(06-26-2017 08:06 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  then you have a 7 member Big 12 wanting to get back to 12 (so their name finally makes sense again, lol)

BYU, Cincy, UConn, Memphis, CSU, Boise St, Houston, etc...all the 'usual suspects' will be back playing musical chairs for the open spots.

'may the odds be ever in your favor!' cause it'll be a free-for-all

Yep, for the sake of the name the Big 12 should have 12.

So should the Big10 drop four to be in line with their name?

of course not....it would be FAR easier to just re brand as the Big14

(06-26-2017 09:41 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:06 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  then you have a 7 member Big 12 wanting to get back to 12 (so their name finally makes sense again, lol)

BYU, Cincy, UConn, Memphis, CSU, Boise St, Houston, etc...all the 'usual suspects' will be back playing musical chairs for the open spots.

'may the odds be ever in your favor!' cause it'll be a free-for-all

Yep, for the sake of the name the Big 12 should have 12.

So should the Big10 drop four to be in line with their name?

of course not....it would be FAR easier to just re brand as the Big14

Big 12 owns the rights to the Big 14 and Big 16 names. My point was it is really just a name and there is a reason the Big10 hasn't worried about changing theirs. These names already have brand value.

(06-26-2017 09:44 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:41 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:06 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  then you have a 7 member Big 12 wanting to get back to 12 (so their name finally makes sense again, lol)

BYU, Cincy, UConn, Memphis, CSU, Boise St, Houston, etc...all the 'usual suspects' will be back playing musical chairs for the open spots.

'may the odds be ever in your favor!' cause it'll be a free-for-all

Yep, for the sake of the name the Big 12 should have 12.

So should the Big10 drop four to be in line with their name?

of course not....it would be FAR easier to just re brand as the Big14

Big 12 owns the rights to the Big 14 and Big 16 names. My point was it is really just a name and there is a reason the Big10 hasn't worried about changing theirs. These names already have brand value.

my point was...it was just a joke in the first place.

(06-26-2017 09:52 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:44 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:41 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:06 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Yep, for the sake of the name the Big 12 should have 12.

So should the Big10 drop four to be in line with their name?

of course not....it would be FAR easier to just re brand as the Big14

Big 12 owns the rights to the Big 14 and Big 16 names. My point was it is really just a name and there is a reason the Big10 hasn't worried about changing theirs. These names already have brand value.

my point was...it was just a joke in the first place.

It's kinda funny---but not unheard of. The Pac12 did adjust thier name to fit the number of teams.

(06-26-2017 09:44 AM)PT_american Wrote:  Big 12 owns the rights to the Big 14 and Big 16 names. My point was it is really just a name and there is a reason the Big10 hasn't worried about changing theirs. These names already have brand value.

Extremely doubtful Big 12 has rights in those marks. Trademark rights accrue through use. Generally, if you are not using a mark, you lose rights in the mark, even if you have a registration. That said, all applications for "Big 14" are dead. You have to show use of a mark (within three years of the notice of allowance) in order for the registration to issue.

Could they have common law rights in the marks? Potentially, but any protection they have would only be in the geographical areas in which they are using the marks. Since, they do not appear to be using the marks, they have no rights in them. Side note, state trademark registrations are worthless. They only establish a date of first use of the mark. Anybody actually using a mark will have other evidence of use. There is virtually no reason for a party to ever obtain a state trademark registration, except to give your intellectual property owner some extra legal fees.

The Big 12 HAD "intent-to-use" filings for Big 14 (not Big 16), filed in 2009. The filings were abandoned on September 24, 2012 - because the Big 12 could no longer extend the filings without filing an affidavit of actual use.

Go to USPTO.gov to look it up - it's all public record.

(06-25-2017 10:57 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 10:36 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 10:16 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Most seem to forget this current crappy horse chit tv deal was produced with zero results, we had almost nothing worth selling in the negotiations table, the American is a dead walking conference after year two this league will crumble, most were saying.

I mean, if nothing earn the AAC a good tv exposure and a 1.9mil ea. than what can we expect now that this league has an impressive resume.

I think Mike Aresco is ready to swing and yank one or two out of the park for the AAC when he comes up to the plate.

Finding our value is difficult. The AAC has accomplished its best ratings in the championship games, Thursday night games, and high profile games against the P5. So our value is replacement value. Lets say you substitute the MWC championship game instead of ours, what is the difference in value. Can the MWC or others get 2 million viewers on a Thursday night in a conference game and what is the difference. What can the mwc get(viewers) with a P5 opponent? Lastly, our basketball inventory is superior to the other g4 conferences. Find the difference monetize it and add it to the cost of their contract. I know that this is a crude estimate, but we are gonna be closer to g4 money. The reason that the p5 gets their bucks is the bell cows of the conference like osu, ut, Clemson, and usc. These teams can capture a whole region and have national appeal. We do not have one of these teams. We are closer to the Big East. In consideration of the differences, and the number of viewers, 5 million per year would not be outrageous.

I agree with you and I think that no one in this board is under the dream the AAC will get an offer anywhere near the one P5 are getting. But I think most will expect a raise and a larger separation from the G4.

I think 5 million is a low end 7 million high end. We could get less than 5 and that in my eyes would be a disappointment development for the league.

After the whole Big East debacle I do not trust ESPN and I wouldn't be surprised if they are pushing behind the scenes for an addition of BYU and someoneelse like Boise in order to get the higher amount. This will allow them to roll those contracts into AAC

why would ESPN push to add schools? that would be cutting their own throats. meaning they're making themselves shell out more money.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2017 07:49 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Disagree. As long as the B12 has either OU or UT they will be a power conference. They will be weakest and make less money with UT only, but with the LHN and still a power conference. They may choose to stay or go Indy.

I agree that the Big 12 will continue to be a power conference as long as it has either Oklahoma or Texas. However, the Big 12 would be weaker with only Oklahoma than it would be with only Texas.

Texas football is one of the top 3 college sports properties in America, as ranked by Forbes and the Wall Street Journal.

Oklahoma isn't far behind in the rankings (usually top-10), but like $30-50M behind in revenue and $200M in value.

(06-25-2017 08:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:03 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Kansas will be ready in 2025. They just announced they will build a $300 Million stadium. They already have great BB facilities.

KU and OU will probably join the B1G in 2025. UT may not have great options.

SEC takes Texas and FSU?

No way A&M let's Texas in the SEC.

LMFAO. Theres 13 other votes, Arkansas being one of them.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-25-2017 08:41 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:03 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Kansas will be ready in 2025. They just announced they will build a $300 Million stadium. They already have great BB facilities.

KU and OU will probably join the B1G in 2025. UT may not have great options.

SEC takes Texas and FSU?

No way A&M let's Texas in the SEC.

they are but one vote of 14.

Alabama, lsu, mizzou, and both Mississippi's would probably be no's.

I seriously doubt that. All of them recruit Texas heavy. Alabama recruits TX heavy for out of state students too.

Put your hatred of Texas aside. Nobody is going to say they can't join any conference.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2017 11:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:03 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Kansas will be ready in 2025. They just announced they will build a $300 Million stadium. They already have great BB facilities.

KU and OU will probably join the B1G in 2025. UT may not have great options.

SEC takes Texas and FSU?

No way A&M let's Texas in the SEC.

LMFAO. Theres 13 other votes, Arkansas being one of them.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

As I stated before, there is an agreement in place among SEC schools providing veto powers against other in-state teams such as Florida State/Florida, etc.

Yep, Texas would be fine in any league (so rich), but don't think SEC can be first choice (academics). It's either the PAC or B1G, but does either really need OU? I say no for PAC and only maybe for B1G. UT will always play OU in football anyway, once a year in Dallas. PAC could really gain Network viewers by taking 4 Texas teams in Central Time Zone. Which ones is the question. I'd say UT (Austin), UH (Houston) and TCU plus SMU (Dallas) locking in three of the four big metros in Texas. Pretty good Mens Basketball as well. Tech (Lubbock) is of course the other possibility.

AAC's best revenue-generating move is to add some western schools and then divide the football and basketball inventory - just like the B1G.

The AAC already has the eastern inventory; the western schools give the AAC inventory for the 10pm ET value and flexibility.

ESPN would pay the AAC at least $25M for 25 expanded AAC games, even if it's only half of the Tier 1 and 2 inventory. With only half of the PAC, B12, and now B1G inventory and with the ACC and SEC network channels (and CBS SEC Game of the Week), ESPN still needs some quality filler inventory, especially for the weeknight and 10pm ET time slots and ESPN2 and ESPNU. There are so many AAC games on ESPNews and ESPN3 which holds little value for ESPN/ABC.

FOX would likely be interested in a similar package for FS1 filler inventory. NBC or CBS would be interested in solid NBCSports or CBSSN inventory - perhaps in exchange for more OTA games. FOX, NBC, and CBS would likely be more interested in the AAC conference championship than ESPN, but ESPN would still likely bid.

Add in about 100 games of AAC basketball (50 in each split), and you could add at least 25% to the deal.

Using the western expansion and split inventory strategy, AAC could get at least $60M for 50 football games and 100 basketball games - and another $10M+ for the conference football championship and the AAC basketball tournament.

$70M divided by 16 schools is $4.3M each (Navy and Wichita essentially split a share).

That is where I would set the AAC's minimum goal for the next contract - dependent on western expansion.

(06-26-2017 11:31 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  Yep, Texas would be fine in any league (so rich), but don't think SEC can be first choice (academics). It's either the PAC or B1G, but does either really need OU? I say no for PAC and only maybe for B1G. UT will always play OU in football anyway, once a year in Dallas. PAC could really gain Network viewers by taking 4 Texas teams in Central Time Zone. Which ones is the question. I'd say UT (Austin), UH (Houston) and TCU plus SMU (Dallas) locking in three of the four big metros in Texas. Tech (Lubbock) is of course the other possibility.

TCU and SMU duplicates the DFW market.

Tech would be the fourth (well, actually, probably the second - ahead of both TCU and Houston).

(06-26-2017 11:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 11:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:03 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Kansas will be ready in 2025. They just announced they will build a $300 Million stadium. They already have great BB facilities.

KU and OU will probably join the B1G in 2025. UT may not have great options.

SEC takes Texas and FSU?

No way A&M let's Texas in the SEC.

LMFAO. Theres 13 other votes, Arkansas being one of them.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

As I stated before, there is an agreement in place among SEC schools providing veto powers against other in-state teams such as Florida State/Florida, etc.

wrong. that's a common misconception. there is no such deal.

JRsec has addressed this and sources it many times in the CD board.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2017 11:31 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  Yep, Texas would be fine in any league (so rich), but don't think SEC can be first choice (academics). It's either the PAC or B1G, but does either really need OU? I say no for PAC and only maybe for B1G. UT will always play OU in football anyway, once a year in Dallas. PAC could really gain Network viewers by taking 4 Texas teams in Central Time Zone. Which ones is the question. I'd say UT (Austin), UH (Houston) and TCU plus SMU (Dallas) locking in three of the four big metros in Texas. Pretty good Mens Basketball as well. Tech (Lubbock) is of course the other possibility.

The academics argument is a joke for SEC. They have Vandy, Florida, A&M plus Mizzou. Hell, the SEC is a better academic league than the B12 right now.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2017 11:31 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  Yep, Texas would be fine in any league (so rich), but don't think SEC can be first choice (academics). It's either the PAC or B1G, but does either really need OU? I say no for PAC and only maybe for B1G. UT will always play OU in football anyway, once a year in Dallas. PAC could really gain Network viewers by taking 4 Texas teams in Central Time Zone. Which ones is the question. I'd say UT (Austin), UH (Houston) and TCU plus SMU (Dallas) locking in three of the four big metros in Texas. Pretty good Mens Basketball as well. Tech (Lubbock) is of course the other possibility.

You really think the Pac-12 would take Houston, SMU, and TCU over Oklahoma? I want some of what you're smoking.

(06-26-2017 11:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:41 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and FSU?

No way A&M let's Texas in the SEC.

they are but one vote of 14.

Alabama, lsu, mizzou, and both Mississippi's would probably be no's.

I seriously doubt that. All of them recruit Texas heavy. Alabama recruits TX heavy for out of state students too.

Put your hatred of Texas aside. Nobody is going to say they can't join any conference.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Please lsu hates ut as much as we do. They along with atm and Alabama want no part of UT. The Mississippi schools will follow what ever way the big schools go, and if a good chunk votes no so will the rest of the sec. They vote as one that is one of the reasons the sec is so successful.

(06-26-2017 11:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  AAC's best revenue-generating move is to add some western schools and then divide the football and basketball inventory - just like the B1G.

The AAC already has the eastern inventory; the western schools give the AAC inventory for the 10pm ET value and flexibility.

ESPN would pay the AAC at least $25M for 25 expanded AAC games, even if it's only half of the Tier 1 and 2 inventory. With only half of the PAC, B12, and now B1G inventory and with the ACC and SEC network channels (and CBS SEC Game of the Week), ESPN still needs some quality filler inventory, especially for the weeknight and 10pm ET time slots and ESPN2 and ESPNU. There are so many AAC games on ESPNews and ESPN3 which holds little value for ESPN/ABC.

FOX would likely be interested in a similar package for FS1 filler inventory. NBC or CBS would be interested in solid NBCSports or CBSSN inventory - perhaps in exchange for more OTA games. FOX, NBC, and CBS would likely be more interested in the AAC conference championship than ESPN, but ESPN would still likely bid.

Add in about 100 games of AAC basketball (50 in each split), and you could add at least 25% to the deal.

Using the western expansion and split inventory strategy, AAC could get at least $60M for 50 football games and 100 basketball games - and another $10M+ for the conference football championship and the AAC basketball tournament.

$70M divided by 16 schools is $4.3M each (Navy and Wichita essentially split a share).

That is where I would set the AAC's minimum goal for the next contract - dependent on western expansion.

Let's say the AAC can pry away 1 or 2 MWC schools. Would you want BYU to join the AAC then? I get that you don't want BYU in the AAC unless there are some BYU historical rivals that join too. Could BYU and Boise be enough? Or would you want SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, Utah St, Colorado St, Air Force and New Mexico too?

(06-26-2017 02:10 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 11:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:41 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  No way A&M let's Texas in the SEC.

they are but one vote of 14.

Alabama, lsu, mizzou, and both Mississippi's would probably be no's.

I seriously doubt that. All of them recruit Texas heavy. Alabama recruits TX heavy for out of state students too.

Put your hatred of Texas aside. Nobody is going to say they can't join any conference.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Please lsu hates ut as much as we do. They along with atm and Alabama want no part of UT. The Mississippi schools will follow what ever way the big schools go, and if a good chunk votes no so will the rest of the sec. They vote as one that is one of the reasons the sec is so successful.

Seriously, how can you be this dense? It's the flagship of freaking Texas. Arguably THE most valuable piece (with ND) of the realignment puzzle remaining.