Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
Author Message
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
There may have been some dissension in the old Big 12, but nobody who's left was about to dump ISU or TT. I think adding WVU, Pitt, Louisville and Cincinnati could have been an interesting move after Colorado and Nebraska left.
05-10-2013 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 04:05 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(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.

In retrospect Phog I don't believe that ESPN was going to reward SEC expansion out of the ACC and I don't believe Slive wanted to destabilize what has been an extremely healthy environment for the SEC by destabilizing the "best" buffer the SEC had against Big 10 expansion into the South. Therefore F.S.U. and Clemson to the Big 12 was never a serious option in anyone's minds but some of the fans.

Let's face it. If the SEC had truly wanted Virginia Tech and North Carolina the only way they could have potentially shaken them loose would have been by first taking F.S.U. and Clemson to destroy the ACC's football chops (prior to the N.D. announcement of course). In order to qualify for the big playoff money the other schools of the ACC with football interest would have been forced to weigh their options.

Two years ago the rumor was that the SEC would go to 16 with Texas A&M and Missouri from the West and Clemson and Florida State from the East (an ESPN rumor). Then the so called "gentlemen's agreement was first voiced" and all of that changed. FOX made major strides and that may have altered ESPN strategies as well.

But after FOX made its moves and the Big 10 started talking expansion strategy it became very clear that a solid ACC was the in the best interest of both ESPN and the SEC.

If the Big 12 chooses to expand the power 5 will be at an end of raiding each other for additions. If they do not that speculation (and possibility) of a future raid against the Big 12 by the other power 4 will linger. Expansion now for the Big 12 would be the best possible news for Cincinnati, South Florida, Connecticut, B.Y.U. and others.

I think failure to expand by the Big 12 at this point is truly a sign of Texas having desires for some other kind of affiliation.
05-10-2013 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 04:02 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(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.

The other thing to remember is that the conference network income is still going to be a deferred benefit for the non- Big 10 leagues for a period of time. In article I posted earlier, CU hasn't even begun to get money from the PAC-12 network. OTOH, the Big 12 teams are getting their third tier money right off. Also, I think people see the success of the Big 10 network and extrapolate that to all conferences. I'm not sure it is that simple. There is a reason some conferences hesitated on the conference network model, and I think it was a "bird in the hand, two in the bush" type of a debate. The Big 12 went with the bird in the hand and short term at least will be coming out ahead with actually getting paid for third tier content.
05-10-2013 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Groo Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 317
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: -8
I Root For: Kansas
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.
05-10-2013 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #65
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 04:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The other thing to remember is that the conference network income is still going to be a deferred benefit for the non- Big 10 leagues for a period of time. In article I posted earlier, CU hasn't even begun to get money from the PAC-12 network.

I think that only applies to the Pac-12. AFAIK the Pac-12 is the only conference that owns/operates its own network without Fox or ESPN as a partner, thus the Pac is the only conference that paid or will pay its own network start-up costs instead of getting an immediate payout from Fox or ESPN.
05-10-2013 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 04:39 PM)Groo Wrote:  You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.

True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
05-10-2013 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
College Basketball Fan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 332
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: D1 Basketball
Location: Midwest
Post: #67
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
The Big 12 is the fifth power conference, and it will never get better. As a Big 12 fan, the conference will die. There are no good options and no reason for the conference to exist after the GOR ends. A few schools will migrate the PAC16 or B1G, but KState/Iowa State/Baylor/TCU/West Virginia/any other additions will be screwed and will eventually join either the AAC or MWC, barring a major upset and one of them joining the SEC.

The conference is not the best at anything and is by far the worst conference when it comes to footprint and markets. Its times are numbered. I'd say only Texas and Oklahoma are truly "safe," while KU and Oklahoma State are "semi-safe." Texas Tech has a chance to get thrown in as a bundle with Texas. Everyone else is out of luck, and that is largely due to the ineptitude of the league, which drove Missouri, Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Colorado out and replaced them with great schools like TCU and West Virginia, which do nothing to help the conference's population problem. Like it or not (and I certainly don't) the conference is at its core, flawed.

This type of instability cannot last, and it isn't just about having 10 members. The conference right now is overwhelming dependent on one state, and has two members that don't even share a border with another Big 12 state. It is on an entirely different, lower level than the ACC or PAC12 (the PAC12 has limited expansion options, but they are also immune to getting picked apart). And it isn't good enough at either football or basketball to make up for its other failings.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 05:50 PM by College Basketball Fan.)
05-10-2013 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #68
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
It isn't hard for the unbiased observer to understand a lot of what Frank says. However, I don't understand how some folks seem to think what he writes is that ground breaking. Honestly, a lot of it is common sense...... again if you look at things without bias.
05-10-2013 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:39 PM)Groo Wrote:  You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.

True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..
05-10-2013 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 05:51 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:39 PM)Groo Wrote:  You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.

True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..

I think I understand, but please explain that to me.
05-10-2013 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Green Bull Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: USF Bulls
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 10:45 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(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.

The Big 12 needed a conference network to benefit from Louisville's basketball program?

I think the Big 12 would have been more than happy with Miami, Virginia Tech, and/or Clemson.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 06:21 PM by Green Bull.)
05-10-2013 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #72
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(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.

But ... who cares about "footprint" when the Big 12's value - and at over $20 million per year for media rights, it is valuable - is in the NATIONAL appeal of the two flagship schools, Texas and Oklahoma?

And in what sense is there instability? The Big 12 has a GoR for at least 7 more years so nobody is going anywhere anytime soon. The Big 12 also has that massive $40 million a year tie-in with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl.

Big 12 network or not, the Big 12 is rolling in the dough from both their media deal and the new playoff/bowl system, and if I were an Iowa State or Texas Tech, the last thing on my mind would be whining about the breadwinners, TX and OK, getting a bit more.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 06:31 PM by quo vadis.)
05-10-2013 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Green Bull Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: USF Bulls
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(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 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.

This is only a cautious guess, but it probably does not help that the population and fanbase support is heavily on the coasts and metropolitan Midwest. Not that it would necessarily influence the selection committee, but a backlash over a Big 10 or PAC-12 champion getting excluded would probably be stronger than the backlash from the exclusion of a one or more-loss Big 12 Champion without a Championship game-especially if the Big 12 champion wins through a tiebreaker.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 07:05 PM by Green Bull.)
05-10-2013 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #74
Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 06:19 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 05:51 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:39 PM)Groo Wrote:  You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.

True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..

I think I understand, but please explain that to me.

Sugar Bowl's 40mm payout, playoff base pay per power conf, and other rev sources are fixed. Adding two drops per school cut of this money.
05-10-2013 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #75
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 05:40 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  This type of instability cannot last, and it isn't just about having 10 members. The conference right now is overwhelming dependent on one state, and has two members that don't even share a border with another Big 12 state. It is on an entirely different, lower level than the ACC or PAC12 (the PAC12 has limited expansion options, but they are also immune to getting picked apart). And it isn't good enough at either football or basketball to make up for its other failings.

Right now, the Big 12 is clearly the #3/#4 conference, ahead of the ACC. That's reflected in the SEC's decision to partner with the Big 12 instead of the ACC on the Sugar Bowl deal. It has a great media deal, a GoR that ensures stability for years, and a great situation in the bowl/playoffs system.

Yes, the Big 12 is dependent on Texas, but then again Texas is wealthier than most countries in the world. It's a whole lot better of a state to be dependent on than, say North Carolina (ACC), and isn't the PAC also quite dependent on California?

As for what the Big 12 is good at, well, it has clearly been the second-best football conference in the BCS era, and the last three years it has been arguably the equal of the SEC.

The only reason i see to dump on the Big 12 is ... wishful thinking from fans of schools that want an invitation.
05-10-2013 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 06:34 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 06:19 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 05:51 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:39 PM)Groo Wrote:  You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.

True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..

I think I understand, but please explain that to me.

Sugar Bowl's 40mm payout, playoff base pay per power conf, and other rev sources are fixed. Adding two drops per school cut of this money.

Ok, got it. But you don't think the added CCG would offset those costs?
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 06:48 PM by Knightsweat.)
05-10-2013 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #77
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 06:46 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 06:34 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 06:19 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 05:51 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..

I think I understand, but please explain that to me.

Sugar Bowl's 40mm payout, playoff base pay per power conf, and other rev sources are fixed. Adding two drops per school cut of this money.

Ok, got it. But you don't think the added CCG would offset those costs?

The Big 12 has plenty of experience with a CCG. They are well aware of what its costs and benefits are, so if they say they don't need one, I tend to believe them. 07-coffee3
05-10-2013 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Green Bull Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: USF Bulls
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 06:34 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 06:19 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 05:51 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:39 PM)Groo Wrote:  You are overlooking greed. The Big12 not expanding at this point is all about keeping revenues at their highest for the member schools. Adding teams just to have some CCG doesn't add to anyone's bottom line.

True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..

I think I understand, but please explain that to me.

Sugar Bowl's 40mm payout, playoff base pay per power conf, and other rev sources are fixed. Adding two drops per school cut of this money.

Total bowl revenue probably would be diluted, but expansion could help compensate for that, with an one or two bowl games and a conference championship game.
05-10-2013 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 05:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It isn't hard for the unbiased observer to understand a lot of what Frank says. However, I don't understand how some folks seem to think what he writes is that ground breaking. Honestly, a lot of it is common sense...... again if you look at things without bias.

Voltaire once said, "Common sense is most uncommon."
05-10-2013 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #80
Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
(05-10-2013 07:08 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 06:34 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 06:19 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 05:51 PM)S11 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 04:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  True statement, but one of the rumors fueling this UCF/USF combo rumor is that FOX wants exposure in Florida and is willing to match the current payout per school if the BigXII invites the Florida duo. Florida St. And Miami were the original targets, but now appear to be off the table with the ACC GOR agreement, hence the reason the rumor about UCF/USF is persisting. Most of us UCF/USF fans don't want to believe it so we won't have to endure a let down when/if it doesn't come true.
FOX might need to do better than that if they want it done. They'd need to pay more than that to keep the B12 from losing net distributions from the Sugar Bowl, playoff, etc..

I think I understand, but please explain that to me.

Sugar Bowl's 40mm payout, playoff base pay per power conf, and other rev sources are fixed. Adding two drops per school cut of this money.

Total bowl revenue probably would be diluted, but expansion could help compensate for that, with an one or two bowl games and a conference championship game.

Between 40mm Sugar Bowl and 51mm playoff pool (and potential participation funds) we'd lose 1.4mm per school at minimum even if the TV deal kept us whole and that doesn't factor in additional participation revenue, NCAA credits, or contract bowl money.

The title game will cover the initial loss but beyond that its still a per school loss. Twelve might work if the networks keep their per school pay up and also pay 1.5per team for the title game. Fourteen without a big time addition is likely dead on arrival.
05-10-2013 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.