(05-10-2013 10:18 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:09 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  As long as Texas prefers being a big fish in a small pond, the Big 12 is solid as a rock. The day Texas takes an institutional preference for associating with more similar universities will be a very bad day for the Big 12.

I think this is true, but the larger point is that this is true even if the Big 12 goes to 12 or 14. IOW, going to 12 or 14 has no effect on stability, since the weakest link is Texas in any size Big 12.

Bingo. That's exactly what I was implying. Adding any of BYU, Cincinnati, UConn, USF or UCF will do NOTHING to change the situation. So why bother?

I'm not even sure adding FSU and Clemson would have changed the situation, and I think that had a lot to do with why they probably only considered the Big 12 a lifeboat in the event of the B1G putting a torpedo into the ACC.

(05-10-2013 10:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Thanks for the link, Maize.

One thought that that I didn't point out in that post is that I sincerely believe that the Big 12 thought Louisville would be one of those schools that would always be there for the taking when necessary and was very surprised that the ACC ended up choosing them over UConn. (After all, the ACC passed on West Virginia many times prior to that.) That really limited the Big 12's options for future expansion. The Big 12 leaders can keep saying publicly that they're happy with 10 and the round-robin schedule, but deep down, I don't think they really expected to still be at 10 at this point in the game (especially in the wake of the Big Ten expanding further to 14).

I think you underestimate the steady state number of 10 for the Big 12. You touched on the financial aspect- as opposed to the other conferences, adding markets really isn't as attractive as the the conferences with conference based networks. For the Big 12 they face "splitting up the pie" issues with getting bigger. And I really think that when the Big 12 sat down to hash out divisions, even with attractive options like FSU and Clemson, it got very difficult to please everyone. There just aren't great geographic and cultural splits. Those conversations probably led people to see the virtues of the round robin. And the stability of the Big 12 isn't tied to size- it is tied to UT being satisfied.

So getting bigger doesn't increase revenue, doesn't increase stability and potentially leads to contentious division/ scheduling issues. It is easy to see how the league sees 10 as a steady state number.

That's not to say the Big 12 isn't at risk in the current environment- I think it clearly is. I just don't think getting bigger mitigates that risk and in fact might bring instability quicker with awkward divisions and a potentially unsatisfied UT.

(05-10-2013 10:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  One thought that that I didn't point out in that post is that I sincerely believe that the Big 12 thought Louisville would be one of those schools that would always be there for the taking when necessary and was very surprised that the ACC ended up choosing them over UConn. (After all, the ACC passed on West Virginia many times prior to that.) That really limited the Big 12's options for future expansion. The Big 12 leaders can keep saying publicly that they're happy with 10 and the round-robin schedule, but deep down, I don't think they really expected to still be at 10 at this point in the game (especially in the wake of the Big Ten expanding further to 14).

They never thought the game through. They thought "Louisville will always be there, so we can wait because the ACC would just take UConn if they need another school."

But their dummasses never put themselves in the ACC's shoes. Because it's pretty obvious that the ACC said "UConn will always be there, but the Big 12 might take Louisville soon, so we might want to take them while they are available."

I sit in amazement and how badly these million dollar executives execute these decisions. From start to finish, is there ANYTHING the Big 12 did well?

(05-10-2013 09:54 AM)Cleanface Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:50 AM)USM@FTL Wrote:  Texas and OU to the SEC seems more likely to me.

A&M and Johnny Football might speed things up.

You think Texas is going to follow little bro A&M anywhere??



TX > B1G is more likely than TX > SEC.

UT to the Pac is even more likely. I think the Pac 16 is still in the cards down the road.

"The Big 12 could also conceivably expand in virtually any direction within the continental United States..."

I totally disagree with this suggestion. The only logical direction for expansion is eastern. The depiction below clearly illustrates how ridicules the B12 currently looks with WV all by itself:



Now consider how much better the B12 would look with the many options available in eastern expansion:

(05-10-2013 09:54 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  One advantage of having just 10 teams is that if the conference footprint won't support an overall payout on the scale of the B1G, SEC, Pac, or ACC, it's still possible to retain a high per-school payout since that smaller pie isn't being carved into as many slices. If the football and basketball anchors can continue to make lucrative Tier3 deals that they don't share among their conference brethren, their incentive to leave is reduced as well.

As long as TV revenue can continue to support that level of pay outs from the networks. The demographics call that into question for the long term.

(05-10-2013 10:18 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:09 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  As long as Texas prefers being a big fish in a small pond, the Big 12 is solid as a rock. The day Texas takes an institutional preference for associating with more similar universities will be a very bad day for the Big 12.

I think this is true, but the larger point is that this is true even if the Big 12 goes to 12 or 14. IOW, going to 12 or 14 has no effect on stability, since the weakest link is Texas in any size Big 12.

Interesting point. Penn State could never bring itself to find common ground with other football schools in the East in terms of forming a conference. They were unwilling to compromise ant the Eastern schools were unwilling to meet their demands. Ultimately they found their preferred partnership with more similar universities in the Big Ten. Now we have 2 additional similar universities from the East being drawn into the B1G orb.

Unlike Penn State, Texas which holds a similar position in its region was able to make the necessary compromises and to obtain the necessary concessions to keep their thing going. But whether they too will some day decide that they are better served by an affiliation with more similar institutions is anyone's guess.

(05-10-2013 10:33 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  One thought that that I didn't point out in that post is that I sincerely believe that the Big 12 thought Louisville would be one of those schools that would always be there for the taking when necessary and was very surprised that the ACC ended up choosing them over UConn. (After all, the ACC passed on West Virginia many times prior to that.) That really limited the Big 12's options for future expansion. The Big 12 leaders can keep saying publicly that they're happy with 10 and the round-robin schedule, but deep down, I don't think they really expected to still be at 10 at this point in the game (especially in the wake of the Big Ten expanding further to 14).

They never thought the game through. They thought "Louisville will always be there, so we can wait because the ACC would just take UConn if they need another school."

But their dummasses never put themselves in the ACC's shoes. Because it's pretty obvious that the ACC said "UConn will always be there, but the Big 12 might take Louisville soon, so we might want to take them while they are available."

I sit in amazement and how badly these million dollar executives execute these decisions. From start to finish, is there ANYTHING the Big 12 did well?

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.

(05-10-2013 10:31 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Thanks for the link, Maize.

One thought that that I didn't point out in that post is that I sincerely believe that the Big 12 thought Louisville would be one of those schools that would always be there for the taking when necessary and was very surprised that the ACC ended up choosing them over UConn. (After all, the ACC passed on West Virginia many times prior to that.) That really limited the Big 12's options for future expansion. The Big 12 leaders can keep saying publicly that they're happy with 10 and the round-robin schedule, but deep down, I don't think they really expected to still be at 10 at this point in the game (especially in the wake of the Big Ten expanding further to 14).

I think you underestimate the steady state number of 10 for the Big 12. You touched on the financial aspect- as opposed to the other conferences, adding markets really isn't as attractive as the the conferences with conference based networks. For the Big 12 they face "splitting up the pie" issues with getting bigger. And I really think that when the Big 12 sat down to hash out divisions, even with attractive options like FSU and Clemson, it got very difficult to please everyone. There just aren't great geographic and cultural splits. Those conversations probably led people to see the virtues of the round robin. And the stability of the Big 12 isn't tied to size- it is tied to UT being satisfied.

So getting bigger doesn't increase revenue, doesn't increase stability and potentially leads to contentious division/ scheduling issues. It is easy to see how the league sees 10 as a steady state number.

That's not to say the Big 12 isn't at risk in the current environment- I think it clearly is. I just don't think getting bigger mitigates that risk and in fact might bring instability quicker with awkward divisions and a potentially unsatisfied UT.

Splitting up the pie is only an issue if with expansion, the pie remains the same size. That's the unknown.

What's also unknown is whether the current current contract is sustainable with the existing demographics. ESPN and Fox made a calculation. Time will tell if they guessed right or not. If they didn't, they will certainly become more active in pressuring the conference to address its footprint.

What is known is that the pie will see some growth with the addition of the CCG alone. That's not enough but it's a step in the right direction.

(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.

(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.

I guess it is possible, but it seems like a stretch to think the Big 12 adding Louisville would have significantly changed the overall dynamic. I think the fault line was the tug and pull between the Big 10 and the ACC. The ACC was able to close that fault line with the GOR, and I suspect that substituting UConn for Louisville would not have changed the trajectory of that scenario- that was really dependent on a few key players agreeing to the GOR.

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

(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.

Adding Louisville would have been a huge mistake. The networks weren't willing to pay for them. UL fans have a lot higher opinion of their TV value than the networks. The Big 12 looked hard at UL. Reports by Chip Brown and OU sources (I think Berry Trammel) said the networks wouldn't pay enough extra to get UL to pay for itself or any combination of Big East schools. And that was when Rutgers was still in the BE and the BE was looking at a $7-$10 million TV contract.

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"...

Who knows what went on behind the scenes, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that a GOR would not have been signed if Louisville wasn't the replacement for Maryland.

(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

I think it was plainly obvious that FSU and Clemson told the rest of the conference that they would have to "consider other options" if UConn were added. I think GT may have even said they would have to consider that "rumored" B1G offer.

I don't mean to say this in an effort to over-inflate Louisville's value. This isn't about "comparative" value. Obviously there are many MANY members that bring far more total value to the ACC.

Instead, this is about well timed "incremental" value. At some point you cross a line, and the deal just isn't good enough anymore. And for the southern football schools, I think adding UConn was crossing that line.

(05-10-2013 09:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:17 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  The Big12 has waited too long to grab quality teams and now faces the network's input on which teams are left that the networks are interested in. The Big12 has basically lost its position of leverage as it concerns expansion, and the networks (FOX more than anyone) now have that leverage. IMO, the Big12's fate rests on 10 teams being enough with a good enough SoS to make it to the playoffs. Ultimately I think it will be a handicap to the Big12.

Either way I think the Big12 faces some tough decisions on how to grow the conference, keep their high TV money payout, and remain relevant in regards to the new playoff system.

Why do you think it be a handicap in the playoff system? Why is 10 teams a disadvantage in terms of the playoffs?

I think it's a handicap from a perspective standpoint. The Big12 will have a round robin schedule with 3 OOC games. Other than OU and UT, the strength of schedule is subjective. With the lack of a CCG, you now look like you have an easier path to the playoff, and a sense that your champion didn't earn it, like other conference champions did.

I think it makes the Big12 look weak, come selection time. That's what I meant by a "handicap".

I think there is a precedence of this occurring in the BCS already. I don't remember the exact years, but some teams were left out of the BCS bowls because of strength of schedule. I think this perception will persist for the Big12 conference champ.

(05-10-2013 12:53 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:17 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  The Big12 has waited too long to grab quality teams and now faces the network's input on which teams are left that the networks are interested in. The Big12 has basically lost its position of leverage as it concerns expansion, and the networks (FOX more than anyone) now have that leverage. IMO, the Big12's fate rests on 10 teams being enough with a good enough SoS to make it to the playoffs. Ultimately I think it will be a handicap to the Big12.

Either way I think the Big12 faces some tough decisions on how to grow the conference, keep their high TV money payout, and remain relevant in regards to the new playoff system.

Why do you think it be a handicap in the playoff system? Why is 10 teams a disadvantage in terms of the playoffs?

I think it's a handicap from a perspective standpoint. The Big12 will have a round robin schedule with 3 OOC games. Other than OU and UT, the strength of schedule is subjective. With the lack of a CCG, you now look like you have an easier path to the playoff, and a sense that your champion didn't earn it, like other conference champions did.

I think it makes the Big12 look weak, come selection time. That's all I meant.

I agree that a weak nonconference SOS or nonconference performance in a given year could hurt come selection time, but that will be the case for 14 team conferences, too. I don't think the presence or absence of a conference championship game will change that hurdle. Perhaps a larger conference would have more chances to impress nonconference, but they will also have more chances to fall short of expectations, so I think that comes out in the wash.

I do think the Big 12 will have less appearances than a comparable 14 team conference (less balls in the lottery phenomenom), but if you control for the number of teams, it won't be any different rate than 14 team conferences of similar ability (or maybe even be a higher rate, since there is a premium on champions).

(05-10-2013 12:34 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(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

I think it was plainly obvious that FSU and Clemson told the rest of the conference that they would have to "consider other options" if UConn were added. I think GT may have even said they would have to consider that "rumored" B1G offer.

I don't mean to say this in an effort to over-inflate Louisville's value. This isn't about "comparative" value. Obviously there are many MANY members that bring far more total value to the ACC.

Instead, this is about well timed "incremental" value. At some point you cross a line, and the deal just isn't good enough anymore. And for the southern football schools, I think adding UConn was crossing that line.

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.

(05-10-2013 01:01 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:53 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:17 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  The Big12 has waited too long to grab quality teams and now faces the network's input on which teams are left that the networks are interested in. The Big12 has basically lost its position of leverage as it concerns expansion, and the networks (FOX more than anyone) now have that leverage. IMO, the Big12's fate rests on 10 teams being enough with a good enough SoS to make it to the playoffs. Ultimately I think it will be a handicap to the Big12.

Either way I think the Big12 faces some tough decisions on how to grow the conference, keep their high TV money payout, and remain relevant in regards to the new playoff system.

Why do you think it be a handicap in the playoff system? Why is 10 teams a disadvantage in terms of the playoffs?

I think it's a handicap from a perspective standpoint. The Big12 will have a round robin schedule with 3 OOC games. Other than OU and UT, the strength of schedule is subjective. With the lack of a CCG, you now look like you have an easier path to the playoff, and a sense that your champion didn't earn it, like other conference champions did.

I think it makes the Big12 look weak, come selection time. That's all I meant.

I agree that a weak nonconference SOS or nonconference performance in a given year could hurt come selection time, but that will be the case for 14 team conferences, too. I don't think the presence or absence of a conference championship game will change that hurdle. Perhaps a larger conference would have more chances to impress nonconference, but they will also have more chances to fall short of expectations, so I think that comes out in the wash.

I do think the Big 12 will have less appearances than a comparable 14 team conference (less balls in the lottery phenomenom), but if you control for the number of teams, it won't be any different rate than 14 team conferences of similar ability (or maybe even be a higher rate, since there is a premium on champions).

I understand your point, but this is less about the unintended consequences of the new system, and more about the media and fan perception of a single conference not having a championship game, and how that might affect the BigXII's chances of getting votes for the playoff spots. There's no way, having fewer teams, and therefore no CCG is going to help a BigXII team get into the playoff. It's going to be perceived as an unfair advantage, and ultimately become a penalizing effect for the conference. Once again, IMO.

I think expanding to a minimum of 12 teams and a CCG will eliminate this becoming a reality, and it won't hurt the bottom dollar if they select wisely by picking up a UCF/USF combo at half the normal per school payout. Something both schools would obviously jump at, and the conference has access to very fertile recruiting grounds in FL. Just seems like a no-brainer to me. However Cincy and UConn fans would probably disagree. And yes, I understand payout inequality is a sore issue for the BigXII, but you step up the payouts over a number of years, till UCF/USF become fully vetted members, and that becomes a moot point. Once again, just my opinion.