Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 11:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:44 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

If you parse the google data on what parts of the country are passionate about college football what emerges is most every place where college football is at or near the top in interest sits inside the membership of B1G and SEC.

Oklahoma is about it for places that are college football crazy that don't have at least one member of those two leagues.

That doesn't mean it's not a high value product outside those areas but there is certainly some added value to being that high impact.

Let's say on a typical Saturday a small fry like Arkansas State has 30k in the stands (not uncommon especially early season) and the game draws 70k viewers in Arkansas on ESPNU. That's drawing the interest of about 3.5% of the state and Temple has the same crowd and the same number of TV viewers in Philadelphia metro area that's roughly 1.5% of the market.

Same raw number of people watching in person or on TV but an advertiser trying to reach the state of Arkansas is reaching a larger part of the market overall. There are fewer options to reach that large of a percentage of the market (remember nationally the BCS title game is viewed in about 15% of homes). The advertiser in Philadelphia has more avenues to reach that percentage of the market.

When you consider that it is not unheard of for an SEC game to reach 70% of Alabama, there is simply no substitute.

The SEC and B1G offer a product with no comparable substitute in most of their markets.

If the SEC wanted to and did successfully persuade UT, OU, UNC and Duke to join forces their market force would be a license to print money. I just have my doubts that any of those four would be inclined to do so but it would be for factors other than money.

In all likelihood Carolina will not have the need to act, especially if they are successful with a conference network. The disparity and lack of a significant upside will prompt movement in the Big 12 eventually. Those factors contributed to the departure of 4 major schools already. The impetus for those moves has not magically disappeared. Texas can wait it out. I'm not so sure about Oklahoma and Kansas.

The beauty of the ACC in my opinion (as I've stated elsewhere) is the expansion has opened up markets that have higher college hoops interest to the ACC for monetization, while allowing some schools with good football market access to markets with higher college football interest.
02-18-2014 12:05 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: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

Well, you (and I) are both making assumptions on the future revenue numbers. Lots of variables in play. I usually avoid these type discussions, because there is so much guess work, but using your example, I don't think even a 7 million dollar gradient difference would cause OU or KU to move, especially when legal fees and penalties could easily eat that up quickly, not to mention the political fallout of leaving behind state institutions. I think it would need to be a bigger gradient than that. I think they'd need to increase revenue by 50% or so to overcome the status quo threshold they'd have to surpass. I doubt a 20-25% increase would be enough.

Give me an example of anyone who did move for a 50% gradient? Rutgers maybe.

When the time comes for Kansas and Oklahoma to move they won't be moving by themselves. And if it is prior to 2024 it most assuredly will involve at least 8 schools, perhaps everyone. The lag here is partially due to the Big 10 and SEC (and ESPN and FOX) waiting and watching the outcome of the Maryland case. It's not that they believe the ACC to be vulnerable, as much as they are waiting just to make sure that they are not vulnerable. A decision for the ACC (even a mitigated one) strengthens them. Getting a network would strengthen them. The most valuable markets for the SEC & Big 10 would be a few of those in the ACC. I think the Big 10 and SEC just want to make sure that no movement will come out of the ACC before they commit slots to desirable targets in the Big 12, especially since friends will have to be accommodated to initiate Big 12 movement.

BTW the initial estimates of the SEC's value with the SECN is 35 million a year for the first two years. And, that's the catch. The SECN pays for all of its start up costs in the first two years. After 2018 the projections go into the low 40's. Even with adjustments upward in the Big 12 payouts the difference after T3 is added back in is around 8 million for Oklahoma while the SEC is in start up phase for the first two years. Then it almost doubles in difference when the full payouts start to be received by SEC conference members after 2018. The Big 10 will be in the low 40's by the 2017. That's why I said the parity in revenue would be short lived.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 12:17 PM by JRsec.)
02-18-2014 12:13 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: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

Well, you (and I) are both making assumptions on the future revenue numbers. Lots of variables in play. I usually avoid these type discussions, because there is so much guess work, but using your example, I don't think even a 7 million dollar gradient difference would cause OU or KU to move, especially when legal fees and penalties could easily eat that up quickly, not to mention the political fallout of leaving behind state institutions. I think it would need to be a bigger gradient than that. I think they'd need to increase revenue by 50% or so to overcome the status quo threshold they'd have to surpass. I doubt a 20-25% increase would be enough.

Give me an example of anyone who did move for a 50% gradient? Rutgers maybe.

When the time comes for Kansas and Oklahoma to move they won't be moving by themselves. And if it is prior to 2024 it most assuredly will involve at least 8 schools, perhaps everyone. The lag here is partially due to the Big 10 and SEC waiting and watching the outcome of the Maryland case. It's not that they believe the ACC to be vulnerable, as much as they are waiting just to make sure that they are not vulnerable. A decision for the ACC (even a mitigated one) strengthens them. A network would strengthen them. The most valuable markets for the SEC would be a few of those in the ACC. I think the Big 10 and SEC just want to make sure that no movement will come out of the ACC before they commit slots to desirable targets in the Big 12, especially since friends will have to be accommodated in the Big 12.

BTW the initial estimates of the SEC's value with the SECN is 35 million a year for the first two years. And, that's the catch. The SECN pays for all of its start up costs in the first two years. After 2018 the projections go into the low 40's. Even with adjustments upward in the Big 12 payouts the difference after T3 is added back in is around 8 million for Oklahoma while the SEC is in start up phase for the first two years. Then it doubles in difference when the full payouts start to be received by SEC conference members after 2018. The Big 10 will be in the low 40's by the 2017.

WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers all were all obviously much higher than 50%.

For the others there were no GORs in play. Those definitely raise the threshold significantly.

I think we'd all agree a small increase of 5 or 10% wouldn't be enough to overcome the status quo threshold, and I'm guessing 50% or more would probably be enough for most. Where is the threshold in between? Probably varies from school to school, the presence and length of the GOR, the potential for new revenues in the current conference, political pressure, probability of protracted litigation, etc. I think a 25% increase would not necessarily be a no brainer.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 12:23 PM by Frog in the Kitchen Sink.)
02-18-2014 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
augustis13 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 74
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 7
I Root For: georgia state
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
The Big 12 wont disapear anytime soon, but at some point the others schools in the conference will have to get tired of Texas running the show..Basically to get into the conference you have to sign a blood oath to be Texas's ***** forever..Nebraska, A&M, Colorado, and Mizzou all got tired of it and I am sure Oklahoma is about done with it also.
02-18-2014 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #65
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.
02-18-2014 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 12:22 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

Well, you (and I) are both making assumptions on the future revenue numbers. Lots of variables in play. I usually avoid these type discussions, because there is so much guess work, but using your example, I don't think even a 7 million dollar gradient difference would cause OU or KU to move, especially when legal fees and penalties could easily eat that up quickly, not to mention the political fallout of leaving behind state institutions. I think it would need to be a bigger gradient than that. I think they'd need to increase revenue by 50% or so to overcome the status quo threshold they'd have to surpass. I doubt a 20-25% increase would be enough.

Give me an example of anyone who did move for a 50% gradient? Rutgers maybe.

When the time comes for Kansas and Oklahoma to move they won't be moving by themselves. And if it is prior to 2024 it most assuredly will involve at least 8 schools, perhaps everyone. The lag here is partially due to the Big 10 and SEC waiting and watching the outcome of the Maryland case. It's not that they believe the ACC to be vulnerable, as much as they are waiting just to make sure that they are not vulnerable. A decision for the ACC (even a mitigated one) strengthens them. A network would strengthen them. The most valuable markets for the SEC would be a few of those in the ACC. I think the Big 10 and SEC just want to make sure that no movement will come out of the ACC before they commit slots to desirable targets in the Big 12, especially since friends will have to be accommodated in the Big 12.

BTW the initial estimates of the SEC's value with the SECN is 35 million a year for the first two years. And, that's the catch. The SECN pays for all of its start up costs in the first two years. After 2018 the projections go into the low 40's. Even with adjustments upward in the Big 12 payouts the difference after T3 is added back in is around 8 million for Oklahoma while the SEC is in start up phase for the first two years. Then it doubles in difference when the full payouts start to be received by SEC conference members after 2018. The Big 10 will be in the low 40's by the 2017.

WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers all were all obviously much higher than 50%.

For the others there were no GORs in play. Those definitely raise the threshold significantly.

I think we'd all agree a small increase of 5 or 10% wouldn't be enough to overcome the status quo threshold, and I'm guessing 50% or more would probably be enough for most. Where is the threshold in between? Probably varies from school to school, the presence and length of the GOR, the potential for new revenues in the current conference, political pressure, probability of protracted litigation, etc. I think a 25% increase would not necessarily be a no brainer.

Actually, everyone who stayed in the Pac and Big 12 got a better than 50% raise.
02-18-2014 01:28 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: #67
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 12:22 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

Well, you (and I) are both making assumptions on the future revenue numbers. Lots of variables in play. I usually avoid these type discussions, because there is so much guess work, but using your example, I don't think even a 7 million dollar gradient difference would cause OU or KU to move, especially when legal fees and penalties could easily eat that up quickly, not to mention the political fallout of leaving behind state institutions. I think it would need to be a bigger gradient than that. I think they'd need to increase revenue by 50% or so to overcome the status quo threshold they'd have to surpass. I doubt a 20-25% increase would be enough.

Give me an example of anyone who did move for a 50% gradient? Rutgers maybe.

When the time comes for Kansas and Oklahoma to move they won't be moving by themselves. And if it is prior to 2024 it most assuredly will involve at least 8 schools, perhaps everyone. The lag here is partially due to the Big 10 and SEC waiting and watching the outcome of the Maryland case. It's not that they believe the ACC to be vulnerable, as much as they are waiting just to make sure that they are not vulnerable. A decision for the ACC (even a mitigated one) strengthens them. A network would strengthen them. The most valuable markets for the SEC would be a few of those in the ACC. I think the Big 10 and SEC just want to make sure that no movement will come out of the ACC before they commit slots to desirable targets in the Big 12, especially since friends will have to be accommodated in the Big 12.

BTW the initial estimates of the SEC's value with the SECN is 35 million a year for the first two years. And, that's the catch. The SECN pays for all of its start up costs in the first two years. After 2018 the projections go into the low 40's. Even with adjustments upward in the Big 12 payouts the difference after T3 is added back in is around 8 million for Oklahoma while the SEC is in start up phase for the first two years. Then it doubles in difference when the full payouts start to be received by SEC conference members after 2018. The Big 10 will be in the low 40's by the 2017.

WVU, TCU, Utah, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers all were all obviously much higher than 50%.

For the others there were no GORs in play. Those definitely raise the threshold significantly.

I think we'd all agree a small increase of 5 or 10% wouldn't be enough to overcome the status quo threshold, and I'm guessing 50% or more would probably be enough for most. Where is the threshold in between? Probably varies from school to school, the presence and length of the GOR, the potential for new revenues in the current conference, political pressure, probability of protracted litigation, etc. I think a 25% increase would not necessarily be a no brainer.

How convenient that you left out Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M because they all left for much much less. Of course the deserters of the Big East left for more. And those moving up to a BCS conference obviously got more. But we are talking about Kansas and Oklahoma and I believe I just listed their peers and I believe the left for much less. That's my point. "I think we can all agree on that!" And in the a previous post in this thread I clearly stated that it would take 8 to void the GOR, otherwise we were talking in 2024 when the GOR expires so either way it doesn't enter into it anymore than it did for the other 4.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 01:40 PM by JRsec.)
02-18-2014 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #68
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-17-2014 03:14 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Article on B12 and it's possible demise...unless.

url:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19624...inevitable

This article is beyond absurd…. The B12 couldn’t take the weakest schools in any power conference, let alone Miami, Arizona, Arizona State, and Clemson. Fox and ESPN have the B12 on life support and the two transplanted organs—TCU and WV—have yet to start function properly. Without any other viable organ donors able to justify the continuation of the B12's $20 mil life support payouts for each organ after its contract expires, FOX will probably pull the plug on the conference in my opinion. With that said, it’s really up to UT to decide if the B12 will continue as a power conference, which is somewhat different than the high payouts the conference is currently receiving (and UT will likely remain the highest paid school in the country). Some will disagree with me, but Dodds was wrong when he said the B12 would die without OU. As long as UT remains, the B12 could have added BYU and Cincy to replace OU (and OSU) and would have retained its power conference status. In fact, the B12 could have dismantled the MWC and still would have remained as a power conference. Why? UT is the most valuable program in the nation; thus the B12 would never die as a power conference and be resurrected as a G5 conference as long as UT is in the conference. For that, I must acknowledge how vital UT is to the existence of the B12 as a power conference. No other marquee school in any of the other power conferences is as important to the sustainability of its conference as UT is to the B12……
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 01:49 PM by Underdog.)
02-18-2014 01:45 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: #69
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(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.

That's a bit in the gray. You can say that the SEC was identical to the Big 12 but the plans for sharing all revenue were tied into the network which everyone already knew about at the time of their departure. But yes we moved from a similar system to what we have now. The other slight of hand here is that the Big 12 adopted the plan the SEC was vacating just after the first departures. Where I come from we call that a day late and a dollar short. While the SEC had wide variance from the top to the bottom in T3 rights prior to moving to joint rights for the network for our T3 we never had the extent of variance that exists between Texas and the others. And while the 4 that left benefited over some of their Big 12 conference mates they fell short of measuring up to Texas and Oklahoma and to a certain extent Kansas (Nebraska excepted but then they left for the lure of Big 10 revenue which honestly they are yet to see). So saying that they benefited from unequal sharing is still a bit of a nebulous and somewhat dubious distinction since they also fell short of competition because of it too. It is what it is.
02-18-2014 01:49 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: #70
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 01:45 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 03:14 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Article on B12 and it's possible demise...unless.

url:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19624...inevitable

This article is beyond absurd…. The B12 couldn’t take the weakest schools in any power conference, let alone Miami, Arizona, Arizona State, and Clemson. Fox and ESPN have the B12 on life support and the two transplanted organs—TCU and WV—have yet to start function properly. Without any other viable organ donors able to justify the continuation of the B12's $20 mil life support payouts for each organ after its contract expires, FOX will probably pull the plug on the conference in my opinion. With that said, it’s really up to UT to decide if the B12 will continue as a power conference, which is somewhat different than the high payouts the conference is currently receiving (and UT will likely remain the highest paid school in the country). Some will disagree with me, but Dodds was wrong when he said the B12 would die without OU. As long as UT remains, the B12 could have added BYU and Cincy to replace OU (and OSU) and would have retained its power conference status. In fact, the B12 could have dismantled the MWC and still would have remained as a power conference. Why? UT is the most valuable program in the nation; thus the B12 would never die as a power conference and be resurrected as a G5 conference as long as UT is in the conference. For that, I must acknowledge how vital UT is to the existence of the B12 as a power conference. No other marquee school in any of the other power conferences is as important to the sustainability of its conference as UT is to the B12……

And that my friend is precisely why they have the problems that they do have.
02-18-2014 01:57 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: #71
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 10:34 AM)He1nousOne 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.

I don't know about the interpolitics in some of the other conferences but the reason why Michigan and Ohio State hold so much "sway" in the Big Ten is because everyone else understands the fact that much of the value the Big Ten holds is due to these brands. Michigan and Ohio State do not hold a gun to the heads of the other schools, if anything it is the opposite, they are brandished by everyone in the Big Ten and expected to pull their massive weight. Of course to outsiders that can appear to be Michigan and Ohio State pushing their way around when actually quite often they are being pushed from behind.

From what I have gleened and read, it doesn't quite work the same way in the SEC as Alabama has the headquarters in their backyard and for many years used that influence in much different manner.

The Big Ten has a century of working together under it's belt. The South has had much more upheaval in it's conference systems within it's history.

As for the Southwest? I don't think there is any king of a conference that holds as much sway over the conference as Texas does. I really don't find a comparison between Texas and Ohio State/Michigan to be all that genuine. It is two very different situations.

H1, Birmingham may be near Tuscaloosa, but Alabama's power is no greater and no less than that of anyone else in the Conference. L.S.U., Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, and now Texas A&M would not let it be so. Now that fact doesn't stop Bammer blowhards from talking like they do and that often leads to the misperception.
02-18-2014 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #72
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 01:45 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 03:14 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Article on B12 and it's possible demise...unless.

url:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19624...inevitable

This article is beyond absurd…. The B12 couldn’t take the weakest schools in any power conference, let alone Miami, Arizona, Arizona State, and Clemson. Fox and ESPN have the B12 on life support and the two transplanted organs—TCU and WV—have yet to start function properly. Without any other viable organ donors able to justify the continuation of the B12's $20 mil life support payouts for each organ after its contract expires, FOX will probably pull the plug on the conference in my opinion. With that said, it’s really up to UT to decide if the B12 will continue as a power conference, which is somewhat different than the high payouts the conference is currently receiving (and UT will likely remain the highest paid school in the country). Some will disagree with me, but Dodds was wrong when he said the B12 would die without OU. As long as UT remains, the B12 could have added BYU and Cincy to replace OU (and OSU) and would have retained its power conference status. In fact, the B12 could have dismantled the MWC and still would have remained as a power conference. Why? UT is the most valuable program in the nation; thus the B12 would never die as a power conference and be resurrected as a G5 conference as long as UT is in the conference. For that, I must acknowledge how vital UT is to the existence of the B12 as a power conference. No other marquee school in any of the other power conferences is as important to the sustainability of its conference as UT is to the B12……

And that my friend is precisely why they have the problems that they do have.

I agree that other than OU and KU, the rest of the B12 is solely dependent on UT—which is the way UT wants it (look at us, we are literally carrying this conference). Consequently, because of UT’s obsession to be unequalled and depended upon by most of its other conference mates, the B12 will likely remain. Why? UT knows it wouldn't remain on its mythical throne if it went to another power conference; especially SECond to none football conference. In fact, when it looked like OU and OSU would get into the PAC 12, UT was willing to die with the rest of the B12 than follow A&M to the most logical conference for it to be in—the SEC. Moreover, UT considered the ACC a more logical conference to go to instead of the SEC or PAC 12. Maybe UT thought it could take it's mythical throne with it to the ACC....
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 02:17 PM by Underdog.)
02-18-2014 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BornandBred Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 6
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 0
I Root For: CTH
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
The B12 isn't going to poach the ACC, Pac, B1G or SEC. Their best options are taking BYU + the school with the next largest fanbase. Throwing NIU to the B12 won't suddenly convert a bunch of NIU grads who are illini fans into die-hard fans, but it will get die-hard Memphis/Boise/UConn/Ecu/Ucf*/Usf* fans to pony up some cash to develop into a B12 type program.

*might not have the fan base but has a large enough enrollment to quickly develop one.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 02:19 PM by BornandBred.)
02-18-2014 02:15 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: #74
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 02:09 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 01:45 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 03:14 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Article on B12 and it's possible demise...unless.

url:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19624...inevitable

This article is beyond absurd…. The B12 couldn’t take the weakest schools in any power conference, let alone Miami, Arizona, Arizona State, and Clemson. Fox and ESPN have the B12 on life support and the two transplanted organs—TCU and WV—have yet to start function properly. Without any other viable organ donors able to justify the continuation of the B12's $20 mil life support payouts for each organ after its contract expires, FOX will probably pull the plug on the conference in my opinion. With that said, it’s really up to UT to decide if the B12 will continue as a power conference, which is somewhat different than the high payouts the conference is currently receiving (and UT will likely remain the highest paid school in the country). Some will disagree with me, but Dodds was wrong when he said the B12 would die without OU. As long as UT remains, the B12 could have added BYU and Cincy to replace OU (and OSU) and would have retained its power conference status. In fact, the B12 could have dismantled the MWC and still would have remained as a power conference. Why? UT is the most valuable program in the nation; thus the B12 would never die as a power conference and be resurrected as a G5 conference as long as UT is in the conference. For that, I must acknowledge how vital UT is to the existence of the B12 as a power conference. No other marquee school in any of the other power conferences is as important to the sustainability of its conference as UT is to the B12……

And that my friend is precisely why they have the problems that they do have.

I agree that other than OU and KU, the rest of the B12 is solely dependent on UT—which is the way UT wants it (look at us, we are literally carrying this conference). Consequently, because of UT’s obsession to be unequalled and depended upon by most of its other conference mates, the B12 will likely remain. Why? UT knows it wouldn't remain its throne if it went to another power conference; especially SECond to none football conference. In fact, when it looked like OU and OSU would get into the PAC 12, UT was willing to die with the rest of the B12 than follow A&M to the most logical conference for it to be—the SEC.

Texas is unique in the sport. But the longer they hold on to a failed model of conference dynamics the further they will fall behind at least 3 if not all 4 of the other power conferences. Texas will still be Texas and eventually any of the other 4 will take them, but the death and destruction will fall upon their former serfs if they wait too long to make a move.
02-18-2014 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas is unique in the sport. But the longer they hold on to a failed model of conference dynamics the further they will fall behind at least 3 if not all 4 of the other power conferences. Texas will still be Texas and eventually any of the other 4 will take them, but the death and destruction will fall upon their former serfs if they wait too long to make a move.

You and I may be the only ones who get this but Texas is much like the old skits with Lilly Tomlin. "We don't care because we don't have to. We're the phone company."

That sums Texas up perfectly. They pursue a model to mostly maximize their wealth (they do share some) and in the process will leave much of the rest of the league unable to be on a competitive footing with the other P5 schools they recruit against for athletes, coaches, and quality administrators. If that results in Texas eventually being harmed because the CFP or an NCAA selection committee deems their schedule soft because the league is soft, they will pack up the old kit bag and go to the league of their choosing while decrying that they were forced to move because the rest of the league didn't keep up with the times.
02-18-2014 02:32 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: #76
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 02:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas is unique in the sport. But the longer they hold on to a failed model of conference dynamics the further they will fall behind at least 3 if not all 4 of the other power conferences. Texas will still be Texas and eventually any of the other 4 will take them, but the death and destruction will fall upon their former serfs if they wait too long to make a move.

You and I may be the only ones who get this but Texas is much like the old skits with Lilly Tomlin. "We don't care because we don't have to. We're the phone company."

That sums Texas up perfectly. They pursue a model to mostly maximize their wealth (they do share some) and in the process will leave much of the rest of the league unable to be on a competitive footing with the other P5 schools they recruit against for athletes, coaches, and quality administrators. If that results in Texas eventually being harmed because the CFP or an NCAA selection committee deems their schedule soft because the league is soft, they will pack up the old kit bag and go to the league of their choosing while decrying that they were forced to move because the rest of the league didn't keep up with the times.

Indeed! Well said. So shame on the rest of that conference if they fail to do anything about the fatal flaw that everyone has seen and discussed.
02-18-2014 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
Whoa there JR!

The fans of B12 schools who have little to no hope of getting a life line to another P5 conference will be here in a moment to tell you that their only remaining option is NOT fatally flawed and will be around forever!
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 02:54 PM by 10thMountain.)
02-18-2014 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #78
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
As usual, the conference they are in is the perfect conference for them! That is, until the day when it no longer is.
02-18-2014 03:02 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: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 02:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Whoa there JR!

The fans of B12 schools who have little to no hope of getting a life line to another P5 conference will be here in a moment to tell you that their only remaining option is NOT fatally flawed and will be around forever!

As the chief inspector says in Casablanca, "Round up the usual suspects." They've already been by.
02-18-2014 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #80
RE: Bleacher Report: Is the death of the B12 inevitable
(02-18-2014 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2014 10:34 AM)He1nousOne 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.

I don't know about the interpolitics in some of the other conferences but the reason why Michigan and Ohio State hold so much "sway" in the Big Ten is because everyone else understands the fact that much of the value the Big Ten holds is due to these brands. Michigan and Ohio State do not hold a gun to the heads of the other schools, if anything it is the opposite, they are brandished by everyone in the Big Ten and expected to pull their massive weight. Of course to outsiders that can appear to be Michigan and Ohio State pushing their way around when actually quite often they are being pushed from behind.

From what I have gleened and read, it doesn't quite work the same way in the SEC as Alabama has the headquarters in their backyard and for many years used that influence in much different manner.

The Big Ten has a century of working together under it's belt. The South has had much more upheaval in it's conference systems within it's history.

As for the Southwest? I don't think there is any king of a conference that holds as much sway over the conference as Texas does. I really don't find a comparison between Texas and Ohio State/Michigan to be all that genuine. It is two very different situations.

H1, Birmingham may be near Tuscaloosa, but Alabama's power is no greater and no less than that of anyone else in the Conference. L.S.U., Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, and now Texas A&M would not let it be so. Now that fact doesn't stop Bammer blowhards from talking like they do and that often leads to the misperception.

I guess I'm one of 'those.'

You're kidding yourself if you think the programs that win the most don't hold more sway.

Methinks that was a touch of Auburnitis revealing itself.

That's a universal truth in all conferences.

How much more sway is debatable but wether or not a gap exists is not up for debate.
02-18-2014 03:17 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.