the negatives and do they outweigh the benefits?

That is the analysis the conference leaders are going through. They aren't just looking at the positives. And the details of the money are important. Simply saying "no reduction" ignores the complexity of the revenue numbers. I'd want to know exactly what kind of revenue reduction or increase it would be, even if it is 25 cents.

I honestly go back and forth because as an outsider the pros and cons are pretty balanced and I don't have the details. But even the ones with the detailed info have mixed perspectives.

(01-21-2016 12:00 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The best way to check the big 10/sec is to make OU happy in the big 12. To delay expansion in the big 12 because texas thinks they might be able to pull acc school's is pretty crazy, see the nd to the big 12 talks. To let OU simmer only opens the door to OU going to the either the big 10/sec which ko's the big 12. I think you can give OU 2 out of their 3 demands real quick. LHN is a problem.

big 12

north: OU, Ok state, KU, K state, Io State, BYU
south: Texas, Texas tech, tcu, baylor, wvu, cincy or uconn

football format 5-2-1
hoop format 10-6
title game in dallas or san A
hoop tourney in KC

I'm convinced that nothing the Big 12 can do will "check" the Big 10/SEC.

The current status quo is not an option for the big 12 in attempting to check the big 10/sec. The big 10 and SEC clearly want to rip apart the acc but if that doesn't work than the big 12, who blinks? I think the big 12 would be best off by jumping to 12 and than trying to expand the playoffs to 8 with 5 auto bids...not to mention hope the ACC N starts up to balance to big 10/sec.