bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote: (02-18-2014 10:26 AM)S11 Wrote: (02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote: (02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote: I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.
I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.
WRT to UT/OU influence here, you can say the same about Bama(SEC), Michigan/tOSU (B1G), the Carolina Mafia (ACC), and the California schools in the PAC as those schools hold sway in those leagues.
Also last I checked pretty much every realignment move has featured the new school getting less influence than it had before politically. That would not be unique to us.
Actually S11, in spite of another decent attempt at Big 12 apologetics you are dead wrong. The fact that Alabama gets the same share of the total revenue of the conference that everyone else gets is a big big difference. I might add that Ohio State and Michigan even share their gate receipts with the rest of the Big 10. The Carolina Mafia as you call them now has revenue sharing now too. It's your Big 12 where T3 rights were held in reserve for the individual school where the pecking order is maintained in spades. Texas gets 15 million for the LHN, and it goes down in descending order from there. In the SEC Texas A&M now has an equal voice, as does Missouri, as does Arkansas, and as does South Carolina. Alabama has to reach a general consensus with everyone else before they can get something they want passed. It is very very different from the Big 12. I believe this became that way because we have an assemblage of state leaders. Kentucky is our Kansas, but then we have Georgia, Florida, L.S.U., and Tennessee all of whom are just as big of a fish as Alabama is institutionally speaking. And my in state Tigers along with the Tide and 3 other SEC schools are in the top 10 in the nation in profitability. That too is a major difference between the two conferences. No doubt Alabama would try to wield the power of Texas if they were in a conference where there were only two top 10 earners and a bunch of teams ranked between the 30's and 40's in earnings power behind them. But in the SEC 5 are in the top 10 and 9 are in the top 20. So the two are very different.
The very fact that Texas wants a fiefdom is telling. The reason the Big 12 is under duress and the reason that 4 flagship schools defected is exactly because there was entrenched inequity in the Big 12 that didn't exist in the PAC, Big 10, and SEC. I the days of polls and bowls playing a couple of top notch opponents and a bunch of weaker schools was the ticket to the National Championship as proclaimed by the AP and UPI. The BCS changes that slightly and the CCG changed it slightly. Now you had to play 4 or 5 quality teams to accomplish what you once had under the bowls and polls system.
What made the SEC take off was the denser competition level within the conference. As SEC schools learned that it was in their best interest to work with each other the conference got stronger. First Kramer and now Slive have helped everyone to see that. The model for success is utilizing each others' strengths to build a brand and command a greater audience and garner greater profits. The old model is now outdated and is so because of its inefficiencies and inequities. Had the Big 12 with brands like Texas and Oklahoma gone to a total revenue sharing model you might have landed a Florida State or Clemson when things first got riled up and I doubt that Nebraska or Missouri would have departed. But all of that happened because your business model is anachronistic and that makes you very different.
When Nebraska and Colorado left, the Big 12 had more equal revenue sharing than the Pac 12 and Big East. The LHN didn't exist. Although the SEC was looking to change, at the time A&M and Missouri left, the revenue sharing of the Big 12 and SEC was identical. The 4 schools who left were schools who benefitted from unequal revenue sharing. It was Baylor, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Iowa St. and Texas Tech who got less than average. Revenue sharing has been irrelevant to Big 12 realignment.
|
|