If the PAC is not that valuable then Texas either stays in the Big 12 and that conference somehow gets enhanced or the Longhorns will move to either the SEC or the ACC.

(04-18-2015 12:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  If the PAC is not that valuable then Texas either stays in the Big 12 and that conference somehow gets enhanced or the Longhorns will move to either the SEC or the ACC.

Yep! That's pretty much it.

(04-18-2015 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

H1 the SEC is the most profitable and by a bit. What we do not have is the most TV contract revenue. But that revenue is only a fraction of Athletic Department revenues. As to OSU and WVU I did entertain them as a work around to getting to a P4. I just don't think the SEC will go for it.

Go look at any Athletic Department revenue listing and you will see The Big Ten right up there with all of it's Universities. So this whole "by a bit" thing, is just propaganda.

(04-18-2015 12:03 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:38 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:30 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

"Paid off" by whom? Where does the payoff come from?

Who pays the conferences?

TV networks are businesses. They compete against one another. If one of them is willing to pay four conference shares to the PAC to accommodate four unattractive programs, they wouldn't be competitive for long.

They compete against each other unless they actually both make out better by cooperating. Businesses that appear to only be competitors aren't always simply competitors.

Fox has had to rely on the big 12 for a majority of it's coverage and that has caused it's ratings to lag. That is a fact. So the big 12 going away isn't a bad thing for Fox if it means they get their hands upon some other coverage that draws better ratings.

You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.

I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.

So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.

(04-18-2015 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.

I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.

So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.

I saw satirical post that referred to "a member the realignment community" as the source of inside scoop. I thought of that when you referred to "the networks". Now, "the networks" actually exist as a stakeholder in college sports. But "the networks" are not a monolith. If you want to see just how unconnected they are, wait until the B1G "rights auction" begins. These are fiercely competing enemies. They will not agree to share TV rights and then sing Kumbaya.
The ACC completely surrendered to ESPN for a fixed amount in their rights deal. Nobody else has been that careless. The SEC is all-in with ESPN, as well, but not for a fixed amount. They will be paid a percentage of whatever their network earns. The B1G will play these TV guys one against the other and the networks will overpay, just to prevent the competition from sweepnig the B1G rights.
These networks are in the entertainment industry, but not as a hobby. This is business to them, hard competitive business with huge finacial stakes. The B1G will demonstrate how to exploit the fear/hatred/distrust that these networks harbor toward each other.
The revenue gap is about to expand.

(04-18-2015 11:18 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.

I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.

So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.

I saw satirical post that referred to "a member the realignment community" as the source of inside scoop. I thought of that when you referred to "the networks". Now, "the networks" actually exist as a stakeholder in college sports. But "the networks" are not a monolith. If you want to see just how unconnected they are, wait until the B1G "rights auction" begins. These are fiercely competing enemies. They will not agree to share TV rights and then sing Kumbaya.
The ACC completely surrendered to ESPN for a fixed amount in their rights deal. Nobody else has been that careless. The SEC is all-in with ESPN, as well, but not for a fixed amount. They will be paid a percentage of whatever their network earns. The B1G will play these TV guys one against the other and the networks will overpay, just to prevent the competition from sweepnig the B1G rights.
These networks are in the entertainment industry, but not as a hobby. This is business to them, hard competitive business with huge finacial stakes. The B1G will demonstrate how to exploit the fear/hatred/distrust that these networks harbor toward each other.
The revenue gap is about to expand.

I agree that they are competitors. But right now ESPN holds the leverage, especially in terms of product. I'm sure the revenue gap will widen. But then it will close again, especially if the SEC gets them to agree to a renegotiation clause after the Big 10 has expanded. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only thing is we are getting much closer to the final cycle for this round of realignment. But make no mistake, the networks who also do business with one another (sublets and the like) will not overpay just for spite of the other. There will be some phone calls after the initial offers each make are discovered and behind the scenes they will make sure that they don't overreach the price target. They are in it for money. FOX I expect to remain somewhat conciliatory until they have a better position to make a run for top product. They are much more likely to set the ceiling at a figure that guarantees their profit than to recklessly raise it. As you get older you will realize just how much honor there actually is among thieves. And as far as the Big 10 is concerned they don't want FOX owning them outright because FOX right now is a second rate network compared to ESPN. All the Big 10 has to do is look to how the Big 12 dropped off the charts by having to rely upon FOX viewership for numbers. Delany needs to raise the exposure of Rutgers and Maryland, not bury it. The Big 10 will negotiate for the best deal they can get but they are hardly in a position to bluff ESPN.

(04-18-2015 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.

I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.

So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.

I saw satirical post that referred to "a member the realignment community" as the source of inside scoop. I thought of that when you referred to "the networks". Now, "the networks" actually exist as a stakeholder in college sports. But "the networks" are not a monolith. If you want to see just how unconnected they are, wait until the B1G "rights auction" begins. These are fiercely competing enemies. They will not agree to share TV rights and then sing Kumbaya.
The ACC completely surrendered to ESPN for a fixed amount in their rights deal. Nobody else has been that careless. The SEC is all-in with ESPN, as well, but not for a fixed amount. They will be paid a percentage of whatever their network earns. The B1G will play these TV guys one against the other and the networks will overpay, just to prevent the competition from sweepnig the B1G rights.
These networks are in the entertainment industry, but not as a hobby. This is business to them, hard competitive business with huge finacial stakes. The B1G will demonstrate how to exploit the fear/hatred/distrust that these networks harbor toward each other.
The revenue gap is about to expand.

I agree that they are competitors. But right now ESPN holds the leverage, especially in terms of product. I'm sure the revenue gap will widen. But then it will close again, especially if the SEC gets them to agree to a renegotiation clause after the Big 10 has expanded. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only thing is we are getting much closer to the final cycle for this round of realignment. But make no mistake, the networks who also do business with one another (sublets and the like) will not overpay just for spite of the other. There will be some phone calls after the initial offers each make are discovered and behind the scenes they will make sure that they don't overreach the price target. They are in it for money. FOX I expect to remain somewhat conciliatory until they have a better position to make a run for top product. They are much more likely to set the ceiling at a figure that guarantees their profit than to recklessly raise it. As you get older you will realize just how much honor there actually is among thieves. And as far as the Big 10 is concerned they don't want FOX owning them outright because FOX right now is a second rate network compared to ESPN. All the Big 10 has to do is look to how the Big 12 dropped off the charts by having to rely upon FOX viewership for numbers. Delany needs to raise the exposure of Rutgers and Maryland, not bury it. The Big 10 will negotiate for the best deal they can get but they are hardly in a position to bluff ESPN.

You suggest that there would be phone calls made after the initial offers? Better be very secret phone calls. Jail time, or at least huge fines, result from collusion and/or violating confidentiality. That's not some of that honor among thieves you mentioned is it? The bargaining will follow each network's assessment of how much they can pay and stay profitable, how much they guess their competitors can pay, and how little they can offer to get a done deal.
Ineresting to see your assessment of the two cable network invilved. Watch the BTN consume the NYC tristate market in the next few years using their parnership with Fox. ESPN would not be able to do that for them. And remember that Tier 1 rights are being sought by OTA networks, too. Many suitors bidding for these games.

(04-18-2015 11:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.

I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.

So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.

I saw satirical post that referred to "a member the realignment community" as the source of inside scoop. I thought of that when you referred to "the networks". Now, "the networks" actually exist as a stakeholder in college sports. But "the networks" are not a monolith. If you want to see just how unconnected they are, wait until the B1G "rights auction" begins. These are fiercely competing enemies. They will not agree to share TV rights and then sing Kumbaya.
The ACC completely surrendered to ESPN for a fixed amount in their rights deal. Nobody else has been that careless. The SEC is all-in with ESPN, as well, but not for a fixed amount. They will be paid a percentage of whatever their network earns. The B1G will play these TV guys one against the other and the networks will overpay, just to prevent the competition from sweepnig the B1G rights.
These networks are in the entertainment industry, but not as a hobby. This is business to them, hard competitive business with huge finacial stakes. The B1G will demonstrate how to exploit the fear/hatred/distrust that these networks harbor toward each other.
The revenue gap is about to expand.

I agree that they are competitors. But right now ESPN holds the leverage, especially in terms of product. I'm sure the revenue gap will widen. But then it will close again, especially if the SEC gets them to agree to a renegotiation clause after the Big 10 has expanded. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only thing is we are getting much closer to the final cycle for this round of realignment. But make no mistake, the networks who also do business with one another (sublets and the like) will not overpay just for spite of the other. There will be some phone calls after the initial offers each make are discovered and behind the scenes they will make sure that they don't overreach the price target. They are in it for money. FOX I expect to remain somewhat conciliatory until they have a better position to make a run for top product. They are much more likely to set the ceiling at a figure that guarantees their profit than to recklessly raise it. As you get older you will realize just how much honor there actually is among thieves. And as far as the Big 10 is concerned they don't want FOX owning them outright because FOX right now is a second rate network compared to ESPN. All the Big 10 has to do is look to how the Big 12 dropped off the charts by having to rely upon FOX viewership for numbers. Delany needs to raise the exposure of Rutgers and Maryland, not bury it. The Big 10 will negotiate for the best deal they can get but they are hardly in a position to bluff ESPN.

You suggest that there would be phone calls made after the initial offers? Better be very secret phone calls. Jail time, or at least huge fines, result from collusion and/or violating confidentiality. That's not some of that honor among thieves you mentioned is it? The bargaining will follow each network's assessment of how much they can pay and stay profitable, how much they guess their competitors can pay, and how little they can offer to get a done deal.
Ineresting to see your assessment of the two cable network invilved. Watch the BTN consume the NYC tristate market in the next few years using their parnership with Fox. ESPN would not be able to do that for them. And remember that Tier 1 rights are being sought by OTA networks, too. Many suitors bidding for these games.

Phone calls is a euphemism for contact and there would not be an electronic or paper trail. Don't pretend to be such a boy scout. Have you not paid attention to the milliseconds of advantage that the electronic traders on Wall Street were using to skim profits. Do you deny insider trading goes on? You do know that Bernie Madoff once directed the Securities and Exchange Commission? Shoot the politicians came up with another word for bribe. They call it lobbying. There are so many schemes and scams in corporate business it would make your head spin just examining the angles. I bet you even believe that Saban runs a clean program. Yes there will be other bidders I'm sure, but where have these mighty forces of television been for the other negotiations? Is your own SEC so worthless that they didn't show up to challenge ESPN in bidding for our business? Slive went with ESPN because they are the best and because the SEC dominates ratings, attendance, and produces on the field. Well at least they ultimately produced 7 of the last 9 years. The Big 10 doesn't need to consume the tri state market as FOX essentially owned it through professional sports broadcast associations. But that doesn't give the Big 10 anything on the level of exposure of an ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. One is very regional and the other very national with wonderful regional ability. No, the Big 10 wants to be on ESPN. There is one sports Giant and one rival network. FOX serves the Big 10 Network as well as anybody could. But nobody is going to touch ESPN for broadcasting nationally viewed games across multiple channels and throughout multiple time slots. I bet FOX will get there eventually but still not for a few years. They have to build their brand. NBC and CBS don't want to dominate it, just offer 1 prime time game a week that the nation wants to tune into. Just ask the Big 10 guys if they want anyone other than ESPN to carry their Saturday Morning and Afternoon games. And that as they say is about it. If you disagree fine. We'll wait and see won't we.

(04-19-2015 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:18 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.

I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.

So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.

I saw satirical post that referred to "a member the realignment community" as the source of inside scoop. I thought of that when you referred to "the networks". Now, "the networks" actually exist as a stakeholder in college sports. But "the networks" are not a monolith. If you want to see just how unconnected they are, wait until the B1G "rights auction" begins. These are fiercely competing enemies. They will not agree to share TV rights and then sing Kumbaya.
The ACC completely surrendered to ESPN for a fixed amount in their rights deal. Nobody else has been that careless. The SEC is all-in with ESPN, as well, but not for a fixed amount. They will be paid a percentage of whatever their network earns. The B1G will play these TV guys one against the other and the networks will overpay, just to prevent the competition from sweepnig the B1G rights.
These networks are in the entertainment industry, but not as a hobby. This is business to them, hard competitive business with huge finacial stakes. The B1G will demonstrate how to exploit the fear/hatred/distrust that these networks harbor toward each other.
The revenue gap is about to expand.

I agree that they are competitors. But right now ESPN holds the leverage, especially in terms of product. I'm sure the revenue gap will widen. But then it will close again, especially if the SEC gets them to agree to a renegotiation clause after the Big 10 has expanded. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only thing is we are getting much closer to the final cycle for this round of realignment. But make no mistake, the networks who also do business with one another (sublets and the like) will not overpay just for spite of the other. There will be some phone calls after the initial offers each make are discovered and behind the scenes they will make sure that they don't overreach the price target. They are in it for money. FOX I expect to remain somewhat conciliatory until they have a better position to make a run for top product. They are much more likely to set the ceiling at a figure that guarantees their profit than to recklessly raise it. As you get older you will realize just how much honor there actually is among thieves. And as far as the Big 10 is concerned they don't want FOX owning them outright because FOX right now is a second rate network compared to ESPN. All the Big 10 has to do is look to how the Big 12 dropped off the charts by having to rely upon FOX viewership for numbers. Delany needs to raise the exposure of Rutgers and Maryland, not bury it. The Big 10 will negotiate for the best deal they can get but they are hardly in a position to bluff ESPN.

You suggest that there would be phone calls made after the initial offers? Better be very secret phone calls. Jail time, or at least huge fines, result from collusion and/or violating confidentiality. That's not some of that honor among thieves you mentioned is it? The bargaining will follow each network's assessment of how much they can pay and stay profitable, how much they guess their competitors can pay, and how little they can offer to get a done deal.
Ineresting to see your assessment of the two cable network invilved. Watch the BTN consume the NYC tristate market in the next few years using their parnership with Fox. ESPN would not be able to do that for them. And remember that Tier 1 rights are being sought by OTA networks, too. Many suitors bidding for these games.

Phone calls is a euphemism for contact and there would not be an electronic or paper trail. Don't pretend to be such a boy scout. Have you not paid attention to the milliseconds of advantage that the electronic traders on Wall Street were using to skim profits. Do you deny insider trading goes on? You do know that Bernie Madoff once directed the Securities and Exchange Commission? Shoot the politicians came up with another word for bribe. They call it lobbying. There are so many schemes and scams in corporate business it would make your head spin just examining the angles. I bet you even believe that Saban runs a clean program. Yes there will be other bidders I'm sure, but where have these mighty forces of television been for the other negotiations? Is your own SEC so worthless that they didn't show up to challenge ESPN in bidding for our business? Slive went with ESPN because they are the best and because the SEC dominates ratings, attendance, and produces on the field. Well at least they ultimately produced 7 of the last 9 years. The Big 10 doesn't need to consume the tri state market as FOX essentially owned it through professional sports broadcast associations. But that doesn't give the Big 10 anything on the level of exposure of an ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. One is very regional and the other very national with wonderful regional ability. No, the Big 10 wants to be on ESPN. There is one sports Giant and one rival network. FOX serves the Big 10 Network as well as anybody could. But nobody is going to touch ESPN for broadcasting nationally viewed games across multiple channels and throughout multiple time slots. I bet FOX will get there eventually but still not for a few years. They have to build their brand. NBC and CBS don't want to dominate it, just offer 1 prime time game a week that the nation wants to tune into. Just ask the Big 10 guys if they want anyone other than ESPN to carry their Saturday Morning and Afternoon games. And that as they say is about it. If you disagree fine. We'll wait and see won't we.

Not a Boy Scout anymore, but I do believe that collusion among two ro more parties trying to buy media rights would be too risky too try. You may know more about these types of operations than I do, I concede. But if I'm ESPN and I get a backchannel number from Fox, I might not want to trust them. Would you? Why would I want to take a chance that they cooperating truthfully? If I could identify, for sure, that the info was leaked by a Fox source, why wouldn't I just report them and get them removed from the process. If I can't verify the source, why would I use it?
Sir, I don't presume that we live in perfect world, but I gotta say, I hope I don't grow as cynical as some folks I encounter.

Cynicism comes with Enlightenment. It's inevitable.

(04-19-2015 02:03 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Cynicism comes with Enlightenment. It's inevitable.

and yet, I don't love to hate you.

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

What, pray tell, is TIC?

(04-19-2015 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys!
In the end all of the P5 schools will be making similar money, not equal but within range.

XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.

What, pray tell, is TIC?

Internet slang for Tongue-in-Cheek I believe.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

It must be convenient to judge an entire state culture on knowing a couple KU grads. I'm sure they're nice people. I, on the other hand, like to judge state culture on the politics. Maybe my judgement basis isn't fair. But that's what I use. Kansas and Oklahoma are bright red while the rest of the B1G is either mixed or blue. You're free to dismiss that as you please.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the driving time to DFW from Norman. Are you saying that BTN would be on the basic tier of every cable system in DFW, because of adding OU?

How does Penn St's addition favor your argument? It favors mine, actually. The state culture of PA, using my basis, fits very well with the B1G. Unlike KS and OK.


But ND, Pitt and Louisville aren't going to be the sole flag-bearers for the ACC in any time slot. Core, traditional ACC schools will always be on at the same times. Your whole point for why the PAC would accept four Central timezone schools was so the PAC could get games on earlier in the day. Well, those schools would be the sole PAC flag-bearers during the time slots. How is that going to look? Is that how the PAC is going to want to be represented to the rest of the nation? While it's true that ISU, KSU and Tech might benefit the PAC more than they would the B1G, SEC or ACC, that doesn't prove they meet the PAC's minimum threshold of benefit required for any new member. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just putting out things to think about.

(04-19-2015 03:32 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 02:03 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Cynicism comes with Enlightenment. It's inevitable.

and yet, I don't love to hate you.

It will happen eventually. It's inevitable.

(04-19-2015 10:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

It must be convenient to judge an entire state culture on knowing a couple KU grads. I'm sure they're nice people. I, on the other hand, like to judge state culture on the politics. Maybe my judgement basis isn't fair. But that's what I use. Kansas and Oklahoma are bright red while the rest of the B1G is either mixed or blue. You're free to dismiss that as you please.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the driving time to DFW from Norman. Are you saying that BTN would be on the basic tier of every cable system in DFW, because of adding OU?

How does Penn St's addition favor your argument? It favors mine, actually. The state culture of PA, using my basis, fits very well with the B1G. Unlike KS and OK.


But ND, Pitt and Louisville aren't going to be the sole flag-bearers for the ACC in any time slot. Core, traditional ACC schools will always be on at the same times. Your whole point for why the PAC would accept four Central timezone schools was so the PAC could get games on earlier in the day. Well, those schools would be the sole PAC flag-bearers during the time slots. How is that going to look? Is that how the PAC is going to want to be represented to the rest of the nation? While it's true that ISU, KSU and Tech might benefit the PAC more than they would the B1G, SEC or ACC, that doesn't prove they meet the PAC's minimum threshold of benefit required for any new member. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just putting out things to think about.

Have you been to Kansas? I have. Do you know ANYONE from Kansas? I do. What, you think I just quietly observe them and then make my judgement from that? You think I don't ask them questions? You think the concept of Kansas fitting in where Nebraska went hasn't come up between us?

You need to make less assumptions about me, seriously. You don't know anything about Kansas yet you are trying to paint the picture that I don't. So stop being ignorant and actually listen to someone that actually knows something about it, or don't. Stop peddling ignorance though.

In terms of DFW. It is the #1 recruiting market for FBS scholarship football players. More players on FBS teams come from DFW than any other metro area. Oklahoma does have a strong presence there but I don't think that would be enough to get BTN on the extended basic tier there but I do think it would land BTN as a choice there. Dallas is another multicultural city.


How in the hell do you think the State of Pennsylvania fits better with the Big Ten culture at the time of when The Big Ten expanded with them than Kansas and Oklahoma do now? The Big Ten was actually ten teams then and was all Midwestern. Pennsylvania is NOT Midwestern, not even the rural parts. It is Eastern. Some of the Western portions could be homogenous with Ohio but other than that it wasn't a cultural thing. In fact there was a lot of blowback about it. Many folks from the State and from the University wanted the School to be with an Eastern Conference.

Seriously guy, you need to slow down because you are making a lot of mistakes.

Penn State was a Brand expansion because Penn State football at the time was huge. Culture had very little to do with it. You want to push this idea that culturally Kansas and Oklahoma don't fit so you continue to make logical fallacy after logical fallacy in order to try and win the debate but you cant win with made up stuff.


In terms of your PAC argument, c'mon man. Do you actually think that those four Central Time Zone programs are only going to play each other in the conference? No, they are going to play Oregon. They are going to play USC. They are going to play UCLA. They are going to play Arizona State. Guess what, sometimes those schools are going to travel to those Central Time Zone locations. Guess what happens when that happens? They can schedule them for that early time slot and give the Oregons, USC's, UCLA's, Stanfords and everyone else that opportunity for early visability that they have never had before in the conference. That, is why it is a good idea. Once again, pushing this "flag bearer" talking point is a logical fallacy. It's simply not true. It is the opportunity that they provide for everyone in the conference that is important here.