(07-23-2013 05:14 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I read the figure given to be an estimation of the deal dollar value, since it likely isn't structured to actually mimic Tech's athletic budget, considering they could manipulate that. Most deals I seem to read are total figures (instead of per year) for the deal so I went with that. But I can definitely see how that could be read differently as well.

My response was to try and knock this guy off his self created pedestal more than anything else. I guess its natural to have some inflated sense of self-worth, that's just part of being a fan. I just think he should take a step back and realize that some of these P5 schools aren't really that far ahead of some of their counterparts in the 'others'.

I've seen reports on our pay sites that indicate we get between 3-5mm ANNUALLY from our Tier 3 media rights. I don't need to be knocked off a pedestal because Tech and 9 other members have a home in the Big 12. How are the AAC bowl negotiations going? Land any big name bowls in the last few days? Lose any bowls to better conferences with better teams and more money/fans?

The amount of Big 12 hate on this board is incredible

(07-23-2013 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 02:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i wanna dispel one quick notion that i keep seeing from b12 fans.....

power conferences will never....ever get smaller. the sec, pac, & b10 have the habit of keeping members for the long haul. this "some day small conferences will be all the rage" is a bigger pipe dream than temple going to the b12.

Maybe, maybe not, but you don't seem to know much history.

How do you think the Big 8, SEC, ACC and current Pac 12 were formed? From larger conferences, leaving lesser members behind. In more recent history, the 10 team Big 12, Big East (a power basketball conference), AAC and MWC (latter 2 don't fit power conference, but they are conferences). No conference in any division that has gotten over 14 has stayed together for any length of time. And I can't think of any but the PSAC that has gotten over 12 that hasn't split (but I can't say for certain there aren't some other Division II/III examples with non-fb schools pushing them over 12).

id say thats a fine apples to oranges argument. those conferences didnt get raided because they got too big, they got raided by other conferences because they were weaker. the big east had only 8 teams when they were raided by the acc/b12 in both 2003 and 2011. the big east is a much better comparison because its a modern day example plus its very comparable tot eh b12. (weakest of the power conferences, small amount of teams, let on the field results do the talking)

(07-23-2013 06:37 PM)Planks Wrote:  The amount of Big 12 hate on this board is incredible

for me it started back when all the b12 homers claimed FSU & co. were a lock for joining the b12 and dismissed everyone who said otherwise as acc homers. plus the whole mindset that they were better off without aggie unl mizz, & cu

im sorry but you dont lose 4 land grant flagship, aau schools, from large states and just so happened to be charter members then say that makes you a better conference because of it.....

but my personal favorite is that the b12 wrote the book on building a 12 team conference whereas the pac/b10 focused on round robin style. now all i see is b12 fans claiming round robin, no divisions is the best thing for a conference.

talk about hypocrisy......

(07-23-2013 04:18 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 10:23 AM)Underdog Wrote:  No.... TX wouldn't have allowed it. This is the biggest problem with the B12: A self-centered school is calling all the shots and has no vision for the future of the B12, which has a footprint smaller than raided (multiple times) CUSA:

So if it doesn't fit your dream scenario then blame Texas?

1)They have ONE vote. Teams may be located IN a market, but do they deliver enough of it?

2) I don't care what CUSA's footprint is? All 4 Big 12 texas teams individually deliver more of Houston than Rice does and more of Dallas than UNT does.

3) At some point ratings and fan/alumni bases have to be the guide instead of "look where they are located!" as that is what the tv networks look at.

1)...and TX has the most influence—period!

2) I'm sure CUSA (and its larger footprint) feels the same way about the B12....

3) The networks could care less about the difference between a 30,000 capacity or a 60,000 capacity stadium being filled. If the school that plays in the 30,000 capacity stadium averages double the viewers than the school playing in the 60,000 capacity stadium, which school do you think a network would televise more?

(07-23-2013 01:10 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Some AAC fans are claiming they bring a TV market and will enhance our TV contract by adding them. I say BS. If they did, they would have a home in the Big 12. They don't but it hasn't stopped them from begging for a new conference home.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you knew I was referring to the lifeline of schools, not individuals. I sincerely apologize that I wasn't more clear on that.

Some AAC fans posting their opinions doesn't equate to them trying to do the impossible on this board—getting their school into the B12. I guess you assume that the B12 commissioner is a member of this board and considers the post of a few fans as being on the same level of a school’s president or ad. Moreover, you must assume that some of the AAC fans on this board are the school presidents or ads for the institutions they root for. Furthermore, just because some AAC fans (and fans of other G5 conferences) post that they feel their schools belong in the B12 doesn’t mean its begging; it’s an opinion and nothing more. Please learn to distinguish the difference between doing the impossible—begging on a board—and posting an opinion….

imo only cincy, utah state, colorado state, air force & byu are b12 quality schools.

granted the b12 needs to focus east because of wvu, but i just dont see schools like ohio, Memphis, etc. as really being cut out for the b12.

(07-23-2013 08:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  granted the b12 needs to focus east because of wvu

I don't agree.

If the Big 12 were to expand (and I don't think they need to), then their strategy ought to be to keep asking BYU until they say yes, and only after BYU says yes do you actually decide to expand and decide who the 12th team would be.

Proximity to existing schools does matter, but BYU is so much stronger than other potential candidates that it trumps the relative closeness of other candidates to the Big 12's center.

its kinda like nebraska/psu in the b10, fsu with the acc or miami with the big east

conferences need to invest in their outlier schools, by closing the outlier gap they can maximize the resources that schol can offer to a conference.

historically speaking wvu is the b12s 3rd strongest program, however the outlier gap is absolutely killing them

(07-23-2013 09:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 08:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  granted the b12 needs to focus east because of wvu

I don't agree.

If the Big 12 were to expand (and I don't think they need to), then their strategy ought to be to keep asking BYU until they say yes, and only after BYU says yes do you actually decide to expand and decide who the 12th team would be.

Proximity to existing schools does matter, but BYU is so much stronger than other potential candidates that it trumps the relative closeness of other candidates to the Big 12's center.

Wedge, I agree with that, but then they need a small bridge to Utah (New Mexico, Colorado State, or Wyoming). And they should agree to let West Virginia join the ACC or SEC and quit trying to make that island work, that is if they really have plans to be a conference in the not too distant future.

(07-23-2013 07:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  id say thats a fine apples to oranges argument. those conferences didnt get raided because they got too big, they got raided by other conferences because they were weaker. the big east had only 8 teams when they were raided by the acc/b12 in both 2003 and 2011. the big east is a much better comparison because its a modern day example plus its very comparable tot eh b12. (weakest of the power conferences, small amount of teams, let on the field results do the talking)

No, those conferences all formed when a large conference had a faction that said to themselves and each other "What are WE doing with THEM?" and formed a new conference.

The Southern Conference begat the SEC and the ACC.
The Mountain West formed from the WAC old guard who looked at the bloated 16-team conference and wanted no part of it.
The (new) Big East formed when the nonfootball schools of the Big East looked over at the football lineup and called off the hybrid.

and again you are comparing those conferences to conferences like the b10 who have been around since the 19th century and have never lost a member....

and to be clear..... are you really trying to compare a failed experiment from the 20s & 30s and using it for a reason why these new conferences are going to fail?

(07-23-2013 08:13 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 04:18 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 10:23 AM)Underdog Wrote:  No.... TX wouldn't have allowed it. This is the biggest problem with the B12: A self-centered school is calling all the shots and has no vision for the future of the B12, which has a footprint smaller than raided (multiple times) CUSA:

So if it doesn't fit your dream scenario then blame Texas?

1)They have ONE vote. Teams may be located IN a market, but do they deliver enough of it?

2) I don't care what CUSA's footprint is? All 4 Big 12 texas teams individually deliver more of Houston than Rice does and more of Dallas than UNT does.

3) At some point ratings and fan/alumni bases have to be the guide instead of "look where they are located!" as that is what the tv networks look at.

1)...and TX has the most influence—period!

2) I'm sure CUSA (and its larger footprint) feels the same way about the B12....

3) The networks could care less about the difference between a 30,000 capacity or a 60,000 capacity stadium being filled. If the school that plays in the 30,000 capacity stadium averages double the viewers than the school playing in the 60,000 capacity stadium, which school do you think a network would televise more?

1A. Texas still only has 1 vote in the Big 12. If the other 9 members collaborate to invite Houston & Cincy (which would obviously be a huge mistake) there is nothing Texas can do about it. They can b****, moan and threaten to leave but can do absolutely zilch until the GOR expires. Fortunately, most Big 12 schools see value in siding with Texas so that dream scenario would never happen. That being said, Tech isn't afraid to tell UT no. We've done it twice in regards to the LHN.

2A. I'm a grad of both Tech and North Texas and can tell you North Texas has almost no fan base. Same thing with Rice. Same thing with UTSA. CUSA might have a bigger footprint but they don't have large, loyal dedicated fans like the Big Texas schools do.

3A. Boise plays in a 30K + stadium and usually has good TV ratings but can't sniff an invite from the PAC 12 or Big 12. I stand by the statement that if you have trouble filling a 30K seat stadium, more than likely those same students & alumni could care less when their school is on TV. With a few exceptions, most big schools that put 60K + in the stands will always outdraw schools that average 30K on TV. Simple math.

(07-23-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and again you are comparing those conferences to conferences like the b10 who have been around since the 19th century and have never lost a member....

and to be clear..... are you really trying to compare a failed experiment from the 20s & 30s and using it for a reason why these new conferences are going to fail?

A school or two did leave the Big 10 temporarily.
There are examples from the 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. It has always happened. Conferences got too big, too diverse and they split.

i still dont believe the GOR is solid. everything we have seen so far dictates a set X dollar exit fee is the way to go. GOR have never been tested in court before and we only have sources to say theres a GOR. we have no idea what conditions are set in these actual GOR contracts. (If any special conditions do indeed exist)

(07-23-2013 11:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and again you are comparing those conferences to conferences like the b10 who have been around since the 19th century and have never lost a member....

and to be clear..... are you really trying to compare a failed experiment from the 20s & 30s and using it for a reason why these new conferences are going to fail?

A school or two did leave the Big 10 temporarily.
There are examples from the 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. It has always happened. Conferences got too big, too diverse and they split.

chicago dropped its sports to div 2, but is still a full non sports academic member of the b10. michigan left for a few years due rule changes designed to weaken them but eventually rejoined

some b10 fans i knew back at espn have stated there are certain b10 contractual conditions attached to the U of chicago. they can rejoin at anytime and if need be, any new members who have joined since they left will be kicked out if need be to make room for them. im not sure if the last part is true or not but it was a pretty interesting thought.

the sec lost two schools who left because they wanted to de emphasis sports

the pac is a little more complicated. they had 5 schools leave and reform the conference after a massive pay for play scandal. 3 members were invited back within 5 years, while the last 2 (montana & idaho) were not

the only 3 schools lost by the acc, b10, sec, & p12 conferences who are still p5 schools are

sec- gtech
acc- scar, maryland

(07-23-2013 11:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 11:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and again you are comparing those conferences to conferences like the b10 who have been around since the 19th century and have never lost a member....

and to be clear..... are you really trying to compare a failed experiment from the 20s & 30s and using it for a reason why these new conferences are going to fail?

A school or two did leave the Big 10 temporarily.
There are examples from the 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. It has always happened. Conferences got too big, too diverse and they split.

chicago dropped its sports to div 2, but is still a full non sports academic member of the b10. michigan left for a few years due rule changes designed to weaken them but eventually rejoined

some b10 fans i knew back at espn have stated there are certain b10 contractual conditions attached to the U of chicago. they can rejoin at anytime and if need be, any new members who have joined since they left will be kicked out if need be to make room for them. im not sure if the last part is true or not but it was a pretty interesting thought.

the sec lost two schools who left because they wanted to de emphasis sports

the pac is a little more complicated. they had 5 schools leave and reform the conference after a massive pay for play scandal. 3 members were invited back within 5 years, while the last 2 (montana & idaho) were not

The PCC/Pac evolution is most like what might happen in the future if big conferences split up. The five most like-minded schools, who were more serious than a few of the others about athletics, left and formed their own league. Eventually they invited the Oregon schools and Wazzu to rejoin them. Any supersized conference of today could do something similar (restricted only by these long-term TV deals). A group of half of them or less could become unhappy with the direction the conference is going, or think that a few schools are just riding the gravy train, or whatever, and strike out on their own.

i think a bi difference between then & now is that the sec/b10/pac all have developed bonds with each school member and wont be leaving their weaker schools behind

the pac did that split when they had only 10 schools. so saying that the pac example is going to affect the b10/sec/acc but not the b12 is just silly

(07-23-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and again you are comparing those conferences to conferences like the b10 who have been around since the 19th century and have never lost a member....

and to be clear..... are you really trying to compare a failed experiment from the 20s & 30s and using it for a reason why these new conferences are going to fail?

I'm not, but you said that the megaconferences failed because they were weaker conferences raided by stronger conferences. I was just saying that most of them were secessions of the more valuable schools from the less valuable schools. SEC, ACC from SoCon, MWC from WAC, Big East from AAC.

I'm not saying that the Southern Conference and WAC and hybrid Big East experience means that 14- or 16-team power conferences would have the same problems. I don't see a group of SEC schools dumping Vanderbilt or the Mississippi schools.

The only comparable looking forward would be a real superconference, something like USC Stanford Texas Texas A&M Oklahoma LSU ALabama Auburn Tennessee Georgia Florida Ohio State Michigan Penn State Nebraska Notre Dame--and I don't see that either.

(07-23-2013 06:37 PM)Planks Wrote:  The amount of Big 12 hate on this board is incredible

Not really.
It's just the same 4 or 5 posters saying the same stuff over and over and over..........
It does get old.