That makes ZERO sense.

(01-04-2019 12:52 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  Serious doubts as to whether Texas would want to go to the BIG. Oklahoma and Kansas are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick. Oklahoma and Kansas (and probably Iowa State) who really want out. KU Probably more than Oklahoma. We are a Midwest University stuck in what has become a Southern University. You could do better than KU and ISU (or even Mizzou) in the BIG.

(12-06-2018 02:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Tell me that the B1G is considering division-less football to accommodate USC, UCLA, Stanford, and a pick 3 and I'd buy that more than UT/OU to Big Ten.

UT has ZERO incentive to leave as long as OU is in place and can't see the Big Ten taking OU on spec.

(01-04-2019 01:14 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  How is Rutgers working out for you? I must say when you took them you did not get the financial gain you thought. And the BIG does not hold Kansas City or St. Louis. St, Louis is now an SEC City and Kansas City belongs to KU. That's just the facts. If you think most of us in Big 12 Territory watch the Big 12 Net, we do not. You are misinformed.

(12-08-2018 01:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:02 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:57 AM)johnintx Wrote:  Lifelong OU fan here, but not an insider at all.

Today's status quo works for OU football: we generate enough revenue to be nationally competitive while playing regional rivals. The B12 gets a bad rap nationally (partially deserved), but OU has now qualified for three CFP's as part of it (or in spite of it).

When the B12 GOR and TV contracts expire, all bets are off. I seriously doubt the ability of the B12 to score similar media deals in the next round of negotiations. OU will listen to both the B1G and SEC. I will not be surprised to see OU in either conference.

Texas is the 800 pound gorilla. It's the largest school in the second largest state, with a massive alumni and fan base. In addition, it has the academic reputation that college presidents like. If a conference sees the need to expand, they need to make a play for Texas, whether they think they will succeed or not.

The B1G needs OU's football program. But, OU's academic reputation is inferior to the members of the B1G. If the B1G makes a play for OU, it has to make a play for Texas first. For the presidents and academic leaders, it has to be an academic move. UT checks those boxes. OU would be a tagalong, academically. The B1G cannot pursue OU alone. They have to pursue OU in a package with UT and/or Kansas. Even as part of a package deal, the consideration of OU is a stretch for the academically minded leadership of the B1G.

OU's academic leaders would looovvvve to be associated with the B1G. It would be a harder sell to the fan base, even if the B1G were able to do away with divisions and arrange more games with tOSU, UM, and PSU. The SEC would be a much easier sell to the fan base. The SEC is a better cultural and institutional fit, as well.

It will be a bidding war between the B1G and SEC. If these tweets are true, the B1G is taking steps to get ready.

I agree with your assessment. The hard sell for the Big 10 will be Texas. The Texas business model which is the strongest in college football would be alien to the Big 10 and Big 10 revenue sharing even from just a % of ticket sales would be anathema to Texas. And that doesn't even take into consideration the desire of Texas to play as many games at home or away at other Texas venues as possible. Since the Big 10 would be unlikely to take any other Big 12 Texas school with Texas that creates a major hurdle where the Horns are concerned.

Kansas would be a likely fit for the Big 10 culturally, academically, and athletically with regard to hoops prestige. However, Kansas may not be able to pay its way into the Big 10 with lousy football, and not much to offer outside of basketball which isn't a Big 10 need. The Big 10 already carries the major markets in Kansas and that too doesn't work in the Jayhawks favor. The old farm adage is apropos here, "Why buy the cow when you are already stealing the milk?"

That said I absolutely expect the Big 10 to make a run at Texas and Oklahoma. But I'm not sure they are headed anywhere. They tried to outlast the ACC to see who folded first thinking that if it was the ACC they could pick up the markets and brands they needed to survive. Why would that kind of thinking change now that the PAC seems vulnerable? They would make even better additions than schools from the ACC would have.

I think Texas continues to slow play realignment to see what might shake loose from the PAC. Oklahoma could move on their own, but they've made the CFP for the last two years and probably feel little athletic pressure to do so.

In the end I expect the SEC will get a fairly significant bump for an undervalued T1 contract. I expect the Big 10 to get a much smaller bump on the renewal of their 6 year deal with FOX. And both conferences will continue to increase the revenue gaps they have with respect to the ACC and PAC and that eventually they'll expand again because of it, but possibly not in 2024-5.

But, if the networks come in with a stagnant offer to the Big 12 that might be enough to knock OU and Kansas off of a static position and if so then Texas may have to be proactive.

So movement in 2022-3 (which is when I think it will happen if it is going to happen) is possible. I just don't see it as probable without a catalyst besides the desires of the SEC or Big 10.

You have sound arguments, JR. I don't disagree with anything there. But I think that mystery catalyst you mention could be among these:

The SEC T1 contract might well get a big bump, especially if Fox tries to add the SEC to their advertising footprint. But ESPN needs the B1G footprint even more, which was borne out in the last B1G media deal. ESPN has been trying to mitigate that problem, but the TV ratings of the B1G cannot be overlooked. So where will they each spend? If ESPN needs to overspend on the SEC, even by remaking the entire media deal, would they do it in order to attract Texas? Will Disney allow such extravagance? If the FAANG gang shows up, the ESPN contract handcuffs the SEC.

No, Texas is not good at sharing, but if changing conferences still gives them enough income to remain the revenue king, they just might go co-op. As for those in-state games they love so much, and they really do, that sentiment likely lives among the fans much more than with the administration. From a fan point of view, trips to SEC destinations would be appealing. But I think the University Administration, and Austin in general has become more akin to Berkley than the Austin of 25 years ago. These guys might be more enthusiastic about weekends in DC, NYC and Chicago.

Some say future of the Big 12 will be rosy and prosperous. But I think they walk on thin ice. If the B1G shows signs of scoring a fat contract, the ones who have an opportunity to join the gravy train will probably not let it pass them by.

From 2016-17 the Big 10 Network lost 448 million in total value according to SNL Kagan. However the annual report due out this year in April was never released. The Big 10 has good ratings, but the SEC has strong ratings with greater depth into the conference. The Big 10's model was more heavily predicated on the subscription fee footprint payout model. The content driven model is the new winner and the SEC has more brands with which to multiply content value than most conferences.

I don't think FOX or ESPN are particularly well positioned should the FAANG companies want a bidding war, but at what cost to national exposure would going with them one of them come? It's an uncharted territory. Most college administrators are risk adverse and I just don't think we'll see the advent of the FAANG companies in college sports in nearly as big a way as some seem to think, especially at this time.

I also think that this time around that FOX has incentive to work with ESPN behind the scenes. They do hold a lot of Disney stock now and it would benefit both companies should the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the Big 12. How? If they were able to make the moves in advance of 2024-5 they could renegotiate the value of the Big 10 and SEC's total contracts, extend the current contracts before they come open for bid (with the exception of the SEC's T1) and keep the top product out of the FAANG companies hands for another decade. They currently share the T1 and T2 rights for the Big 12 (a purchase) and the PAC (a lease). They could conceivably work an early deal with the PAC as well and accomplish all of it out of the Big 12. It's that kind of catalyst I was thinking about.

Texas would have reason to work with with both in this matter and to resolve the LHN which could be accomplished in a number of ways without costing the Horns the balance of the contract.

So, I'm not so sure that this comes down to a FOX vs ESPN action as much as it is likely to come down to a FOX / ESPN preemptive strike. Brokering out the Big 12 would likely be the tack taken. But it's a big wait and see.

Kansas isn't required by the Big 12 to make a major renovation of their facilities for football and their stadium, but they have. I can't see that happening at that level of debt without some tacit promises already in place. When the desire to discuss additions to the Big 12 died I believe it is because everyone finally accepted the inevitability of either staying at 10 to preserve revenue, or moving. Baylor and T.C.U. have made renovations as well with Kansas and TCU making them inclusive of amenity seating for donors.

Could this money be poorly spent? Perhaps. But more likely assurances were made by someone at some level before these renovations proceeded. Schools wouldn't spend that kind of money in preparation for a move to the G5 where their existing venues would probably be fine.

How would they divvy these up? That's anyone's guess. But if it does play out this way I don't see Texas and Oklahoma moving together. I could easily see Texas and Tech moving together, the Oklahoma schools moving together, and some other combinations being possible. It might be why the divisionless talk is coming up as well. If you opened up the composition of determining the conference finalists then absorbing more Big 12 schools could be more easily accomplished if needed, and if the PAC doesn't play ball in this matter then it opens up other possibilities.

But all of this is under the assumption that there is movement at all. And things could easily remain stagnant until the mid 2030's should Texas think that acquisitions from the PAC are possible, or if they should feel that after a few years of the ACCN that economic pressures might continue to mount in that area. They've been playing an active game of chicken with the ACC since 2010. Having the PAC go through a rough patch may actually the the catalyst for stasis.

The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.

I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.

Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

A problem the B1G could encounter if they were to push for divisionless scheduling in order to get UT and OU, is that would also benefit the SEC's interest in those same schools. And the SEC has more to offer both of them than the B1G does.

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

(01-04-2019 02:30 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:14 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  How is Rutgers working out for you? I must say when you took them you did not get the financial gain you thought. And the BIG does not hold Kansas City or St. Louis. St, Louis is now an SEC City and Kansas City belongs to KU. That's just the facts. If you think most of us in Big 12 Territory watch the Big 12 Net, we do not. You are misinformed.

(12-08-2018 01:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:02 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree with your assessment. The hard sell for the Big 10 will be Texas. The Texas business model which is the strongest in college football would be alien to the Big 10 and Big 10 revenue sharing even from just a % of ticket sales would be anathema to Texas. And that doesn't even take into consideration the desire of Texas to play as many games at home or away at other Texas venues as possible. Since the Big 10 would be unlikely to take any other Big 12 Texas school with Texas that creates a major hurdle where the Horns are concerned.

Kansas would be a likely fit for the Big 10 culturally, academically, and athletically with regard to hoops prestige. However, Kansas may not be able to pay its way into the Big 10 with lousy football, and not much to offer outside of basketball which isn't a Big 10 need. The Big 10 already carries the major markets in Kansas and that too doesn't work in the Jayhawks favor. The old farm adage is apropos here, "Why buy the cow when you are already stealing the milk?"

That said I absolutely expect the Big 10 to make a run at Texas and Oklahoma. But I'm not sure they are headed anywhere. They tried to outlast the ACC to see who folded first thinking that if it was the ACC they could pick up the markets and brands they needed to survive. Why would that kind of thinking change now that the PAC seems vulnerable? They would make even better additions than schools from the ACC would have.

I think Texas continues to slow play realignment to see what might shake loose from the PAC. Oklahoma could move on their own, but they've made the CFP for the last two years and probably feel little athletic pressure to do so.

In the end I expect the SEC will get a fairly significant bump for an undervalued T1 contract. I expect the Big 10 to get a much smaller bump on the renewal of their 6 year deal with FOX. And both conferences will continue to increase the revenue gaps they have with respect to the ACC and PAC and that eventually they'll expand again because of it, but possibly not in 2024-5.

But, if the networks come in with a stagnant offer to the Big 12 that might be enough to knock OU and Kansas off of a static position and if so then Texas may have to be proactive.

So movement in 2022-3 (which is when I think it will happen if it is going to happen) is possible. I just don't see it as probable without a catalyst besides the desires of the SEC or Big 10.

You have sound arguments, JR. I don't disagree with anything there. But I think that mystery catalyst you mention could be among these:

The SEC T1 contract might well get a big bump, especially if Fox tries to add the SEC to their advertising footprint. But ESPN needs the B1G footprint even more, which was borne out in the last B1G media deal. ESPN has been trying to mitigate that problem, but the TV ratings of the B1G cannot be overlooked. So where will they each spend? If ESPN needs to overspend on the SEC, even by remaking the entire media deal, would they do it in order to attract Texas? Will Disney allow such extravagance? If the FAANG gang shows up, the ESPN contract handcuffs the SEC.

No, Texas is not good at sharing, but if changing conferences still gives them enough income to remain the revenue king, they just might go co-op. As for those in-state games they love so much, and they really do, that sentiment likely lives among the fans much more than with the administration. From a fan point of view, trips to SEC destinations would be appealing. But I think the University Administration, and Austin in general has become more akin to Berkley than the Austin of 25 years ago. These guys might be more enthusiastic about weekends in DC, NYC and Chicago.

Some say future of the Big 12 will be rosy and prosperous. But I think they walk on thin ice. If the B1G shows signs of scoring a fat contract, the ones who have an opportunity to join the gravy train will probably not let it pass them by.

From 2016-17 the Big 10 Network lost 448 million in total value according to SNL Kagan. However the annual report due out this year in April was never released. The Big 10 has good ratings, but the SEC has strong ratings with greater depth into the conference. The Big 10's model was more heavily predicated on the subscription fee footprint payout model. The content driven model is the new winner and the SEC has more brands with which to multiply content value than most conferences.

I don't think FOX or ESPN are particularly well positioned should the FAANG companies want a bidding war, but at what cost to national exposure would going with them one of them come? It's an uncharted territory. Most college administrators are risk adverse and I just don't think we'll see the advent of the FAANG companies in college sports in nearly as big a way as some seem to think, especially at this time.

I also think that this time around that FOX has incentive to work with ESPN behind the scenes. They do hold a lot of Disney stock now and it would benefit both companies should the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the Big 12. How? If they were able to make the moves in advance of 2024-5 they could renegotiate the value of the Big 10 and SEC's total contracts, extend the current contracts before they come open for bid (with the exception of the SEC's T1) and keep the top product out of the FAANG companies hands for another decade. They currently share the T1 and T2 rights for the Big 12 (a purchase) and the PAC (a lease). They could conceivably work an early deal with the PAC as well and accomplish all of it out of the Big 12. It's that kind of catalyst I was thinking about.

Texas would have reason to work with with both in this matter and to resolve the LHN which could be accomplished in a number of ways without costing the Horns the balance of the contract.

So, I'm not so sure that this comes down to a FOX vs ESPN action as much as it is likely to come down to a FOX / ESPN preemptive strike. Brokering out the Big 12 would likely be the tack taken. But it's a big wait and see.

Kansas isn't required by the Big 12 to make a major renovation of their facilities for football and their stadium, but they have. I can't see that happening at that level of debt without some tacit promises already in place. When the desire to discuss additions to the Big 12 died I believe it is because everyone finally accepted the inevitability of either staying at 10 to preserve revenue, or moving. Baylor and T.C.U. have made renovations as well with Kansas and TCU making them inclusive of amenity seating for donors.

Could this money be poorly spent? Perhaps. But more likely assurances were made by someone at some level before these renovations proceeded. Schools wouldn't spend that kind of money in preparation for a move to the G5 where their existing venues would probably be fine.

How would they divvy these up? That's anyone's guess. But if it does play out this way I don't see Texas and Oklahoma moving together. I could easily see Texas and Tech moving together, the Oklahoma schools moving together, and some other combinations being possible. It might be why the divisionless talk is coming up as well. If you opened up the composition of determining the conference finalists then absorbing more Big 12 schools could be more easily accomplished if needed, and if the PAC doesn't play ball in this matter then it opens up other possibilities.

But all of this is under the assumption that there is movement at all. And things could easily remain stagnant until the mid 2030's should Texas think that acquisitions from the PAC are possible, or if they should feel that after a few years of the ACCN that economic pressures might continue to mount in that area. They've been playing an active game of chicken with the ACC since 2010. Having the PAC go through a rough patch may actually the the catalyst for stasis.

The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.

I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.

Most of the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 are "baggage" as well. Half the SEC is "baggage."

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

If Texas changed conferences, it might result in more schools successfully recruiting in Texas. Here's the reality. There are very few players in Texas that UT recruits that don't choose either Texas, OU or A&M. If they were in a conference with Alabama or Ohio St., they might become serious competition for a lot of top talent instead of a rare player or two.

(01-05-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

If Texas changed conferences, it might result in more schools successfully recruiting in Texas. Here's the reality. There are very few players in Texas that UT recruits that don't choose either Texas, OU or A&M. If they were in a conference with Alabama or Ohio St., they might become serious competition for a lot of top talent instead of a rare player or two.

Nah, most Southern recruits with Southern roots still stay at home. Florida is open because of all of the 2nd generation Big 10 / Old Big 8 allegiances of the parents. Texas has some of that too. But most Texas kids still want to play at home where mom and dad can come to see them play. The same is true in most Southern states. East Mississippi kids and West Georgia kids might head to a school in Alabama the way Southeastern Georgia kids might head to Tallahassee or Gainesville but I doubt Texas would lose any more to Alabama or LSU than they do now.

(01-05-2019 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

If Texas changed conferences, it might result in more schools successfully recruiting in Texas. Here's the reality. There are very few players in Texas that UT recruits that don't choose either Texas, OU or A&M. If they were in a conference with Alabama or Ohio St., they might become serious competition for a lot of top talent instead of a rare player or two.

Nah, most Southern recruits with Southern roots still stay at home. Florida is open because of all of the 2nd generation Big 10 / Old Big 8 allegiances of the parents. Texas has some of that too. But most Texas kids still want to play at home where mom and dad can come to see them play. The same is true in most Southern states. East Mississippi kids and West Georgia kids might head to a school in Alabama the way Southeastern Georgia kids might head to Tallahassee or Gainesville but I doubt Texas would lose any more to Alabama or LSU than they do now.

That might have been a thing back in the day. But with all these P5 schools being on tv and flying cheaper than ever, staying close to home that way mom and dad can see me play is not the reason why. Technology makes it easier to stay connected with family and friends back home. If you look at any roster, there’s players from the Great State of Texas. There’s schools from all over the country recruiting here. It’s not stopping anytime soon with all the growth happening in DFW, Houston and Austin. DFW is expected to have 10 million people in 15-20 years from the current 7.5 million. That’s more people than most states.

A recruit from Duncanville will go to Arizona State or Georgia Tech where mom and dad can fly non stop to Phoenix or Atlanta for as little as $150 RT on Southwest and American from DFW/DAL or they can watch their son play on the multiple sports channels available. It’s 2019 not 1989.

(01-05-2019 02:59 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

If Texas changed conferences, it might result in more schools successfully recruiting in Texas. Here's the reality. There are very few players in Texas that UT recruits that don't choose either Texas, OU or A&M. If they were in a conference with Alabama or Ohio St., they might become serious competition for a lot of top talent instead of a rare player or two.

Nah, most Southern recruits with Southern roots still stay at home. Florida is open because of all of the 2nd generation Big 10 / Old Big 8 allegiances of the parents. Texas has some of that too. But most Texas kids still want to play at home where mom and dad can come to see them play. The same is true in most Southern states. East Mississippi kids and West Georgia kids might head to a school in Alabama the way Southeastern Georgia kids might head to Tallahassee or Gainesville but I doubt Texas would lose any more to Alabama or LSU than they do now.

That might have been a thing back in the day. But with all these P5 schools being on tv and flying cheaper than ever, staying close to home that way mom and dad can see me play is not the reason why. Technology makes it easier to stay connected with family and friends back home. If you look at any roster, there’s players from the Great State of Texas. There’s schools from all over the country recruiting here. It’s not stopping anytime soon with all the growth happening in DFW, Houston and Austin. DFW is expected to have 10 million people in 15-20 years from the current 7.5 million. That’s more people than most states.

A recruit from Duncanville will go to Arizona State or Georgia Tech where mom and dad can fly non stop to Phoenix or Atlanta for as little as $150 RT on Southwest and American from DFW/DAL or they can watch their son play on the multiple sports channels available. It’s 2019 not 1989.

Sure, but what caliber recruits are they. Are they kids of parents who have roots elsewhere? Most kids still stay within the state. You have a very large state with lots of folks from elsewhere moving their for jobs. Of course there are exceptions. But they are only exceptions. Most kids still stay closer to home.

Texas and A&M will always get a large % of their recruits at home. And they will tend to get the better recruits.

(01-05-2019 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 02:30 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:14 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  How is Rutgers working out for you? I must say when you took them you did not get the financial gain you thought. And the BIG does not hold Kansas City or St. Louis. St, Louis is now an SEC City and Kansas City belongs to KU. That's just the facts. If you think most of us in Big 12 Territory watch the Big 12 Net, we do not. You are misinformed.

(12-08-2018 01:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:02 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  You have sound arguments, JR. I don't disagree with anything there. But I think that mystery catalyst you mention could be among these:

The SEC T1 contract might well get a big bump, especially if Fox tries to add the SEC to their advertising footprint. But ESPN needs the B1G footprint even more, which was borne out in the last B1G media deal. ESPN has been trying to mitigate that problem, but the TV ratings of the B1G cannot be overlooked. So where will they each spend? If ESPN needs to overspend on the SEC, even by remaking the entire media deal, would they do it in order to attract Texas? Will Disney allow such extravagance? If the FAANG gang shows up, the ESPN contract handcuffs the SEC.

No, Texas is not good at sharing, but if changing conferences still gives them enough income to remain the revenue king, they just might go co-op. As for those in-state games they love so much, and they really do, that sentiment likely lives among the fans much more than with the administration. From a fan point of view, trips to SEC destinations would be appealing. But I think the University Administration, and Austin in general has become more akin to Berkley than the Austin of 25 years ago. These guys might be more enthusiastic about weekends in DC, NYC and Chicago.

Some say future of the Big 12 will be rosy and prosperous. But I think they walk on thin ice. If the B1G shows signs of scoring a fat contract, the ones who have an opportunity to join the gravy train will probably not let it pass them by.

From 2016-17 the Big 10 Network lost 448 million in total value according to SNL Kagan. However the annual report due out this year in April was never released. The Big 10 has good ratings, but the SEC has strong ratings with greater depth into the conference. The Big 10's model was more heavily predicated on the subscription fee footprint payout model. The content driven model is the new winner and the SEC has more brands with which to multiply content value than most conferences.

I don't think FOX or ESPN are particularly well positioned should the FAANG companies want a bidding war, but at what cost to national exposure would going with them one of them come? It's an uncharted territory. Most college administrators are risk adverse and I just don't think we'll see the advent of the FAANG companies in college sports in nearly as big a way as some seem to think, especially at this time.

I also think that this time around that FOX has incentive to work with ESPN behind the scenes. They do hold a lot of Disney stock now and it would benefit both companies should the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the Big 12. How? If they were able to make the moves in advance of 2024-5 they could renegotiate the value of the Big 10 and SEC's total contracts, extend the current contracts before they come open for bid (with the exception of the SEC's T1) and keep the top product out of the FAANG companies hands for another decade. They currently share the T1 and T2 rights for the Big 12 (a purchase) and the PAC (a lease). They could conceivably work an early deal with the PAC as well and accomplish all of it out of the Big 12. It's that kind of catalyst I was thinking about.

Texas would have reason to work with with both in this matter and to resolve the LHN which could be accomplished in a number of ways without costing the Horns the balance of the contract.

So, I'm not so sure that this comes down to a FOX vs ESPN action as much as it is likely to come down to a FOX / ESPN preemptive strike. Brokering out the Big 12 would likely be the tack taken. But it's a big wait and see.

Kansas isn't required by the Big 12 to make a major renovation of their facilities for football and their stadium, but they have. I can't see that happening at that level of debt without some tacit promises already in place. When the desire to discuss additions to the Big 12 died I believe it is because everyone finally accepted the inevitability of either staying at 10 to preserve revenue, or moving. Baylor and T.C.U. have made renovations as well with Kansas and TCU making them inclusive of amenity seating for donors.

Could this money be poorly spent? Perhaps. But more likely assurances were made by someone at some level before these renovations proceeded. Schools wouldn't spend that kind of money in preparation for a move to the G5 where their existing venues would probably be fine.

How would they divvy these up? That's anyone's guess. But if it does play out this way I don't see Texas and Oklahoma moving together. I could easily see Texas and Tech moving together, the Oklahoma schools moving together, and some other combinations being possible. It might be why the divisionless talk is coming up as well. If you opened up the composition of determining the conference finalists then absorbing more Big 12 schools could be more easily accomplished if needed, and if the PAC doesn't play ball in this matter then it opens up other possibilities.

But all of this is under the assumption that there is movement at all. And things could easily remain stagnant until the mid 2030's should Texas think that acquisitions from the PAC are possible, or if they should feel that after a few years of the ACCN that economic pressures might continue to mount in that area. They've been playing an active game of chicken with the ACC since 2010. Having the PAC go through a rough patch may actually the the catalyst for stasis.

The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.

I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.

Most of the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 are "baggage" as well. Half the SEC is "baggage."

You're right if we are talking about the quality of the athletic programs. My thoughts about the Big 12 breaking up are based on the value of the media content. ESPN dreams of a day when they can sell ads in North Carolina without paying four P5 schools in the bargain. Same is probably true in Indiana (3 P5's). I think they can drive a financial wedge between TX/OK and their bretheren. They still want to sell ads in Kansas, West Virginia, etc. but they would rather buy the content at G5 prices.

I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion. Chatting about it is so much simpler than arriving at agreements among muliple parties with different interests and motives. But who can say that these moves aren't already in the works? ...or not.

(01-05-2019 03:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 02:30 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:14 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  How is Rutgers working out for you? I must say when you took them you did not get the financial gain you thought. And the BIG does not hold Kansas City or St. Louis. St, Louis is now an SEC City and Kansas City belongs to KU. That's just the facts. If you think most of us in Big 12 Territory watch the Big 12 Net, we do not. You are misinformed.

(12-08-2018 01:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  From 2016-17 the Big 10 Network lost 448 million in total value according to SNL Kagan. However the annual report due out this year in April was never released. The Big 10 has good ratings, but the SEC has strong ratings with greater depth into the conference. The Big 10's model was more heavily predicated on the subscription fee footprint payout model. The content driven model is the new winner and the SEC has more brands with which to multiply content value than most conferences.

I don't think FOX or ESPN are particularly well positioned should the FAANG companies want a bidding war, but at what cost to national exposure would going with them one of them come? It's an uncharted territory. Most college administrators are risk adverse and I just don't think we'll see the advent of the FAANG companies in college sports in nearly as big a way as some seem to think, especially at this time.

I also think that this time around that FOX has incentive to work with ESPN behind the scenes. They do hold a lot of Disney stock now and it would benefit both companies should the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the Big 12. How? If they were able to make the moves in advance of 2024-5 they could renegotiate the value of the Big 10 and SEC's total contracts, extend the current contracts before they come open for bid (with the exception of the SEC's T1) and keep the top product out of the FAANG companies hands for another decade. They currently share the T1 and T2 rights for the Big 12 (a purchase) and the PAC (a lease). They could conceivably work an early deal with the PAC as well and accomplish all of it out of the Big 12. It's that kind of catalyst I was thinking about.

Texas would have reason to work with with both in this matter and to resolve the LHN which could be accomplished in a number of ways without costing the Horns the balance of the contract.

So, I'm not so sure that this comes down to a FOX vs ESPN action as much as it is likely to come down to a FOX / ESPN preemptive strike. Brokering out the Big 12 would likely be the tack taken. But it's a big wait and see.

Kansas isn't required by the Big 12 to make a major renovation of their facilities for football and their stadium, but they have. I can't see that happening at that level of debt without some tacit promises already in place. When the desire to discuss additions to the Big 12 died I believe it is because everyone finally accepted the inevitability of either staying at 10 to preserve revenue, or moving. Baylor and T.C.U. have made renovations as well with Kansas and TCU making them inclusive of amenity seating for donors.

Could this money be poorly spent? Perhaps. But more likely assurances were made by someone at some level before these renovations proceeded. Schools wouldn't spend that kind of money in preparation for a move to the G5 where their existing venues would probably be fine.

How would they divvy these up? That's anyone's guess. But if it does play out this way I don't see Texas and Oklahoma moving together. I could easily see Texas and Tech moving together, the Oklahoma schools moving together, and some other combinations being possible. It might be why the divisionless talk is coming up as well. If you opened up the composition of determining the conference finalists then absorbing more Big 12 schools could be more easily accomplished if needed, and if the PAC doesn't play ball in this matter then it opens up other possibilities.

But all of this is under the assumption that there is movement at all. And things could easily remain stagnant until the mid 2030's should Texas think that acquisitions from the PAC are possible, or if they should feel that after a few years of the ACCN that economic pressures might continue to mount in that area. They've been playing an active game of chicken with the ACC since 2010. Having the PAC go through a rough patch may actually the the catalyst for stasis.

The ESPN/Fox brokered deal seems smart for them. They certainly don't want an all-out bidding war against the FAANG gang, or between themselves, for that matter.

I think realignment from the Big 12 is very likely. I don't give as much credence to the stasis outlook as you might. When you wrote earlier about the deterrent view of "little bother" schools in TX and OK as "baggage" ( a common reference ) it occurred to me that from the point of view of ESPN, Fox, FAANG, etc. there are two real properties in the Big 12 and eight pieces of baggage. Forgive me Big 12 supporters; I admire these schools, but as media content, geography/demography work against them. I continue to believe that the networks want the advertising footprint to be covered as efficiently as possible. If they can achieve without paying P5 dollars to many of the Big 12 members, they will. The same attrition could someday befall the other conferences (North Carolina comes to mind) but for the present the Big 12 seems vulnerable.

Most of the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 are "baggage" as well. Half the SEC is "baggage."

You're right if we are talking about the quality of the athletic programs. My thoughts about the Big 12 breaking up are based on the value of the media content. ESPN dreams of a day when they can sell ads in North Carolina without paying four P5 schools in the bargain. Same is probably true in Indiana (3 P5's). I think they can drive a financial wedge between TX/OK and their bretheren. They still want to sell ads in Kansas, West Virginia, etc. but they would rather buy the content at G5 prices.

I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion. Chatting about it is so much simpler than arriving at agreements among muliple parties with different interests and motives. But who can say that these moves aren't already in the works? ...or not.

Correct. Especially now that we are moving toward a content driven pay model and the cable footprint subscription fee model will only be operative for T3 conference networks.

ESPN needs 3 schools to control the ad rates for a region (Texas and Oklahoma) of 32 bumping 33 million. They are currently paying 7 P5 salaries for what they control by owning the rights to A&M, Oklahoma, and Texas. Ideally they would be crazy not to try for that trio. Realistically they might be willing to accomodate 4 instead of 7, and would probably be more resistant to 5.

Not only do they efficiently land the region with those three but all 3 are all content multipliers as well. It's the equivalent of cutting 42% of your overhead and tripling your profit.

And at a time when recruits are becoming less available nationally it elevates the brands of those three schools in their region, and places them even more in the national eye.

It might not be popular, but it would be a synergistic move for all involved and for the network that lands them. Should Oklahoma ever commit to the SEC it may be the only move Texas could make to preserve their scheduling model and to keep from suffering a brand disadvantage.

On a side note which two do you think that ESPN or another conference would prefer from North Carolina? Would it be the two state schools which conferences might prefer, or would it be UNC & Duke as Cunningham once sought to protect?

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

I agree none of this would cost the media partners big bucks. Whatever big bucks they spend on an expanded SEC (because their adds are high value) would be more than offset by the severe haircut the remnants from the losing conferences would take going forward. My point was that I believe they would want that expanded conference to also play more conference games than they are now. And if the SEC were to go to 18, that would be the last opportunity the media partners would have to exert any leverage for more inventory.

(01-05-2019 04:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

I agree none of this would cost the media partners big bucks. Whatever big bucks they spend on an expanded SEC (because their adds are high value) would be more than offset by the severe haircut the remnants from the losing conferences would take going forward. My point was that I believe they would want that expanded conference to also play more conference games than they are now. And if the SEC were to go to 18, that would be the last opportunity the media partners would have to exert any leverage for more inventory.

Modify more conference games to more P5 games and I think they could get 10.

Divisionless conferences with more than 10 members or that lack full round robin scheduling are an absolute no go. How are you supposed to handle it if you have 3 or more schools come up with 7-1 or 8-1 in conference play?

SEC folks, do you think your conference would be willing to take the Oklahoma pair and wait to see what direction Texas chose to take?

Does the SEC have the willingness to go beyond 16 if that's what they have to do to get both Texas and Oklahoma?

(01-05-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

If Texas changed conferences, it might result in more schools successfully recruiting in Texas. Here's the reality. There are very few players in Texas that UT recruits that don't choose either Texas, OU or A&M. If they were in a conference with Alabama or Ohio St., they might become serious competition for a lot of top talent instead of a rare player or two.

Correct. Texas won't want to compete with SEC recruiting tactics, nor will they invite B1G teams into Texas to recruit effectively.
Not the only reason that Texas will join the ACC, but certainly a consideration.

(01-05-2019 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless conferences with more than 10 members or that lack full round robin scheduling are an absolute no go. How are you supposed to handle it if you have 3 or more schools come up with 7-1 or 8-1 in conference play?

SEC folks, do you think your conference would be willing to take the Oklahoma pair and wait to see what direction Texas chose to take?

Does the SEC have the willingness to go beyond 16 if that's what they have to do to get both Texas and Oklahoma?

We would make the play just for Texas and Oklahoma. If another conference was willing to offer the 2nd state school we would likely counter. As pairs Texas and Tech are worth the most. And if Oklahoma didn't demand O.S.U. but Texas demanded Tech then we would take OU make a run at Texas one more time and take Kansas.

It is profitable for the SEC to take all four, but minimally profitable. It's lucrative to land just the two. The same would be true for the Big 10. With the Big 10 the question becomes is it worth our academic unity to take Tech and OSU for a minimal profit? I strongly suspect that both the Big 10 and SEC would much rather take just the brands.

The push for the SEC would be if they thought that the Big 10 would land both without the 2nd schools. In that case I think we would offer all four but for defensive purposes only.

Besides having 3 games on most Saturdays capable of drawing 28 million is still a good thing. Having all 4 schools means a rating domination of 32-33 million. That's 5 games a week impacting that area plus Arkansas and L.S.U..

With the PAC lagging significantly financially and with California bleeding middle class families and growing in illegal aliens, the best case could be made for the Big 10 getting to Texas through Colorado. Both are AAU both bring larger more affluent markets and while Colorado loves their West Coast exposure this would be the best time for the Big 10 to push in that direction. The lure of the revenue and an impressive academic consortium might be enough given the issues of the PAC.

If the Big 10 could pull of Colorado / Texas the SEC could be satisfied with Oklahoma / Kansas. The Aggies are happy, the SEC gets a larger slice of the DFW market and two national brands one of which is AAU. The Big 10 compromises nothing and gains not only stellar academic members but two major demographic grabs, inclusion into a recruiting hotbed, and does so economically. Plus the contiguity is closer than skipping Kansas to get to Oklahoma.

IMO this is the only win/win for the Big 10 and SEC.

WVU goes to the ACC we move to a champ only P4, and N.D. goes all in with the ACC giving them the content boost they need. If the PAC wants to replace Colorado they have Texas Tech or T.C.U. to choose from. (BTW: TCU main campus is governed by church polity and is academically free. Their seminary is governed separately.)

Here is an off the wall suggestion--what if the conference that was disassembled was the PAC 12 instead?

They are a financial mess right now and struggling to get playoff berths. The Big 12 could grab 6 of the 12 and the Big Ten could have 2 or maybe 4. Let's say the 4 California schools.

Oregon St and Washington St are probably the most likely left out.

(01-05-2019 05:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the Big 12 remain solvent if Oklahoma and Okla St/Kansas left? If Texas was determined not to move and keep a conference where they called the shots going then Oklahoma and Kansas might be able to leave their instate rivals behind.

Oklahoma doesn't go anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State (and preferably both). Not for political reasons, but just because a move to either the B1G (improbable) or the SEC (likely) would probably entail a 9 game conference schedule. To then have both Texas and OK State OOC limits the number of home games available to them (not to mention cupcakes to keep the W-L% in the gaudy range).

What could change the game for everybody, though, would be divisionless conferences. That would allow for 8 game league schedules even with 16-18 team conferences. But that runs counter to what the media partners will want in the way of inventory if they are going to pay the big bucks necessary for any expansion to happen.

I agree and disagree here Ken D. I agree OU's preference would be to move with both Texas and Oklahoma State, but minimally with at least one of them.

I agree that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely.

What I disagree with is expansion costing the networks big bucks. Consider this. Currently the Big 12 costs ESPN/FOX 350 million plus the conference share of revenue and that's ballpark figuring. Then it costs ESPN another 22 million for the LHN and Kansas's T3. It costs FOX another 7 million for OU's T3.

Not only is the Big 12 really overpaid for their market reach, but think in terms of the lost content multiplying factor by not having UT and OU in a conference where other national and regional brands would really accelerate their audience draw.

At 18 without divisions it makes it possible for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to move together to more than just the PAC.

But there are other considerations that could be in play here. While Texas likes having other Texas schools to play, they may have finally realized that being on equal footing branding wise with those other schools is not to their advantage. Recruits are getting harder and harder to come by. Splitting any of them with other Texas schools of equal branding (conference wise) may be hurting them.

This is also somewhat true for Oklahoma with regard to OSU.

Right now if you consider how heavily OU and OSU recruit Texas there are 7 P schools dividing Texas recruits and then there are schools like LSU and Arkansas that have presence there, though not as extensive as the other 7. That's a lot of fat fingers in the same pie. If Texas changed conference affiliations with Tech and possibly Oklahoma they could enhance their brand advantage in recruiting and cut that competition down from 7 schools to 5 or possibly even 4. By doing that they actually enhance their chances to remain successful. I might add that the same situation has detracted from UNC's ability to field better football teams as well.

So it may be that going divisionless makes expansion to 18 more likely and perhaps with less baggage. If all Texas had to compete with directly and on equal footing with were Oklahoma and Texas A&M how much stronger would all 3 be? They could use OOC games to play Tech, T.C.U., or Baylor and keep a brand advantage over them. If state politics gets involved in realignment then divisionless makes it possible for Tech and OSU to tag along as well. But, even with the "baggage" paying Texas and Oklahoma to play in a conference with many more must see foes would actually cost less in the long run than paying top football wages to 8 schools that could not merit it on their own.

If Texas changed conferences, it might result in more schools successfully recruiting in Texas. Here's the reality. There are very few players in Texas that UT recruits that don't choose either Texas, OU or A&M. If they were in a conference with Alabama or Ohio St., they might become serious competition for a lot of top talent instead of a rare player or two.

Correct. Texas won't want to compete with SEC recruiting tactics, nor will they invite B1G teams into Texas to recruit effectively.
Not the only reason that Texas will join the ACC, but certainly a consideration.

They already compete with SEC teams in Texas X!