REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Author Message
P5PACSEC Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 688
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 19
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #141
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-10-2019 03:05 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 02:08 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 01:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...ssion=true

They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Except it is crazy. Texas needs to be in control of their conference. In the Big Ten, they'll be just another school. Their conference options are ACC or PAC but only if major concessions are involved. More likely to go the ND route with guaranteed games vs OK, TT, TCU, Baylor, etc.

I went to KU. Texas has "Control Problems"- the reason the Big 12 broke up is UT.

As bullet mentioned above, you are WRONG.
01-10-2019 08:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 688
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 19
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #142
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-10-2019 03:21 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  I do not believe that it will do the Big 10 any good to take in the 2 worst control freak Schools in the Big 12. I think it would be a better fit to get Kansas and Missouri or Iowa State. KU has a new very successful coach now and is planning to spend $215,000 on upgrading old Memorial and adding 20,000 new seats. Mizzou would love the chance to play in the Big 10. I cannot think of 2 better travel partners-and instant Rivals. Kansas Legislature is now looking into the stupid law that chains KU to KSU. Kansas fits the footprint of the BIG. Texas and Oklahoma will never go to a conference not directly controlled by them.

Kansas was saved from the Big East when the big "bully" in Austin decided to stay in the Big 12. Kansas was among a few schools who offered exit money from CU and NU to keep the Big 12 stable. A&M was the only school that demanded that money.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205177474

Quote:Also that weekend, administrators from five Big 12 schools were meeting in Kansas City. If the Big 12 dissolved, Baylor, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State were in danger of being cast adrift with unattractive options for new conference homes. The five schools sent word they would forfeit their exit fee penalties from Nebraska and Colorado with that money going to bolstering revenue shares for Texas and Texas A&M.

Kansas is a great school with a tremendous basketball tradition but they reside in a small state and basketball doesn't drive the bus in conference realignment decisions.

Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC to play Rutgers, Northwestern, Purdue etc when they have A&M, LSU, Florida, Miss St, Ole Miss and Bama coming to Columbia every few years.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2019 10:59 PM by P5PACSEC.)
01-10-2019 08:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 688
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 19
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #143
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-10-2019 04:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:05 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 02:08 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 01:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...ssion=true

They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Except it is crazy. Texas needs to be in control of their conference. In the Big Ten, they'll be just another school. Their conference options are ACC or PAC but only if major concessions are involved. More likely to go the ND route with guaranteed games vs OK, TT, TCU, Baylor, etc.

I went to KU. Texas has "Control Problems"- the reason the Big 12 broke up is UT.

KU, KSU, ISU, MU and NU have control problems and inferiority complexes. They had a little club and thought they could still run it the same way, ignoring the Oklahoma schools and Colorado as well as the new members.

NU got a good offer and left. CU got to align with the left coasters like they had wanted for years. A&M got to align with the Gulf Coasters like they had wanted for years. MU figured out they had limited value so jumped when A&M created a slot in the SEC.

Well said Sir
01-10-2019 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,113
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1596
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #144
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-10-2019 08:50 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 04:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:05 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 02:08 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  They're no more or less crazy than some of the "realignment" theories posted on here.

Like I said on the B1G thread it's just as likely as it is unlikely that it's true.

Guess we'll find out in a couple years.

Except it is crazy. Texas needs to be in control of their conference. In the Big Ten, they'll be just another school. Their conference options are ACC or PAC but only if major concessions are involved. More likely to go the ND route with guaranteed games vs OK, TT, TCU, Baylor, etc.

I went to KU. Texas has "Control Problems"- the reason the Big 12 broke up is UT.

KU, KSU, ISU, MU and NU have control problems and inferiority complexes. They had a little club and thought they could still run it the same way, ignoring the Oklahoma schools and Colorado as well as the new members.

NU got a good offer and left. CU got to align with the left coasters like they had wanted for years. A&M got to align with the Gulf Coasters like they had wanted for years. MU figured out they had limited value so jumped when A&M created a slot in the SEC.

Well said Sir

If the Big 12 is raided sometime between now and 2022-4 the most likely pairing to be moving is not Texas and Oklahoma together to a single conference. It is much more likely that Oklahoma and Kansas moves as a pair, and if Texas then chooses to move that they would be paired with Texas Tech.

If Oklahoma is truly paired with Oklahoma State, and claims to the contrary prove untrue, then it is more likely that Texas would be paired with Tech, and Kansas would be odd man out.

The idea that the Big 10 would want the two most profitable schools from the Big 12 isn't news. It's common sense. But it is common sense for the SEC and PAC as well.

If you are going to break this down along existing network ties then it is more likely that Texas and Kansas would wind up with an ESPN held conference and that Oklahoma would end up with a FOX held conference. That said Kansas's T3 could be easily bought out by FOX and Oklahoma's relatively easily bought out by ESPN. Texas on the other hand is under obligation to ESPN until 2031. There is only one conference that could cover the LHN's estimated payout of 15 million a year, NET Texas a small profit, and keep them under contract to ESPN and that's the SEC.

Therefore, all of he much suspected pairings have some issues either politically within their state, economically, culturally, or contractually to be worked out. But the most improbable would be Texas and Oklahoma anywhere together without other state schools.

Texahoma could only be viable to the PAC and SEC. The Big 10 wouldn't be enamored of Oklahoma State and Texas Tech would be a hard sell. The SEC would prefer not to take the other state schools as it would drastically reduce the profitability that only taking the two would give them. The PAC could offer all 4 but couldn't monetize it effectively. And I don't see the ACC offering four flyovers when their hopes are for just a piece of one of those schools.

So, unless the top brands can shake the political shackles of their states I don't think the Big 12 is going anywhere. At least unless the networks decide to cease paying more for 7 schools in order to have access to 3.

But if movement does happen don't expect Texas and Oklahoma to move anywhere together.
01-10-2019 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,352
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 228
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #145
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
If ESPN deems that the west coast can be profitable then I would imagine that it would be Texas with Texas Tech to the PAC along with Kansas and Iowa State/Kansas State that would move to the PAC.
If Oklahoma can separate from Oklahoma State, then the other "most profitable" teams of the Big 12, Oklahoma and West Virginia would move to the SEC.
The PAC networks are a series of paired schools to market to a particular demographic. The LHN could become the Texas/Texas Tech network for the PAC and generate enough revenue to supply Texas' $15 million LHN annual payment should the PAC allow Texas to take their money off of the top (which would be a condition of joining). The initial startup costs have been met for the LHN it is turning a tidy profit.
The west coast can be relevant if they can secure 1 CTZ football blueblood (Texas) and one CTZ basketball blueblood (Kansas) to act as the "front door" to PAC athletics for a CTZ audience.
The addition of an eastern bloc would give Texas enough influence to have a major say in PAC affairs.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2019 06:01 AM by XLance.)
01-11-2019 05:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,204
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 72
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #146
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-10-2019 08:48 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:21 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  I do not believe that it will do the Big 10 any good to take in the 2 worst control freak Schools in the Big 12. I think it would be a better fit to get Kansas and Missouri or Iowa State. KU has a new very successful coach now and is planning to spend $215,000 on upgrading old Memorial and adding 20,000 new seats. Mizzou would love the chance to play in the Big 10. I cannot think of 2 better travel partners-and instant Rivals. Kansas Legislature is now looking into the stupid law that chains KU to KSU. Kansas fits the footprint of the BIG. Texas and Oklahoma will never go to a conference not directly controlled by them.

Kansas was saved from the Big East when the big "bully" in Austin decided to stay in the Big 12. Kansas was among a few schools who offered exit money from CU and NU to keep the Big 12 stable. A&M was the only school that demanded that money.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205177474

Quote:Also that weekend, administrators from five Big 12 schools were meeting in Kansas City. If the Big 12 dissolved, Baylor, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State were in danger of being cast adrift with unattractive options for new conference homes. The five schools sent word they would forfeit their exit fee penalties from Nebraska and Colorado with that money going to bolstering revenue shares for Texas and Texas A&M.

Kansas is a great school with a tremendous basketball tradition but they reside in a small state and basketball doesn't drive the bus in conference realignment decisions.

Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC to play Rutgers, Northwestern, Purdue etc when they have A&M, LSU, Florida, Miss St, Ole Miss and Bama coming to Columbia every few years.

That's a cherry picking argument--you can't list the best of the SEC next to the worst of the Big Ten and have a fair comparison. Not to mention all but one of those SEC schools are in the West and they only see them once every 6 years, once every 12 at home.

Annual games with Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa and less frequent engagements with Ohio St, Mich, Penn St, and Mich St sound pretty good. Add Oklahoma to the Big Ten West and he appeal is even greater.
01-11-2019 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,204
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 72
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #147
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
I think Oklahoma is the much more reasonable party to deal with so if I'm directing the Big Ten war room my focus is on luring the Sooners and letting the Longhorns be the bull in someone else's china shop.

Butter them up on the academic allure of the conference and the ability to win consistently in the Big Ten West.

The drawback of course is that one of their two big rivalries, Bedlam or RRR, is going to have to be discontinued and if their grudge with Texas is as deep as A&M's was that's an easy decision to make. If Texas's two biggest rivals refuse to play them then they are considerably less valuable to other suitors.
01-11-2019 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,244
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 144
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #148
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Fighting Muskie,

Division-less football is coming. You need to look at expansion in that light. You can have an odd number of teams with that. Just one school gets a 10 game or only 8 if you have an odd number and 9 games (8 games like ACC and SEC odd is not a problem). The best two go to the CCG, so both can be "East" or both can be "West". There will be no pressure to go even.

Oklahoma is seen as the loose pin. They will be the first to go and that will unhinge Texas and/or Kansas. So yes OU is the one the B1G (and SEC) will push to sign. They will be working Texas the whole time, laying the ground work so they can follow quickly. Kansas will also be targeted, at least as a back up option (SEC, B1G and maybe even P12).

Anyway Division-less football means conferences do not have to add a less than valuable complimentary school to have an even number. Each school will stand on their own merits.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2019 01:11 AM by Stugray2.)
01-12-2019 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,209
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 703
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #149
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
If you look at disruptive shifts the big mistake is to expect more of the same.

We had realignment because the travel situation changed (train to bus+airplane), shift to adjust to the NCAA TV contract (Houston to SWC, Arizona and Arizona State to Pac-10), we've had the hoops shift (creating Big East, Sun Belt, Metro), we've had the deregulation shifts of the late 80's and the 90's, the carriage fee shifts.

I think a hoops oriented realignment may be overdue. We are going into a different model of video distribution with the streaming system and if you want someone to lock into a subscription you better offer more for that than a handful of football games. Schools like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, UNC are going to have very high value if what you are looking to sell is a monthly subscription because a single month could mean as many as 8 basketball games a fan will pay to see.
01-12-2019 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,143
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #150
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-12-2019 08:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you look at disruptive shifts the big mistake is to expect more of the same.

We had realignment because the travel situation changed (train to bus+airplane), shift to adjust to the NCAA TV contract (Houston to SWC, Arizona and Arizona State to Pac-10), we've had the hoops shift (creating Big East, Sun Belt, Metro), we've had the deregulation shifts of the late 80's and the 90's, the carriage fee shifts.

I think a hoops oriented realignment may be overdue. We are going into a different model of video distribution with the streaming system and if you want someone to lock into a subscription you better offer more for that than a handful of football games. Schools like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, UNC are going to have very high value if what you are looking to sell is a monthly subscription because a single month could mean as many as 8 basketball games a fan will pay to see.

I agree with most of that.

The SEC recently made a concerted effort to increase the quality of the basketball conference and I don't think they would have bothered if there wasn't money in it.

I don't agree that the next realignment will center on basketball, but I think it will play a part.
01-12-2019 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dunstvangeet Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 145
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Oregon State
Location:
Post: #151
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-11-2019 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC networks are a series of paired schools to market to a particular demographic. The LHN could become the Texas/Texas Tech network for the PAC and generate enough revenue to supply Texas' $15 million LHN annual payment should the PAC allow Texas to take their money off of the top (which would be a condition of joining). The initial startup costs have been met for the LHN it is turning a tidy profit.
This is what alledgely torpedoed the talks in the last round of talks. Texas basically wanted to keep the LHN revenue, and get a share of the PAC-12 Network Revenue if it ever got to be above 15-times the LHN revenue. Also, given that the PAC-12 networks are 100% owned by the conference, I don't see that happening.

Texas would probably be offered a way to get out of their LHN contract, and be told that a PAC-12 channel will be launched in Texas, which they'll get 1/16th of the Revenues for.

The other option is if the PAC-12 wanted to get rid of their wholly owned network and partner with ESPN. At that point, the LHN would be signed over to the Conference, and become the PAC-12 Texas (or in my dream scenario, PAC-12 Texhoma Channel). However, Texas wouldn't get out of the equal revenue sharing from media rights that is central to the conference.
01-13-2019 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Frog II Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,089
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 39
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #152
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Meanwhile the Big 12 is succeeding in football and basketball while making millions more than the Pac-12 and ACC. Tell me again why they want to break up and fly their teams thousands of miles more each year? Yes the new TV contracts could dictate some future conference movement or perhaps not. Each conference will look at more than just TV contracts. The unhappiness that some of the Big 12 schools voiced back in 2011 has largely disappeared, but I know many of you conspiracy theorist don't want to hear that.
01-13-2019 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dunstvangeet Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 145
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Oregon State
Location:
Post: #153
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-13-2019 12:31 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Meanwhile the Big 12 is succeeding in football and basketball while making millions more than the Pac-12 and ACC. Tell me again why they want to break up and fly their teams thousands of miles more each year? Yes the new TV contracts could dictate some future conference movement or perhaps not. Each conference will look at more than just TV contracts. The unhappiness that some of the Big 12 schools voiced back in 2011 has largely disappeared, but I know many of you conspiracy theorist don't want to hear that.
It all depends upon the schedule.

In Football, for instance, you're really only looking at 1 game to the west coast, and 2 games to the Mountain States (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State). That's not really much different than Iowa State and West Virginia now. All other games would either be home games, or within the Texhoma 4.

(Schedule I have figured out would basically have Texas play Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Utah every year, then A California team every year, and a northwest team every year).

In Basketball, you're looking at a total of 2 weekends on the West Coast (One in the Northwest, one in California), along with another 1 weekend in the Mountain States. (18-game schedule means that you play teams within your "pod" twice (6 games), and then every other team once (12 games)).

Haven't figured out a baseball schedule (since Colorado doesn't sponsor Baseball), but it would probably look something similar to the Football Schedule.
01-13-2019 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,282
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #154
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-13-2019 01:24 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 12:31 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Meanwhile the Big 12 is succeeding in football and basketball while making millions more than the Pac-12 and ACC. Tell me again why they want to break up and fly their teams thousands of miles more each year? Yes the new TV contracts could dictate some future conference movement or perhaps not. Each conference will look at more than just TV contracts. The unhappiness that some of the Big 12 schools voiced back in 2011 has largely disappeared, but I know many of you conspiracy theorist don't want to hear that.
It all depends upon the schedule.

In Football, for instance, you're really only looking at 1 game to the west coast, and 2 games to the Mountain States (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State). That's not really much different than Iowa State and West Virginia now. All other games would either be home games, or within the Texhoma 4.

(Schedule I have figured out would basically have Texas play Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Utah every year, then A California team every year, and a northwest team every year).

In Basketball, you're looking at a total of 2 weekends on the West Coast (One in the Northwest, one in California), along with another 1 weekend in the Mountain States. (18-game schedule means that you play teams within your "pod" twice (6 games), and then every other team once (12 games)).

Haven't figured out a baseball schedule (since Colorado doesn't sponsor Baseball), but it would probably look something similar to the Football Schedule.

Other sports don’t make the decisions but you need more incentive to make them completely ignore thousands more miles for virtually every other sport.

They’ll make them get in line if it’s worth it, right now there doesn’t appear to be anywhere near the incentive needed.
01-13-2019 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,204
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 72
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #155
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-12-2019 06:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Fighting Muskie,

Division-less football is coming. You need to look at expansion in that light. You can have an odd number of teams with that. Just one school gets a 10 game or only 8 if you have an odd number and 9 games (8 games like ACC and SEC odd is not a problem). The best two go to the CCG, so both can be "East" or both can be "West". There will be no pressure to go even.

Oklahoma is seen as the loose pin. They will be the first to go and that will unhinge Texas and/or Kansas. So yes OU is the one the B1G (and SEC) will push to sign. They will be working Texas the whole time, laying the ground work so they can follow quickly. Kansas will also be targeted, at least as a back up option (SEC, B1G and maybe even P12).

Anyway Division-less football means conferences do not have to add a less than valuable complimentary school to have an even number. Each school will stand on their own merits.

Divisionless conferences would be an unmitigated disaster. How do you solve a 3 or even a 4 way tie for first if two of the schools involved didn't play? It would be utter chaos. Why do people keep claiming that this is wanted?
01-13-2019 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 6,593
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 328
I Root For: Ubertomfoolery!
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #156
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
If the Big 12 was poached of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Oklahoma State it would have to fill with four teams. So the “new” Big 12 would look like:

Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
___________plus
Houston
UCF
Cincinnati
Memphis/USF

I’m not so sure they’d be able to retain Power status with FOUR additions. If they stayed at 9 and just added UCF, Houston, and Cincy I think they’d have a better shot.
01-13-2019 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,558
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 911
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #157
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-12-2019 08:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you look at disruptive shifts the big mistake is to expect more of the same.

We had realignment because the travel situation changed (train to bus+airplane), shift to adjust to the NCAA TV contract (Houston to SWC, Arizona and Arizona State to Pac-10), we've had the hoops shift (creating Big East, Sun Belt, Metro), we've had the deregulation shifts of the late 80's and the 90's, the carriage fee shifts.

I think a hoops oriented realignment may be overdue. We are going into a different model of video distribution with the streaming system and if you want someone to lock into a subscription you better offer more for that than a handful of football games. Schools like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, UNC are going to have very high value if what you are looking to sell is a monthly subscription because a single month could mean as many as 8 basketball games a fan will pay to see.

I think that's right. Big conference shifts have occurred largely because of changes in the media market. Nobody knows when the next big change in the media market will be, but we have a pretty good idea of what it will be. The captive cable subscription market will go away and get replaced by some form of internet based streaming.

And there's no certainty that movement always goes in one direction.
Charter meeting of the SWC in 1914-Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St. and Arkansas. Big 12 South in 1996-same except that Texas Tech replaced Arkansas (Rice joined the SWC the first year but was not in the charter meeting). We could go to smaller more regional alignments as content becomes king.
01-13-2019 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
pablowow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,189
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 31
I Root For: TULANE/AAC
Location: Louisiana
Post: #158
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-13-2019 02:14 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  If the Big 12 was poached of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Oklahoma State it would have to fill with four teams. So the “new” Big 12 would look like:

Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
___________plus
Houston
UCF
Cincinnati
Memphis/USF

I’m not so sure they’d be able to retain Power status with FOUR additions. If they stayed at 9 and just added UCF, Houston, and Cincy I think they’d have a better shot.

They would go to 16-18 teams... no more 10 team conferences...
01-13-2019 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,339
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 140
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #159
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-13-2019 03:16 PM)pablowow Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 02:14 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  If the Big 12 was poached of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Oklahoma State it would have to fill with four teams. So the “new” Big 12 would look like:

Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
___________plus
Houston
UCF
Cincinnati
Memphis/USF

I’m not so sure they’d be able to retain Power status with FOUR additions. If they stayed at 9 and just added UCF, Houston, and Cincy I think they’d have a better shot.

They would go to 16-18 teams... no more 10 team conferences...

Let’s say the Big XII losses Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. ESPN or FOX want a 12-14 team league in case they lose more members.

Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
Kansas State
Iowa State
West Virginia


A pool of the following schools will be consideed but only 5-9 will make the cut:
Houston
Central Florida
South Florida
Cincinnati
Memphis
Temple
UConn
Colorado State
New Mexico
BYU
Utah State
Air Force
Navy
Army
Rice
Tulane
Old Dominion

At that point, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and West Virginia (they’re the best option of the leftovers), the three most attractive options of the left behinds will start campaigning to join other conferences. Perhaps Iowa State and TCU too.
01-13-2019 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 610
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #160
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(01-12-2019 11:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 08:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you look at disruptive shifts the big mistake is to expect more of the same.

We had realignment because the travel situation changed (train to bus+airplane), shift to adjust to the NCAA TV contract (Houston to SWC, Arizona and Arizona State to Pac-10), we've had the hoops shift (creating Big East, Sun Belt, Metro), we've had the deregulation shifts of the late 80's and the 90's, the carriage fee shifts.

I think a hoops oriented realignment may be overdue. We are going into a different model of video distribution with the streaming system and if you want someone to lock into a subscription you better offer more for that than a handful of football games. Schools like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, UNC are going to have very high value if what you are looking to sell is a monthly subscription because a single month could mean as many as 8 basketball games a fan will pay to see.

I agree with most of that.

The SEC recently made a concerted effort to increase the quality of the basketball conference and I don't think they would have bothered if there wasn't money in it.

I don't agree that the next realignment will center on basketball, but I think it will play a part.

Agreed. The "greed" of the P5 will ultimately result in them going after the NCAA Tournament pot of money, which overall is greater than the CFP/NY6 pot of money but the P5 doesn't get anywhere near the % of that pool of money as it does with the CFP. Once the "façade" of the "student athlete" illusion is torn away completely, they likely will not hesitate.

Also agreed that the SEC has made a concerted effort to increase the quality of its basketball. It's been evident for those with eyes to see and I suspect is tied to the SECN monies. The Big Ten and the ACC welcome your conference to the party. 03-wink

As for arkstfan's list of bb schools that have high value (which I realize wasn't meant to be a complete list), I would extend that list to 10 institutions. Over the past 7 seasons (11-12 through 17-18) my data mining SMW has found only 10 have played in 30 or more regular season/conference tourney games that exceeded 1 million viewers or more. The Top 5 have done it 45 or more times - Kentucky (89, yes 89), Duke (69), North Carolina (61), Michigan State (51) and Kansas (46). The next five are Michigan (40), Louisville (37), Syracuse (32), Ohio State (31), and Indiana (30).

The next level down standouts are Wisconsin (28), Virginia (24) who is rising like a bullet, and Notre Dame (21).

The lowest average of all 13 is 1.90 million viewers per game, but keep in mind I only recorded those that were a minimum of 1 million viewers since games with less than that rarely make the weekly college basketball ratings round-ups at SMW. Duke is far and away the leader with an average of 2.407 million viewers when the game gets at least 1 million viewers.

All other programs outside the 13 mentioned above so far have 15 or less such games, at least based upon my first run through of the data. Not sure I will do a second look through at this time since I am busy with data mining some college football viewership numbers.

Cheers,
Neil
01-13-2019 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.