Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: What is the Big 12 likely to do?
Nothing. All of them will maintain the status quo.
They are working behind the scenes to find new homes.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Soobahk40050 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 584
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #21
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

OK/OK State may be worth $150 million.

ESPN pays $80 million for the Sugar/ $55 million for the Orange. OK was in the Orange Bowl in 2015, and in the Sugar Bowl this year (versus Auburn), and in 2016 OK State was in it (versus Ole Miss). The 2016 Sugar Bowl had 8 million viewers (not a playoff game that year).

But adding OK/OK State means adding a great deal of good inventory:
OK-OK State
OK-Alabama
OK-LSU
OK-Auburn
OK-TN
OK-Georgia
OK-Florida
would all be above average games.

OK State would draw a little less, but still valuable matchups. I would certainly be interested in an OK State-TN matchup when it happened.

If OK State-Ole Miss is worth 80 million, then OK-Alabama should easily be worth $100 million, especially with smart scheduling, towards the end of the season as a de facto division championship some years. (And yes I know this is not how it actually works, but for comparisons sake...)

Imagine in the final two weeks of the season you have OK-Alabama first then Alabama-Auburn and OK-OK State. Some years that would be a top five matchup followed by two top ten/top fifteen matchups. Of course, some years would be duds, but imagine the marketing possibilities there. And in some years, do Auburn fans actually root for Bama to beat OK so that Auburn can win the division? Crazy cross-team rooting interests there.

Throw in the other matchups that ESPN gains with the additions, and the teams are easily worth $150 m, with surplus value for ESPN. Even with just the games I listed, that's 7 high profile matchups each season. If they are only worth $20 m each, that's 140 mil for just OK.

Make it OK and Texas and you have Texas-Alabama, Texas-OK, Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-LSU, and more.

I think I'd pay $150 million for that.
08-08-2017 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #22
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 02:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

OK/OK State may be worth $150 million.

ESPN pays $80 million for the Sugar/ $55 million for the Orange. OK was in the Orange Bowl in 2015, and in the Sugar Bowl this year (versus Auburn), and in 2016 OK State was in it (versus Ole Miss). The 2016 Sugar Bowl had 8 million viewers (not a playoff game that year).

But adding OK/OK State means adding a great deal of good inventory:
OK-OK State
OK-Alabama
OK-LSU
OK-Auburn
OK-TN
OK-Georgia
OK-Florida
would all be above average games.

OK State would draw a little less, but still valuable matchups. I would certainly be interested in an OK State-TN matchup when it happened.

If OK State-Ole Miss is worth 80 million, then OK-Alabama should easily be worth $100 million, especially with smart scheduling, towards the end of the season as a de facto division championship some years. (And yes I know this is not how it actually works, but for comparisons sake...)

Imagine in the final two weeks of the season you have OK-Alabama first then Alabama-Auburn and OK-OK State. Some years that would be a top five matchup followed by two top ten/top fifteen matchups. Of course, some years would be duds, but imagine the marketing possibilities there. And in some years, do Auburn fans actually root for Bama to beat OK so that Auburn can win the division? Crazy cross-team rooting interests there.

Throw in the other matchups that ESPN gains with the additions, and the teams are easily worth $150 m, with surplus value for ESPN. Even with just the games I listed, that's 7 high profile matchups each season. If they are only worth $20 m each, that's 140 mil for just OK.

Make it OK and Texas and you have Texas-Alabama, Texas-OK, Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-LSU, and more.

I think I'd pay $150 million for that.

I would add as well that ESPN will save a lot of money on the back end by not paying as much for Big 12 rights.

If you take out a few schools and even if you have to pay more for them to move elsewhere then you could still get a good portion of remainder of the league for bargain basement price.
08-08-2017 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

Except your math is off. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair might add 4 million together to the payouts so 56 million total to the rest of the SEC. ESPN currently pays both roughly 17 million each so if their addition takes the SEC to 50 million (which is about right) then they would be paying an additional 33 million for each. So 66 million plus 56 million equals 122 million tops.

And for that they not only get the additional high ratings games that our resident Volunteer pointed out to you but they get 23 different games that will draw a significant % of the DFW viewership. And they get two schools which in the past two decades have been consistent winners. Okie State might well take the Big 12 this year and Gundy is just coming into his prime.

So lets say DFW adds an additional 2 million per ad rates for those 23 games that 46 million. If they both continue to go to bowls that's another 10 million in ad money. And we haven't even gotten to the SEC's extra inventory of solid match ups. So on the DFW front and the bowl ad revenue you have just paid for the additional money to the SEC's member schools. Now all they have to do is earn enough in their conference and OOC matchups to the rest of the nation to cover the 66 million more that ESPN pays for the both of them. That's 14 more home games to telecast and better and increased inventory for the SECN which will also help with subscriptions regardless of the provider. I'd say the 66 million would be covered handsomely, especially with the increased number of high profile match ups.

So yeah they would pay for themselves.

And I would't play down the value of WVU to the ACC. As Notre Dame's brand fades, and it is fading significantly with each succeeding generation, that you are going to need those couch burning hillbillies to prop up your football inventory.

And if the SEC lands OU, even with OSU, we have killed any opportunity for the Big 10 to outpace us in regular TV revenue over the long term. And if the SEC lands OU then look for Texas to head to a coast, either the East or West, but they won't head to the B1G without OU or A&M.
08-08-2017 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,480
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #24
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 02:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

OK/OK State may be worth $150 million.

ESPN pays $80 million for the Sugar/ $55 million for the Orange. OK was in the Orange Bowl in 2015, and in the Sugar Bowl this year (versus Auburn), and in 2016 OK State was in it (versus Ole Miss). The 2016 Sugar Bowl had 8 million viewers (not a playoff game that year).

But adding OK/OK State means adding a great deal of good inventory:
OK-OK State
OK-Alabama
OK-LSU
OK-Auburn
OK-TN
OK-Georgia
OK-Florida
would all be above average games.

OK State would draw a little less, but still valuable matchups. I would certainly be interested in an OK State-TN matchup when it happened.

If OK State-Ole Miss is worth 80 million, then OK-Alabama should easily be worth $100 million, especially with smart scheduling, towards the end of the season as a de facto division championship some years. (And yes I know this is not how it actually works, but for comparisons sake...)

Imagine in the final two weeks of the season you have OK-Alabama first then Alabama-Auburn and OK-OK State. Some years that would be a top five matchup followed by two top ten/top fifteen matchups. Of course, some years would be duds, but imagine the marketing possibilities there. And in some years, do Auburn fans actually root for Bama to beat OK so that Auburn can win the division? Crazy cross-team rooting interests there.

Throw in the other matchups that ESPN gains with the additions, and the teams are easily worth $150 m, with surplus value for ESPN. Even with just the games I listed, that's 7 high profile matchups each season. If they are only worth $20 m each, that's 140 mil for just OK.

Make it OK and Texas and you have Texas-Alabama, Texas-OK, Texas-Texas A&M, Texas-LSU, and more.

I think I'd pay $150 million for that.

Also, all of OU's games are available for selection. CBS could select the Red River Rivalry over an SEC match up just like they will week three when Arkansas hosts TCU.
08-08-2017 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,574
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 139
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #25
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.
Texas cannot even handle the B12 competition now. lol
08-08-2017 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,632
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #26
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 09:30 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.
Texas cannot even handle the B12 competition now. lol

That is actually true. Texas should be a bigger powerhouse than Alabama. But yet, They never really are?
08-08-2017 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ewglenn Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,572
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Liberty
Location:
Post: #27
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 11:11 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 09:30 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.
Texas cannot even handle the B12 competition now. lol

That is actually true. Texas should be a bigger powerhouse than Alabama. But yet, They never really are?

It all comes down to coaching. You can have all the talent in the world but they haven't had a coach to get them there. Bama is just a machine right now. I like OU and OSU to the SEC. I would prefer Texas over OSU but the cowboys wouldn't be a bad option.
08-08-2017 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,674
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #28
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 03:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.

Except your math is off. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair might add 4 million together to the payouts so 56 million total to the rest of the SEC. ESPN currently pays both roughly 17 million each so if their addition takes the SEC to 50 million (which is about right) then they would be paying an additional 33 million for each. So 66 million plus 56 million equals 122 million tops.

And for that they not only get the additional high ratings games that our resident Volunteer pointed out to you but they get 23 different games that will draw a significant % of the DFW viewership. And they get two schools which in the past two decades have been consistent winners. Okie State might well take the Big 12 this year and Gundy is just coming into his prime.

So lets say DFW adds an additional 2 million per ad rates for those 23 games that 46 million. If they both continue to go to bowls that's another 10 million in ad money. And we haven't even gotten to the SEC's extra inventory of solid match ups. So on the DFW front and the bowl ad revenue you have just paid for the additional money to the SEC's member schools. Now all they have to do is earn enough in their conference and OOC matchups to the rest of the nation to cover the 66 million more that ESPN pays for the both of them. That's 14 more home games to telecast and better and increased inventory for the SECN which will also help with subscriptions regardless of the provider. I'd say the 66 million would be covered handsomely, especially with the increased number of high profile match ups.

So yeah they would pay for themselves.

And I would't play down the value of WVU to the ACC. As Notre Dame's brand fades, and it is fading significantly with each succeeding generation, that you are going to need those couch burning hillbillies to prop up your football inventory.

And if the SEC lands OU, even with OSU, we have killed any opportunity for the Big 10 to outpace us in regular TV revenue over the long term. And if the SEC lands OU then look for Texas to head to a coast, either the East or West, but they won't head to the B1G without OU or A&M.

Hey there is more than one fan of Rocky Top on here. I don't think FOX or ESPN see any value in keeping the B12 around in its current. As you like to point out JR, about 6 of the 10 schools would be more valuable elsewhere. The B12 existence is more of a political question rather than an economic one. Texas and OU might not want to give up their power, but they like money more.

What I do know is that the SEC can't stay at 14. The current set up is actually preventing the Conference from maximizing its profits due to the scarcity of some great inter divisional games such as AU-UT and AU-FL. If it is 16, add both Oklahoma schools. If the B12 finds a way to soldier on beyond 2025, add ECU.
08-09-2017 03:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #29
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
Teams that could easily be justified at $20 million are a harder pill to swallow at $50 million, especially if you need to take a little brother. The risk in a no population area may be too great for the reward.
Texas is less valuable to the SEC than it is to the B1G/ACC/PAC, and Oklahoma really has limited appeal because they don't have huge alumni numbers and lack a national fan base.
ESPN may leave some money on the table, but their advances moving forward will be more cautious.
08-09-2017 05:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #30
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-09-2017 05:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  Teams that could easily be justified at $20 million are a harder pill to swallow at $50 million, especially if you need to take a little brother. The risk in a no population area may be too great for the reward.
Texas is less valuable to the SEC than it is to the B1G/ACC/PAC, and Oklahoma really has limited appeal because they don't have huge alumni numbers and lack a national fan base.
ESPN may leave some money on the table, but their advances moving forward will be more cautious.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change their national appeal. Everyone knows Oklahoma. I'm sure they would be warmly welcomed in any conference (perhaps with a condition or two.)
08-09-2017 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tcufrog86 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,687
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 98
I Root For: TCU & Wisconsin
Location: Minnesota Uff da
Post: #31
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-09-2017 08:27 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-09-2017 05:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  Teams that could easily be justified at $20 million are a harder pill to swallow at $50 million, especially if you need to take a little brother. The risk in a no population area may be too great for the reward.
Texas is less valuable to the SEC than it is to the B1G/ACC/PAC, and Oklahoma really has limited appeal because they don't have huge alumni numbers and lack a national fan base.
ESPN may leave some money on the table, but their advances moving forward will be more cautious.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change their national appeal. Everyone knows Oklahoma. I'm sure they would be warmly welcomed in any conference (perhaps with a condition or two.)

Yeah I'd be interested in what defines a "national fan base" and how you determine whether or not a team has one.

Notre Dame I think we can safely say has a national fan base...but who else and what defines that?
08-09-2017 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,740
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 121
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #32
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-07-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Forget all of the speculation. Forget which conferences claim to want Oklahoma and Texas. Forget the big brother little brother talk. Just look at what we know to be true:

1. The Big 12 decided not to expand.
2. The Big 12 decided not to extend the GOR.
3. The Big 12 is a conference where 75% of it's population resides in one state.
4. The Big 12 is admittedly over payed by the networks but those contracts end in 2024-5.
5. West Virginia is an outlier.
6. T.C.U. and WVU were only invited to keep the TV contract enforced.
7. The Texas schools do not have a long history with the Big 8 schools with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State excepted.
8. The top programs of the Big 12 are the only schools that would add value to the other P conferences.
9. Texas and Oklahoma are those programs. Kansas might be a third. The rest might have some value to a conference, but not all conferences.
10. The clock is ticking on the current contract.

There are two schools of thought on their present situation:
1. Nothing is happening and Texas wants to stay and wants the rest of the programs subservient to them.
2. The reason nothing appears to be happening is because they are working out the details of dissolution and movement in private.

Personally I have a hard time believing that without a future contract in hand, with no extension of the GOR in place, and given their history of disunity, and the sprawl of their small conference that they are simply doing nothing. I expect an eventual ESPN crawler to tell us where they are all going sometime before 2024.

What are your thoughts?

Your first point made me consider that what you’ve posted has a lot of validity to it…. I originally thought that the B12’s expansion fiasco was just a tactic used to identify primary targets for rebuilding the B12 in the future. However, maybe the networks stepped in and presented a future plan that’s beneficial to most/if not all of the schools in the B12. The bribe money it took from the networks for not expanding was absolutely asinine unless a hidden agenda was proposed and agreed upon….
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2017 03:12 PM by Underdog.)
08-09-2017 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-09-2017 02:56 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Forget all of the speculation. Forget which conferences claim to want Oklahoma and Texas. Forget the big brother little brother talk. Just look at what we know to be true:

1. The Big 12 decided not to expand.
2. The Big 12 decided not to extend the GOR.
3. The Big 12 is a conference where 75% of it's population resides in one state.
4. The Big 12 is admittedly over payed by the networks but those contracts end in 2024-5.
5. West Virginia is an outlier.
6. T.C.U. and WVU were only invited to keep the TV contract enforced.
7. The Texas schools do not have a long history with the Big 8 schools with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State excepted.
8. The top programs of the Big 12 are the only schools that would add value to the other P conferences.
9. Texas and Oklahoma are those programs. Kansas might be a third. The rest might have some value to a conference, but not all conferences.
10. The clock is ticking on the current contract.

There are two schools of thought on their present situation:
1. Nothing is happening and Texas wants to stay and wants the rest of the programs subservient to them.
2. The reason nothing appears to be happening is because they are working out the details of dissolution and movement in private.

Personally I have a hard time believing that without a future contract in hand, with no extension of the GOR in place, and given their history of disunity, and the sprawl of their small conference that they are simply doing nothing. I expect an eventual ESPN crawler to tell us where they are all going sometime before 2024.

What are your thoughts?

Your first point made me consider that what you’ve posted has a lot of validity to it…. I originally thought that the B12’s expansion fiasco was just a tactic used to identify primary targets for rebuilding the B12 in the future. However, maybe the networks stepped in and presented a future plan that’s beneficial to most/if not all of the schools in the B12. The bribe money it took from the networks not to expand was absolutely asinine unless a hidden agenda was proposed and agreed upon….

Iger said today that Disney will be investing in more original programming across all of their media networks. This included sports. So I expect ESPN to make some bold moves to lock up the product they want from the Big 12, and possibly the PAC. My take is that they will be buying raw materials (rights), producing product (manufacturing), brokering product (wholesaling) and monetizing select product through streaming and cable networks (retailing). It seems to me that their response to streaming is going to be in controlling their own product from rights through production and distribution. Netflix is the first victim.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Amazon, and FOX simply lease the product they want. Amazon is not set up to really produce product, and FOX might find a better lineup by buying what they need wholesale (meaning games which they can then supply their own announcers, analysts, and camera crews to work. It would permit FS1 and FS2 to cherry pick games that would actually draw for them. Currently ESPN has the locked out of the Atlantic Coast and Southeast. If the SEC and ACC expand even to 16 that's 24 more games to sell every week which would be an ample supply to furnish CBS, ESPN and FOX all the product they might want to broadcast.

So there is that sweetheart deal that might be hard for the current Big 12 to turn down.
08-09-2017 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,043
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 328
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #34
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 12:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 05:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Looking at the financial situation, the PAC is in worse shape. The PAC has more desirable brands for the B1G & geographically fit into the B12. A couple B12 teams could slip to the SEC & ACC to make more room in the B12 for PAC schools. BYU & possibly Boise can more easily be assembled into the B12 than the PAC. I can see the B12 outlasting the PAC & this could be why all is quite on the B12 front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to factor in that the Big 12 is currently getting overpaid. The networks threw them a lifeline to get control of the situation when schools started bailing.

The PAC does take make less money currently, but their demographics are much, much better. They also have a network that they can use as a bargaining chip with the networks.

By contrast, the vast majority of value in the Big 12 is concentrated in 2-4 schools. The networks will have little motivation to pay everyone a competitive rate if the league insists on the status quo. The networks stand to make a lot more money by moving a piece or two to other leagues. Come 2025, if UT and OU want competitive P5 money they are going to have to move. That, of course, creates instability for everyone else.


It would certainly make more sense to move 4-6 B12 schools to the PAC but what if Texas &/or Oklahoma don't want to go? I think they would be foolish to turn down a 6 team eastern division of the PAC but they aren't known for making wise decisions. Oklahoma, Texas, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State would be a solid division. The SEC could add TCU & the ACC could grab WV for 15 apiece, 3x5. UCONN would still be there for the B1G if they so desired. Texas & Oklahoma can throw a monkey wrench into this though & give the B1G a chance to pickup some PAC brands.

(Playing devils advocate.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2017 08:43 AM by Lenvillecards.)
08-10-2017 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-10-2017 08:35 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 05:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Looking at the financial situation, the PAC is in worse shape. The PAC has more desirable brands for the B1G & geographically fit into the B12. A couple B12 teams could slip to the SEC & ACC to make more room in the B12 for PAC schools. BYU & possibly Boise can more easily be assembled into the B12 than the PAC. I can see the B12 outlasting the PAC & this could be why all is quite on the B12 front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to factor in that the Big 12 is currently getting overpaid. The networks threw them a lifeline to get control of the situation when schools started bailing.

The PAC does take make less money currently, but their demographics are much, much better. They also have a network that they can use as a bargaining chip with the networks.

By contrast, the vast majority of value in the Big 12 is concentrated in 2-4 schools. The networks will have little motivation to pay everyone a competitive rate if the league insists on the status quo. The networks stand to make a lot more money by moving a piece or two to other leagues. Come 2025, if UT and OU want competitive P5 money they are going to have to move. That, of course, creates instability for everyone else.


It would certainly make more sense to move 4-6 B12 schools to the PAC but what if Texas &/or Oklahoma don't want to go? I think they would be foolish to turn down a 6 team eastern division of the PAC but they aren't known for making wise decisions. Oklahoma, Texas, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State would be a solid division. The SEC could add TCU & the ACC could grab WV for 15 apiece, 3x5. UCONN would still be there for the B1G if they so desired. Texas & Oklahoma can throw a monkey wrench into this though & give the B1G a chance to pickup some PAC brands.

(Playing devils advocate.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lenville it would still be more practical just to split 8 between the SEC and ACC. That's enough to kill the conference and end the GOR.
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State / SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, West Virginia / ACC

Add Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech to Texas, T.C.U. & Texas Tech and you have a very nice Gulf Division.

Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Clemson, Wake Forest, and N.C. State form the Coastal

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, West Virginia and Virginia Tech form the Atlantic

Notre Dame remains a partial.

The SEC would have:
Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.

ESPN gets their rights and it's all over.
08-10-2017 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DukeFan Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 13
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Duke
Location:
Post: #36
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
Texas could be more willing to join the ACC as a full member if three other Texas schools joined them for scheduling and travel reasons ..

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor > ACC

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia > SEC

ACC
Boston College, Louisville, NC State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech ATLANTIC

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest COASTAL

Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech GULF

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia EAST

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Ole Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt CENTRAL

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M WEST
08-10-2017 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-10-2017 11:20 PM)DukeFan Wrote:  Texas could be more willing to join the ACC as a full member if three other Texas schools joined them for scheduling and travel reasons ..

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor > ACC

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia > SEC

ACC
Boston College, Louisville, NC State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech ATLANTIC

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest COASTAL

Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech GULF

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia EAST

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Ole Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt CENTRAL

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M WEST

That works nicely as well. West Virginia brings better overall sports / Iowa State brings 2 million more viewers and AAU. I call that a tough decision.

What do you think about taking Baylor?
08-10-2017 11:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DukeFan Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 13
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Duke
Location:
Post: #38
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-10-2017 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-10-2017 11:20 PM)DukeFan Wrote:  Texas could be more willing to join the ACC as a full member if three other Texas schools joined them for scheduling and travel reasons ..

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor > ACC

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia > SEC

ACC
Boston College, Louisville, NC State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech ATLANTIC

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest COASTAL

Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech GULF

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia EAST

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Ole Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt CENTRAL

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M WEST

That works nicely as well. West Virginia brings better overall sports / Iowa State brings 2 million more viewers and AAU. I call that a tough decision.

What do you think about taking Baylor?

If Texas wants to bring Baylor along, then you add Baylor without hesitation. Would prefer West Virginia and their solid athletic programs to that school that's been marred by sexual assault scandals..
08-11-2017 01:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,043
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 328
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #39
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-10-2017 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-10-2017 08:35 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 05:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Looking at the financial situation, the PAC is in worse shape. The PAC has more desirable brands for the B1G & geographically fit into the B12. A couple B12 teams could slip to the SEC & ACC to make more room in the B12 for PAC schools. BYU & possibly Boise can more easily be assembled into the B12 than the PAC. I can see the B12 outlasting the PAC & this could be why all is quite on the B12 front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to factor in that the Big 12 is currently getting overpaid. The networks threw them a lifeline to get control of the situation when schools started bailing.

The PAC does take make less money currently, but their demographics are much, much better. They also have a network that they can use as a bargaining chip with the networks.

By contrast, the vast majority of value in the Big 12 is concentrated in 2-4 schools. The networks will have little motivation to pay everyone a competitive rate if the league insists on the status quo. The networks stand to make a lot more money by moving a piece or two to other leagues. Come 2025, if UT and OU want competitive P5 money they are going to have to move. That, of course, creates instability for everyone else.


It would certainly make more sense to move 4-6 B12 schools to the PAC but what if Texas &/or Oklahoma don't want to go? I think they would be foolish to turn down a 6 team eastern division of the PAC but they aren't known for making wise decisions. Oklahoma, Texas, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State would be a solid division. The SEC could add TCU & the ACC could grab WV for 15 apiece, 3x5. UCONN would still be there for the B1G if they so desired. Texas & Oklahoma can throw a monkey wrench into this though & give the B1G a chance to pickup some PAC brands.

(Playing devils advocate.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lenville it would still be more practical just to split 8 between the SEC and ACC. That's enough to kill the conference and end the GOR.
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State / SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, West Virginia / ACC

Add Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech to Texas, T.C.U. & Texas Tech and you have a very nice Gulf Division.

Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Clemson, Wake Forest, and N.C. State form the Coastal

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, West Virginia and Virginia Tech form the Atlantic

Notre Dame remains a partial.

The SEC would have:
Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.

ESPN gets their rights and it's all over.


By ESPN merging the B12 & PAC they would be coast to coast & not restricted to just the southeast & east coast. They would take over the PACN & expand it into the Midwest.

Divvying the B12 up between the SEC & ACC creates some issues. ND for example, with ND remaining as a partial you can't have a champs only CFP. Do the SEC & ACC want to go to 18 or more? The more you have the more you have to split the CFP $ with. The more members you have the harder it is to maintain old rivalries.

By controlling 3 power conferences you control autonomy, ESPN would get whatever they want.

The SEC could still get into DFW by adding TCU & stopping at 15. Go to conference SF's in a 3x5, autonomy majority would make this easy. SF's creates additional revenue that isn't shared.

ACC adds ND for 15 & adds SF's as well. Perhaps WV for 16.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, TT, Kansas & Iowa State to the PAC combined with TCU to the SEC & WV to the ACC is 8 & enough to dissolve the B12. Kansas State, Baylor, BYU & Boise to the AAC would give ESPN a strong tweener conference for marketing. They would also make a great streaming test subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2017 09:05 AM by Lenvillecards.)
08-11-2017 09:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #40
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-09-2017 09:54 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  
(08-09-2017 08:27 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-09-2017 05:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  Teams that could easily be justified at $20 million are a harder pill to swallow at $50 million, especially if you need to take a little brother. The risk in a no population area may be too great for the reward.
Texas is less valuable to the SEC than it is to the B1G/ACC/PAC, and Oklahoma really has limited appeal because they don't have huge alumni numbers and lack a national fan base.
ESPN may leave some money on the table, but their advances moving forward will be more cautious.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change their national appeal. Everyone knows Oklahoma. I'm sure they would be warmly welcomed in any conference (perhaps with a condition or two.)

Yeah I'd be interested in what defines a "national fan base" and how you determine whether or not a team has one.

Notre Dame I think we can safely say has a national fan base...but who else and what defines that?

This is what a national fan base looks like:

Carolina fans vs. the rest of the field (NCAA Tournament).

[Image: 18i2d3n3kss5kpng.png]
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2017 10:28 AM by XLance.)
08-11-2017 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.