(05-10-2013 01:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe another key (for the grant of rights) is that the addition of Louisville was very well-received by the media and others in college sports -- I think there were a lot of people whose initial reaction to Louisville replacing Maryland was, "Hey, that's a big competitive upgrade for the ACC, in football and in basketball." Maybe that reaction in turn made some ACC teams feel better about the ACC and more willing to sign the GOR.

I know that after our addition to the ACC was announced, we went out and 1) beat Big Ten bound Rutgers to win the Big East, 2) dominated the Sugar Bowl in the biggest upset in BCS history, 3) return damn near the entire football team for next season, 4) won the Big East regular season and conference basketball championships, 5) won the NCAA men's basketball championship, 6) had our women's team beat Baylor in the biggest upset in the history of the NCAA women's tourney, and 7) sent our women's team to the national championship game, with the entire team back next season. 8) And our baseball team is still top ten.

If that didn't put people at ease about going into a GOR with Louisville, I don't know what will.

You know, that was really fun to type.

(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address.

Agreed. And so does the ACC, which slightly beneath the surface has a fractured culture between football and basketball schools.

The Big12 is fine at 10.

(05-10-2013 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address.

Agreed. And so does the ACC, which slightly beneath the surface has a fractured culture between football and basketball schools.

Maybe....maybe not and maybe that was the reason why Louisville got the invite over UConn...Louisville was seen as the "Football Choice" for the Clemson/FSU...which is amazing since Louisville is actually more basketball-(Top 7 All Time Program).

But as of now they are happy @ Chapel Hill/Durham and Haggard/FSU President are happy in Tallahassee. As long as those two are happy then the ACC can move forward.

The Big XII is facing a haves/have not situation....as Franl point out they are as of right now the only P5 league without or doesn't have plans for a. Conference Network. That is going to put any school not named Texas or Oklahoma @ a disadvantage...they gotta address that plus increase their TVD Footprint which is by far the smallest of the P5.

(05-10-2013 12:17 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Trying to figure out how the OP came to the conclusion that the BXII and ACC were "Junior Partners" as opposed to, oh say, "equity partners"...

Only thing I meant by it is most of the "sports media" see the SEC/B1G as the lead dogs of the P5 whether it is accurate or not.

(05-10-2013 01:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address.

Agreed. And so does the ACC, which slightly beneath the surface has a fractured culture between football and basketball schools.

Maybe....maybe not and maybe that was the reason why Louisville got the invite over UConn...Louisville was seen as the "Football Choice" for the Clemson/FSU...which is amazing since Louisville is actually more basketball-(Top 7 All Time Program).

But as of now they are happy @ Chapel Hill/Durham and Haggard/FSU President are happy in Tallahassee. As long as those two are happy then the ACC can move forward.

The Big XII is facing a haves/have not situation....as Franl point out they are as of right now the only P5 league without or doesn't have plans for a. Conference Network. That is going to put any school not named Texas or Oklahoma @ a disadvantage...they gotta address that plus increase their TVD Footprint which is by far the smallest of the P5.

Is it necessarily a disadvantage not having a conference network? Each of the other Big 12 schools have third tier deals with regional FSN networks that provide both revenue and exposure for third tier content. It's a different model, but not necessarily and inferior one. Just read an article on CU's budget problems that highlighted how they aren't getting any money from the PAC-12 network, yet. The Big 12 teams are all getting money from their 3rd tier content from day one.

http://www.dailycamera.com/sports/ci_231...ncial-loss

I apologize up front because I know the man has a large cheering section here and goes unchallenged most of the time but you have to take everything this guy writes with a box of salt.

The guy referenced himself 12 times in that story but on the other hand I did not see ONE SINGLE SOURCE OF HIS OWN quoted, NOT ONE. So it’s basically an opinion piece without sources. In fairness, past and present events that have taken place are used to write the narrative…but I should remind everyone, anyone with a functioning brain can do the EXACT SAME THING.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to EVER find (In any piece this guy writes) something along the lines of “I spoke with Jim Delany” or “I spoke with a senior level person at Fox/ESPN/COMCAST/CABELVISISON/UVERSE or whoever” or “I spoke with someone from the commissioner’s office of the BIG10/ACC/SEC/BIG12/PAC12/CUSA/BIGEAST/MWC"

I used to believe this guy until I studied up and read a ton of the archives at Frank The Tank….His record is less than sterling and it’s there for anyone to see all you have to do is go back in history and read from there to now….It take a lot of time but what you find is rather revealing. The reason the record is less than sterling is because everything is opinion before and after the facts many times. It’s simply NOT NEWS.

This guy is no different that the rest of us….he is an information junkie (maybe more than some) he takes that information and writes a narrative, while at the same time making it appear (in a subtle way) that it’s REAL NEWS when in fact IT’S NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION.
I could care less one way of the other about Clay Travis, in fact I’m not a fan…but if you read his piece at least he is actually on the record as speaking with Mike Slive in at least a few references.

(05-10-2013 02:27 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  I apologize up front because I know the man has a large cheering section here and goes unchallenged most of the time but you have to take everything this guy writes with a box of salt.

The guy referenced himself 12 times in that story but on the other hand I did not see ONE SINGLE SOURCE OF HIS OWN quoted, NOT ONE. So it’s basically an opinion piece without sources. In fairness, past and present events that have taken place are used to write the narrative…but I should remind everyone, anyone with a functioning brain can do the EXACT SAME THING.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to EVER find (In any piece this guy writes) something along the lines of “I spoke with Jim Delany” or “I spoke with a senior level person at Fox/ESPN/COMCAST/CABELVISISON/UVERSE or whoever” or “I spoke with someone from the commissioner’s office of the BIG10/ACC/SEC/BIG12/PAC12/CUSA/BIGEAST/MWC"

I used to believe this guy until I studied up and read a ton of the archives at Frank The Tank….His record is less than sterling and it’s there for anyone to see all you have to do is go back in history and read from there to now….It take a lot of time but what you find is rather revealing. The reason the record is less than sterling is because everything is opinion before and after the facts many times. It’s simply NOT NEWS.

This guy is no different that the rest of us….he is an information junkie (maybe more than some) he takes that information and writes a narrative, while at the same time making it appear (in a subtle way) that it’s REAL NEWS when in fact IT’S NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION.
I could care less one way of the other about Clay Travis, in fact I’m not a fan…but if you read his piece at least he is actually on the record as speaking with Mike Slive in at least a few references.

Narrative with an agenda imo.

(05-10-2013 02:27 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  I apologize up front because I know the man has a large cheering section here and goes unchallenged most of the time but you have to take everything this guy writes with a box of salt.

The guy referenced himself 12 times in that story but on the other hand I did not see ONE SINGLE SOURCE OF HIS OWN quoted, NOT ONE. So it’s basically an opinion piece without sources. In fairness, past and present events that have taken place are used to write the narrative…but I should remind everyone, anyone with a functioning brain can do the EXACT SAME THING.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to EVER find (In any piece this guy writes) something along the lines of “I spoke with Jim Delany” or “I spoke with a senior level person at Fox/ESPN/COMCAST/CABELVISISON/UVERSE or whoever” or “I spoke with someone from the commissioner’s office of the BIG10/ACC/SEC/BIG12/PAC12/CUSA/BIGEAST/MWC"

I used to believe this guy until I studied up and read a ton of the archives at Frank The Tank….His record is less than sterling and it’s there for anyone to see all you have to do is go back in history and read from there to now….It take a lot of time but what you find is rather revealing. The reason the record is less than sterling is because everything is opinion before and after the facts many times. It’s simply NOT NEWS.

This guy is no different that the rest of us….he is an information junkie (maybe more than some) he takes that information and writes a narrative, while at the same time making it appear (in a subtle way) that it’s REAL NEWS when in fact IT’S NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION.
I could care less one way of the other about Clay Travis, in fact I’m not a fan…but if you read his piece at least he is actually on the record as speaking with Mike Slive in at least a few references.

I will simply get my popco'n, pull up a chair and enjoy this.



This gon' be good....

(05-10-2013 02:27 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  I apologize up front because I know the man has a large cheering section here and goes unchallenged most of the time but you have to take everything this guy writes with a box of salt.

The guy referenced himself 12 times in that story but on the other hand I did not see ONE SINGLE SOURCE OF HIS OWN quoted, NOT ONE. So it’s basically an opinion piece without sources. In fairness, past and present events that have taken place are used to write the narrative…but I should remind everyone, anyone with a functioning brain can do the EXACT SAME THING.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to EVER find (In any piece this guy writes) something along the lines of “I spoke with Jim Delany” or “I spoke with a senior level person at Fox/ESPN/COMCAST/CABELVISISON/UVERSE or whoever” or “I spoke with someone from the commissioner’s office of the BIG10/ACC/SEC/BIG12/PAC12/CUSA/BIGEAST/MWC"

I used to believe this guy until I studied up and read a ton of the archives at Frank The Tank….His record is less than sterling and it’s there for anyone to see all you have to do is go back in history and read from there to now….It take a lot of time but what you find is rather revealing. The reason the record is less than sterling is because everything is opinion before and after the facts many times. It’s simply NOT NEWS.

This guy is no different that the rest of us….he is an information junkie (maybe more than some) he takes that information and writes a narrative, while at the same time making it appear (in a subtle way) that it’s REAL NEWS when in fact IT’S NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION.
I could care less one way of the other about Clay Travis, in fact I’m not a fan…but if you read his piece at least he is actually on the record as speaking with Mike Slive in at least a few references.

I think he has a good track record on this board and in his blog of 1. being well informed about public info regarding expansion 2. makes it clear he is giving an opinion and 3. never claims to be more of insider than he is. I think he is different than the rest of us- not because he is more of an insider, but because thinks and debates about these issues more than most of us.

Did any of the posters that are vehemently defending the Big-12 in this thread even bother to read the article? It's an opinion piece to be sure, but the logic is quite sound. No matter how much you recycle the Deloss talking points about "the virtue of round-robin" play, the Big-12 is locked into the smallest geographic market of all P5 leagues. The fact is the footprint is only 5 states, with Texas the only one with top 10 media markets. The Big-12 is also the only P5 league that will not have its own network in the foreseeable future, and will never as long as Texas has the Longhorn network. Inequity is exactly what continues to make the Big-12 unstable. To argue that is "not an inferior model" is foolish...

Those who had a problem with the "inequity" left. Everyone else is looking at an estimated $22-25 million per year before tier 3 kicks in. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...nue-payout

(05-10-2013 03:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Did any of the posters that are vehemently defending the Big-12 in this thread even bother to read the article? It's an opinion piece to be sure, but the logic is quite sound. No matter how much you recycle the Deloss talking points about "the virtue of round-robin" play, the Big-12 is locked into the smallest geographic market of all P5 leagues. The fact is the footprint is only 5 states, with Texas the only one with top 10 media markets. The Big-12 is also the only P5 league that will not have its own network in the foreseeable future, and will never as long as Texas has the Longhorn network. Inequity is exactly what continues to make the Big-12 unstable. To argue that is "not an inferior model" is foolish...

C'mon, man get off your high horse. His was an opinion piece and we are all giving our opinions about it. That's what this board is for.

I gave my opinions as to why a 10 team model is a viable model for the Big 12. Disagree if you like and give your reasons why, but the "my opinion is right, therefore you're an idiot" attitude is offensive and unnecessary.

(05-10-2013 03:32 PM)Groo Wrote:  Those who had a problem with the "inequity" left. Everyone else is looking at an estimated $22-25 million per year before tier 3 kicks in. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...nue-payout

Sorry, but $9 mill is pennies compared to what tier 3 rights are in a bundled network package (B1G, SEC). If Texas or WVU reportedly makes close to $9 mill for tier 3, what does Kansas make with their tier 3? $3 mill maybe? How many times will Kansas football be played on national tv in 2013? The point of the piece is about future earning potential as a conference, not current distribution. In a bundle of tier 3 content, even Indiana and Kentucky football gets to take a pretty girl to the prom too.

The projections don't include third-tier television rights, which the schools control and, in some cases, garner serious side money. (Texas and West Virginia are both reportedly over $9 million per year.)

(05-10-2013 03:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Did any of the posters that are vehemently defending the Big-12 in this thread even bother to read the article? It's an opinion piece to be sure, but the logic is quite sound. No matter how much you recycle the Deloss talking points about "the virtue of round-robin" play, the Big-12 is locked into the smallest geographic market of all P5 leagues. The fact is the footprint is only 5 states, with Texas the only one with top 10 media markets. The Big-12 is also the only P5 league that will not have its own network in the foreseeable future, and will never as long as Texas has the Longhorn network. Inequity is exactly what continues to make the Big-12 unstable. To argue that is "not an inferior model" is foolish...

Disagree strongly about inequality being a cause at all. It's a scapegoat more than anything. Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Missouri all left for reason that had nothing to do with financial equality (Nebraska and A&M in fact voted for it).

Now long term I agree its the most vulnerable as its strength is most wrapped around a couple schools and the conference is literally surrounded by potential poachers. This isn't a problem with the Big 12 model itself though. There's no possible additions that will result in the risk decreasing. In the end, I think the safest model is probably to stick with what they have. The round robin and double round robin don't leave anyone feeling like outsiders in the conference (as will happen with any division set-up) and financially its probably as strong as its going to get.

(05-10-2013 01:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address.

Agreed. And so does the ACC, which slightly beneath the surface has a fractured culture between football and basketball schools.

Maybe....maybe not and maybe that was the reason why Louisville got the invite over UConn...Louisville was seen as the "Football Choice" for the Clemson/FSU...which is amazing since Louisville is actually more basketball-(Top 7 All Time Program).

But as of now they are happy @ Chapel Hill/Durham and Haggard/FSU President are happy in Tallahassee. As long as those two are happy then the ACC can move forward.

The Big XII is facing a haves/have not situation....as Franl point out they are as of right now the only P5 league without or doesn't have plans for a. Conference Network. That is going to put any school not named Texas or Oklahoma @ a disadvantage...they gotta address that plus increase their TVD Footprint which is by far the smallest of the P5.

The ACC seems like a happy family right now but once the glow of the GoR wears off the fundamental differences could very well arise again.

As for the B12, I do not know why it gets harangued for its footprint when its TV deal is based on the national appeal of TX and OK.

(05-10-2013 11:56 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  If The ACC would have added UConn instead of Louisville, there is no guarantee that The Big 12 would have done anything differently. Honestly I believe that was the plan all along. However something happened between November 20th and November 26th that changed this plan. On the 20th talking heads were reporting that UConn would soon be invited to join The ACC by the 23rd, Frank and others were saying not so fast. By the weekend Florida media reported that FSU and Clemson wanted Louisville. My guess is FSU and Clemson told The ACC to take Louisville or we are gone to The Big 12. In return FSU may have promised to sign a GOR. Swofford himself said The ACC had been working on the GOR since early January. When you consider Louisville was invited to join The ACC on 11/28, the Christmas Holiday Season, The ACC would have had to almost start working on the GOR as soon as Louisville accepted the invite.

Do I believe Louisville is responsible for ACC stablility, not it all. I do however believe the invite of UofL over UConn was seen as a football first move (How Jurich pulled that off amazes me) by schools like FSU and Clemson. That itself led to the GOR getting signed.
CJ

Let's redefine that a bit. Louisville satisfied the football first schools of the ACC, but it also satisfied the basketball first schools of the ACC. That is something that UConn could not do and that is why the academic issue was not a deciding factor. Louisville's rating will improve significantly in the ACC. But, no other school out there could have satisfied both the Basketball and Football camps as well as the Cardinals.

(05-10-2013 03:47 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 03:32 PM)Groo Wrote:  Those who had a problem with the "inequity" left. Everyone else is looking at an estimated $22-25 million per year before tier 3 kicks in. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...nue-payout

Sorry, but $9 mill is pennies compared to what tier 3 rights are in a bundled network package (B1G, SEC). If Texas or WVU reportedly makes close to $9 mill for tier 3, what does Kansas make with their tier 3? $3 mill maybe? How many times will Kansas football be played on national tv in 2013? The point of the piece is about future earning potential as a conference, not current distribution. In a bundle of tier 3 content, even Indiana and Kentucky football gets to take a pretty girl to the prom too.

The projections don't include third-tier television rights, which the schools control and, in some cases, garner serious side money. (Texas and West Virginia are both reportedly over $9 million per year.)

Actually, I think Kansas is pretty high. An old thread said, $6 million and I've seen higher figures put online (don't know where to look for perfect figures though). That's mostly basketball probably though. Kansas State and Iowa State I'd imagine are a lot less. It would be a lot less still if Texas and Oklahoma were in the PAC-10, which is what probably would have happened without the Longhorn Network.

(05-10-2013 10:55 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:45 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  But even when Louisville was available, the same issues were facing the Big 12- no conference network to make adding "markets" significant, awkward potential divisions, doesn't make UT more likely to stay.

I think the Big 12 was fine with 10 back then, just as they are now because the issues are the same. The only difference is if FSU or ND became available- those are the only expansions I suspect they seriously considered. They were in a position to take advantage of a frameshift change in the landscape, but were not in a position to cause one, and in fact in think preferred the status quo.

Who knows what the last straw would have been for FSU and Clemson? Perhaps if Louisville had not been available, then it could have been just enough to tip the scales and cause a mass exodus of ACC southern football schools to the Big 12.

A Big 12 with any six of Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, NC State, Louisville, etc. would be very formidable and more than enough to offset Texas's gravitational influence.

That is true - but it presumes that the Big 12 could have pulled the likes of those schools. I think that FSU and Clemson rattled their swords a little and used the potential for an exit to the Big 12 to get the ACC to listen to them (and likely pick UL over UConn, for example) but I don't think there was ever a chance for a major exodus from the ACC to the Big 12 unless the SEC and B1G had both struck significant simultaneous blows to the ACC. I've seen some Big 12 posters on local message boards bemoan the Big 12's "lost opportunity" to get FSU and Clemson, but I think in the end the reason they didn't formally invite them is not just because UT said no, but because they knew via back-channel conversations that neither of them would leave the ACC.

(05-10-2013 03:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Did any of the posters that are vehemently defending the Big-12 in this thread even bother to read the article? It's an opinion piece to be sure, but the logic is quite sound. No matter how much you recycle the Deloss talking points about "the virtue of round-robin" play, the Big-12 is locked into the smallest geographic market of all P5 leagues. The fact is the footprint is only 5 states, with Texas the only one with top 10 media markets. The Big-12 is also the only P5 league that will not have its own network in the foreseeable future, and will never as long as Texas has the Longhorn network. Inequity is exactly what continues to make the Big-12 unstable. To argue that is "not an inferior model" is foolish...

After Texas A&M/Missouri left, the Big 12 should have done this:

1) Dropped Texas Tech and Iowa State.

2) Added Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, West Virginia, and one more in that footprint to get to 12.

That would have solved having too many teams in Texas and given the Big 12 a much better/bigger footprint.