(07-23-2019 04:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 04:03 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:01 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Big Ten and SEC are the top dogs and aren't losing anybody

Pac 12 is geographically compact and no additions really make sense.

The ACC is stuck together until 2037 or whenever the GOR ends

The Big 12 is the only conference that realistically could experience attrition, but i don't think Texas and Oklahoma are really going anywhere because the money difference in negligible and they have an easy path to the playoff. The other 8 probably aren't super happy but none of them are getting invites to other conferences that make sense. Small possibility that they look at adding some combination of UCF, USF, or Houston, but it would take an exceptional run by one of those teams to get there.

I think the only realignment we see is with the G5 and independents.

The money difference and institutional security are not "negligible" for Oklahoma to move to say the B1G.

The current B12 setup includes roughly a 20% premium paid by CBS and ESPN to keep the conference together. But it's ludicrous to image that will continue. The SEC is about to get a big bump in pay, and the B1G continues to grow the separation. To believe the B12 will keep pace is simply delusional

For OU you are talking about $10-15M a year minimum, plus the institutional security. That was a huge factor in Nebraska joining the B1G and also Colorado the P12, as schools are seeking associations and geographic orientations to fit their needs to fill classrooms. The pressure on OU to move will be very high, and it extends well past football.

I think your read of the P12, SEC and B1G are correct, and the ACC is actually fairly stable, benefits from sitting on the wealthiest constituencies in the US (after California and Seattle), which means their classrooms are filled with high achieving students (well the schools that care anyway, like UVa, UNC, Pitt, Miami, Georgia Tech, et al).

The big question is not whether OU leaves, which is pretty much a given, but whether Texas sticks around without them. Texas does not need the SEC or B1G and do not want to be swallowed up as just another school, and prefer to stand out as the big kahuna. They have that in the B12, and I think they'd have it in the ACC. The question is will the money work in the B12 without OU? And is the ACC good enough money that Texas wont be at a disadvantage?

I don't agree with the argument that "Texas has their business model and their going to stick with it." I agree even less with the argument that "Texas wants to be The Big Kahuna." Who do you mean when you say "Texas... ?" Is it the football fans, the alumni, the general public? Because if it's any of those, well, they don't much matter. The decision will be made by a very small knot of eggheads who care only a little bit about football when it is weighed against the future of the institution as a whole. These guys likely see their university as The Big Kahuna no matter where they align themselves, and it has precious little to do with the football won-loss record. Maybe these fine fellows in the halls of academe regard "Texas" as a synecdoche for themselves.

Obviously you have never spent any time in Texas to come to that conclusion. When people say Texas, it’s usually the administration, athletic department, boosters and fans. They’re all intertwined and they’re all agree on one thing: power.

Texas doesn’t have money issues. They have tons of it, they’re the wealthiest athletic department program in the most important football state. $10-15 million more in the SEC (a conference they consider is academically beneath them plus their ego won’t allow them to follow their “little brother”) or the Big Ten (or Big Slow as their fans call it) is not going to convince them to make a move. They’re Texas not Nebraska, Colorado or Maryland.

What Texas has is power issues. They like to be in control and exercise their power when it comes to conference matters. They would lose that power in the B1G, SEC and Pac-12. The thought of being seen as an equal to Illinois, Mississippi or Oregon State terrifies them. That’s why you won’t see Texas make a move based on money. It’ll take more than that. Worse case scenario, they’ll go independent in football and ask the next weakest P5 (ACC) to give them a Notre Dame type of deal. They won’t be forced to pick a conference either.

As much as I dislike Texas fans, I admit the school is one of, if not, the hottest property in FBS and any conference would take them in a heartbeat.

It's true. I havent been to Texas for many years. But Texans are just about everywhere, so we all know how they feel about being a Texan. When I was in the Army, I felt that I could identify a Texan by the reverence with which he spoke of his Daddy. Maybe that was just me.
It is obvious to me that you haven't lately had a glimpse of that "Adminstration" you referenced. I looked at the Pres, seven VPs, and the first few Deans listed on the UT website. Only one mention of a Texas school in all of those biographies; lots of California, plenty of Ivy League of course, and OMG, a ton of B1G schools! I don't suggest that these associations mean much of anything when it comes to realignment. But I like to point out that UT Austin is a different world than what is experienced by the stereotypical Texan Longhorn fan.
Texas will make a move when the current contract expires. Traditional in-state football schedules, long standing rivalries, and the health of the Athletic Department ( football ) will be considered, but the positioning of the academic institution that is UT Austin for the near and distant future will carry the most weight.

(07-23-2019 06:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:01 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Big Ten and SEC are the top dogs and aren't losing anybody

Pac 12 is geographically compact and no additions really make sense.

The ACC is stuck together until 2037 or whenever the GOR ends

The Big 12 is the only conference that realistically could experience attrition, but i don't think Texas and Oklahoma are really going anywhere because the money difference in negligible and they have an easy path to the playoff. The other 8 probably aren't super happy but none of them are getting invites to other conferences that make sense. Small possibility that they look at adding some combination of UCF, USF, or Houston, but it would take an exceptional run by one of those teams to get there.

I think the only realignment we see is with the G5 and independents.

The money difference and institutional security are not "negligible" for Oklahoma to move to say the B1G.

The current B12 setup includes roughly a 20% premium paid by CBS and ESPN to keep the conference together. But it's ludicrous to image that will continue. The SEC is about to get a big bump in pay, and the B1G continues to grow the separation. To believe the B12 will keep pace is simply delusional

For OU you are talking about $10-15M a year minimum, plus the institutional security. That was a huge factor in Nebraska joining the B1G and also Colorado the P12, as schools are seeking associations and geographic orientations to fit their needs to fill classrooms. The pressure on OU to move will be very high, and it extends well past football.

I think your read of the P12, SEC and B1G are correct, and the ACC is actually fairly stable, benefits from sitting on the wealthiest constituencies in the US (after California and Seattle), which means their classrooms are filled with high achieving students (well the schools that care anyway, like UVa, UNC, Pitt, Miami, Georgia Tech, et al).

The big question is not whether OU leaves, which is pretty much a given, but whether Texas sticks around without them. Texas does not need the SEC or B1G and do not want to be swallowed up as just another school, and prefer to stand out as the big kahuna. They have that in the B12, and I think they'd have it in the ACC. The question is will the money work in the B12 without OU? And is the ACC good enough money that Texas wont be at a disadvantage?

how do people that constantly write so much about realignment know so very little about what they are talking about

actually I think that is pretty much the answer right there.....people that have no idea what they are talking about using those false facts and half truths to continue to craft some nonsense

1. CBS does not have a contract with the Big 12

the Big 12 has contracts with ESPN and FOX

2. there is no "premium" paid to the Big 12

the tier 2 contract with FOX was signed when the Big 12 was a 10 member conference with aggy and MU as members and part of that contract called for the Big 12 to remain at 10 members if anyone left that is why the Big 12 was not able to wait on Louisville to fulfill the exit period for the Big East even if they wanted to

3. once aggy and MU left and TCU and WVU were added to the Big 12 the tier 2 contract with FOX was fully in compliance by the Big 12

I am sure someone with the "clear knowledge" of the situation would claim that Fox was probably not happy to lose aggy and MU and get TCU and WVU instead (ignoring the fact that FOX made no specifications on replacements of members left other than getting back to 10)

4. at that time the ESPN tier 1 contract with the Big 12 was set to end in 2015-16

in late 2012 ESPN came to the Big 12 and ask them if they wanted to renegotiate a new contract with dates that matched the Fox tier 2 contract (so over 3 years early)

the Big 12 said yes

5. at that time FOX also came back to the table and augmented their contract that was only a year or so old and paid some small additional money to get better choices in the football games

so for those that have even a small clue what they are talking about the Big 12 has contracts with ESPN and FOX not CBS

and 100% of the TV contracts the Big 12 has with ESPN and FOX were signed after the Big 12 was a 10 team conference and the ESPN contract was signed after the Big 12 was a 10 team conference with TCU and WVU as members and the FOX contract was augmented to pay slightly MORE at the same time with TCU and WVU as members

so when one knows the facts there is no 20% premium paid by ESPN and CBS because the Big 12 does not have a contract with CBS and there is not a 20% premium paid by ESPN and FOX either because 100% of those contracts were signed new, opened up and discussed, and finalized when the Big 12 was a 10 team conference with TCU and WVU as members

6. here is the part where you will try and bring up some other money that the Big 12 splits only 10 ways

but of course that is just you saving face because your statement was that ESPN and CBS pay a 20% premium to the Big 12

and of course CBS does not do so because they have no contract with the Big 12 it is FOX

and if you want to bring up The Sugar Bowl money well again that deal was signed with ESPN after the Big 12 was a 10 team conference with TCU and WVU as members

and the NCAA football playoff money is not a direct payment by ESPN to the Big 12 that is a payment by the NCAA to the Big 12 and that is based on the NCAA paying per conference and they do that same thing for all conferences P5 and G5 (with the P5 and G5 payout differences of course)

so when you do not even have a clue who the Big 12 has for their media partners (much less when the contracts were signed and who was in the Big 12 at that time), it is difficult to do anything other than think you just have no clue when you try and talk about a 20% premium that will not happen again

because ESPN came to the Big 12 over 3 years early to give them a brand new contract when the Big 12 was 10 members with TCU and WVU and FOX paid additional money at that time as well........which does not suggest there was any 20% premium paid by either of them (much less paid by CBS)

These facts have been often misrepresented by many posters (me included) along the way. It is a lot of detail for most of us to keep in mind, what with all of our personal biases and rooting interests. But even the sum of all these don't seem to move the needle a great deal in the larger scheme of things. I understand your frustration but realignment in/around 2024 will not hinge on this list of facts. Keep fighting the good fight if you wish.

Well that explains slow FB team that has no shot at anything.
Administration understands that Tex needs bigger pool of applicants
B-12 expanding by 8, would give Tex a nation wide reach
As matter fact, that's what all 10 schools need

Big 12 have 5 schools in the less populated areas of their states. You got to wonder why they did not expand when they had a chance? UCF, USF, Cincinnati, BYU, Colorado State, Tulane, Temple, Northern Illinois and even Boise State could have added more states in heavy populated areas that both Fox and ESPN can get for broadcasting. Who in Florida wants to watch the Big 12 since they do not represent their culture and interests. Adding more teams in Texas brings in no new tv markets, and UConn brings a small state. Big 12 lost all chances on grabbing good schools on board to get P5 spread further away. For the P5 truely want to pull away from the the G5? They need to grab schools that are good. Boise State is the last great G5 schools with the best winning % since 2000 that have not gotten the call up yet. Cincinnati, Houston, Toledo, USF and until recently, UConn won a lot of games in that same time period which I could include Fresno State, BYU, Air Force, Hawaii, ECU, N. Illinois, UNR and San Diego State. Marshall would be in the next line with Arkansas State, W. Michigan and C. Michigan.

(07-23-2019 01:50 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Maryland was willing to buy itself out of the ACC for the riches of long-term prosperity of the B1G, and that was with the GOR.

Maryland actually announced they were leaving The ACC in November 2012. The ACC Grant of Rights was finalized in April 2013.

Don’t believe everything you read about teams from The ACC wanting to leave. Does anyone really believe Maryland was the ONLY program Delaney and company approached about leaving The ACC or that Maryland was the first call? If UVa or Georgia Tech were so set on leaving The ACC why not take The Big Ten offer they “supposedly” had.

The reality is The ACC schools like being together. Why else would they have signed the GOR and extended it through the middle of the next decade.

Teams to watch:

UCF
USF
Cincy
Temple
Houston
Memphis

(07-24-2019 07:40 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Teams to watch:

UCF
USF
Cincy
Temple
Houston
Memphis

I think your big 3 would be UCF, UC, and Houston. All 3 spend money, are performing well, bring good markets, and provide access to the best recruiting grounds.

If the Big 12 lose 1 or 2, and that is a big if. I would assume a combination of these 3 get added. UCF has past performance going for it but no real travel partner. Houston is very solid and in Texas. Cincinnati finally gives WVU a rival/driveable away game and is very solid in both sports.

(07-24-2019 08:09 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 07:40 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Teams to watch:

UCF
USF
Cincy
Temple
Houston
Memphis

I think your big 3 would be UCF, UC, and Houston. All 3 spend money, are performing well, bring good markets, and provide access to the best recruiting grounds.

If the Big 12 lose 1 or 2, and that is a big if. I would assume a combination of these 3 get added. UCF has past performance going for it but no real travel partner. Houston is very solid and in Texas. Cincinnati finally gives WVU a rival/driveable away game and is very solid in both sports.

To play devils advocate...take Temple for example.

1. Spend money - check, no need to even discuss that, they throw a crazy number at sports for a G5.
2. Performing well - check, been the best team in AAC conference play since it started.
3. Market- check, obviously.
4. Recruiting - check, doesn’t get any better for a North G5...major city straddling PA and NJ?

Not to mention they’re the best institution of the 6.

I think all of this can apply similarly to Memphis, except the institution part.

Just some food for thought because if I was rating teams on how much expansion potential they have I’d put Temple at the very top.

Their old administration seemingly destroyed any chance at what could have been an elite program if they started caring about football earlier. Don’t think they’d have any problems competing at the top of the ACC given the resources but unfortunately for them their admin didn’t wake up fast enough.

(07-24-2019 08:09 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 07:40 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Teams to watch:

UCF
USF
Cincy
Temple
Houston
Memphis

I think your big 3 would be UCF, UC, and Houston. All 3 spend money, are performing well, bring good markets, and provide access to the best recruiting grounds.

If the Big 12 lose 1 or 2, and that is a big if. I would assume a combination of these 3 get added. UCF has past performance going for it but no real travel partner. Houston is very solid and in Texas. Cincinnati finally gives WVU a rival/driveable away game and is very solid in both sports.

If the Big 12 ever expanded to add UCF I'm sure USF would be brought along as a partner because both schools have similar profiles. Plus, you would keep the War on I4 (which gets good ratings in the AAC) as a conference rivalry game.

(07-24-2019 10:28 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 08:09 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 07:40 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Teams to watch:

UCF
USF
Cincy
Temple
Houston
Memphis

I think your big 3 would be UCF, UC, and Houston. All 3 spend money, are performing well, bring good markets, and provide access to the best recruiting grounds.

If the Big 12 lose 1 or 2, and that is a big if. I would assume a combination of these 3 get added. UCF has past performance going for it but no real travel partner. Houston is very solid and in Texas. Cincinnati finally gives WVU a rival/driveable away game and is very solid in both sports.

If the Big 12 ever expanded to add UCF I'm sure USF would be brought along as a partner because both schools have similar profiles. Plus, you would keep the War on I4 (which gets good ratings in the AAC) as a conference rivalry game.

Exactly. UCF alone could work, but having the War on I-4 which is quickly becoming a very heated rivalry would bring more value (not to mention the entire central Fla TV market from coast to coast. More value keeping these rivals together (and scheduling could guarantee a team a trip to Florida every yr or every other yr).

(07-23-2019 11:37 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 06:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:01 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Big Ten and SEC are the top dogs and aren't losing anybody

Pac 12 is geographically compact and no additions really make sense.

The ACC is stuck together until 2037 or whenever the GOR ends

The Big 12 is the only conference that realistically could experience attrition, but i don't think Texas and Oklahoma are really going anywhere because the money difference in negligible and they have an easy path to the playoff. The other 8 probably aren't super happy but none of them are getting invites to other conferences that make sense. Small possibility that they look at adding some combination of UCF, USF, or Houston, but it would take an exceptional run by one of those teams to get there.

I think the only realignment we see is with the G5 and independents.

The money difference and institutional security are not "negligible" for Oklahoma to move to say the B1G.

The current B12 setup includes roughly a 20% premium paid by CBS and ESPN to keep the conference together. But it's ludicrous to image that will continue. The SEC is about to get a big bump in pay, and the B1G continues to grow the separation. To believe the B12 will keep pace is simply delusional

For OU you are talking about $10-15M a year minimum, plus the institutional security. That was a huge factor in Nebraska joining the B1G and also Colorado the P12, as schools are seeking associations and geographic orientations to fit their needs to fill classrooms. The pressure on OU to move will be very high, and it extends well past football.

I think your read of the P12, SEC and B1G are correct, and the ACC is actually fairly stable, benefits from sitting on the wealthiest constituencies in the US (after California and Seattle), which means their classrooms are filled with high achieving students (well the schools that care anyway, like UVa, UNC, Pitt, Miami, Georgia Tech, et al).

The big question is not whether OU leaves, which is pretty much a given, but whether Texas sticks around without them. Texas does not need the SEC or B1G and do not want to be swallowed up as just another school, and prefer to stand out as the big kahuna. They have that in the B12, and I think they'd have it in the ACC. The question is will the money work in the B12 without OU? And is the ACC good enough money that Texas wont be at a disadvantage?

how do people that constantly write so much about realignment know so very little about what they are talking about

actually I think that is pretty much the answer right there.....people that have no idea what they are talking about using those false facts and half truths to continue to craft some nonsense

1. CBS does not have a contract with the Big 12

the Big 12 has contracts with ESPN and FOX

2. there is no "premium" paid to the Big 12

the tier 2 contract with FOX was signed when the Big 12 was a 10 member conference with aggy and MU as members and part of that contract called for the Big 12 to remain at 10 members if anyone left that is why the Big 12 was not able to wait on Louisville to fulfill the exit period for the Big East even if they wanted to

3. once aggy and MU left and TCU and WVU were added to the Big 12 the tier 2 contract with FOX was fully in compliance by the Big 12

I am sure someone with the "clear knowledge" of the situation would claim that Fox was probably not happy to lose aggy and MU and get TCU and WVU instead (ignoring the fact that FOX made no specifications on replacements of members left other than getting back to 10)

4. at that time the ESPN tier 1 contract with the Big 12 was set to end in 2015-16

in late 2012 ESPN came to the Big 12 and ask them if they wanted to renegotiate a new contract with dates that matched the Fox tier 2 contract (so over 3 years early)

the Big 12 said yes

5. at that time FOX also came back to the table and augmented their contract that was only a year or so old and paid some small additional money to get better choices in the football games

so for those that have even a small clue what they are talking about the Big 12 has contracts with ESPN and FOX not CBS

and 100% of the TV contracts the Big 12 has with ESPN and FOX were signed after the Big 12 was a 10 team conference and the ESPN contract was signed after the Big 12 was a 10 team conference with TCU and WVU as members and the FOX contract was augmented to pay slightly MORE at the same time with TCU and WVU as members

so when one knows the facts there is no 20% premium paid by ESPN and CBS because the Big 12 does not have a contract with CBS and there is not a 20% premium paid by ESPN and FOX either because 100% of those contracts were signed new, opened up and discussed, and finalized when the Big 12 was a 10 team conference with TCU and WVU as members

6. here is the part where you will try and bring up some other money that the Big 12 splits only 10 ways

but of course that is just you saving face because your statement was that ESPN and CBS pay a 20% premium to the Big 12

and of course CBS does not do so because they have no contract with the Big 12 it is FOX

and if you want to bring up The Sugar Bowl money well again that deal was signed with ESPN after the Big 12 was a 10 team conference with TCU and WVU as members

and the NCAA football playoff money is not a direct payment by ESPN to the Big 12 that is a payment by the NCAA to the Big 12 and that is based on the NCAA paying per conference and they do that same thing for all conferences P5 and G5 (with the P5 and G5 payout differences of course)

so when you do not even have a clue who the Big 12 has for their media partners (much less when the contracts were signed and who was in the Big 12 at that time), it is difficult to do anything other than think you just have no clue when you try and talk about a 20% premium that will not happen again

because ESPN came to the Big 12 over 3 years early to give them a brand new contract when the Big 12 was 10 members with TCU and WVU and FOX paid additional money at that time as well........which does not suggest there was any 20% premium paid by either of them (much less paid by CBS)

These facts have been often misrepresented by many posters (me included) along the way. It is a lot of detail for most of us to keep in mind, what with all of our personal biases and rooting interests. But even the sum of all these don't seem to move the needle a great deal in the larger scheme of things. I understand your frustration but realignment in/around 2024 will not hinge on this list of facts. Keep fighting the good fight if you wish.

there are aspects of this that do matter though

1. CFP money......even if people pretend that you get down to a "P4" you are still at best looking at a situation where the Big 12 share of money is split 4 ways between the remaining 4 conferences

you are not going to be looking at a situation where some conference adds two teams and ends up with a much larger share of the money

the argument on this forum usually is that UT and OU will leave and the "little 8" will be left behind (then a lot of dolts pretend they split up and go to the AAC and MWC which is stupid and ignores exit fees)

so when you do the math on that you have the Big 12 share $50 million and those that are math illiterates say well two teams (Texas and OU) are not taking that $50 million with them to whatever conference they go to so there is a huge chunk of money to make it worth it!!!!

most of them will say UT and OU to PAC 12 so PAC 12 gets that $50 million so it is $50 million / 14 = $3.57 million for each new member so that helps right there

but of course what will really happen is that $50 million will be split by the P4 equally so even for the PAC 12 with 2 more teams you have the math of

$50 million / P4 / 14 = $893,000 per member in the conference

so sure the SEC SEC SEC, ACC, Big 10 all love $893,000 for the Big 12 going away......but $893,000 does nothing to help the PAC 12 keep up with the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10.....all the more so when those conferences and their members are all getting the exact same raise

and really that does pretty much next to nothing to help the current PAC 12 payout of $30 million get close to the Big 12 payout of $36.5 million much less OU @ about $42.5 and Texas @ $51.5

2. then there is The Rose Bowl money of $40 million for two out of every three years

ESPN is not going to bump that up for the PAC 12 to add members nor are they going to bump that up for the Big 10 to add members.....and they certainly are not going to bump that up for BOTH if one of them adds members

and this is where the fan girls come in and say that without the Big 12 in The Sugar Bowl that leaves ESPN money to make movement happen

but again how will that money be spread out and why does ESPN have to pay it when they can simply do away with a NY6 bowl and save that money

what would most likely happen is The Orange Bowl would go away (because The Rose Bowl is not going away) and the SEC SEC SEC is not leaving The Sugar Bowl

so Orange Bowl goes away, ESPN keeps $27.5 million X 2 and the ACC plays the SEC SEC SEC in The Sugar Bowl for $40 million per year

so with no Big 12 the PAC 12 just got nothing ESPN can keep paying them the exact same and do away with The Orange Bowl and pocket the two payouts

and even if one wants to argue that ESPN would take that $27.5 X 2 and divide it up between The Rose and Sugar Bowls well that is all fine and good, but that is still the PAC 12 getting very little additional money for adding two teams

and more importantly from the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC that is the place there they send their 3rd (or sometimes 4th) place team some years to play the ACC for $27.5 million

so those two conferences are really not getting much of a raise because they just lost a slot in a bowl they split most years and instead shared that money more ways

3. then there are NCAA credits.....Texas and OU are not walking away with those they will stay with the Big 12 and the Big 12 does very well at earning those and really Texas and OU are not even the top earners of those so they will be coming to a conference with none of that money and in the case of the ACC be bringing less down the road and in the case of the PAC 12 probably just keeping even with the rest of the conference

so again not a lot of new money for that conference adding members

so what matters in what I said above is all of that secondary money from football playoffs, NCAA credits and NY6 bowl games adds up for the Big 12 and for other conferences and ESPN, FOX, (CBS), or anyone else is not going to step up and match that money for a conference to add members

that is what those that think the Big 12 will add G5 members cannot understand.....a "pro rata" contract calling for on average $20 million more per year per team in TV money never works out where the Big 12 that is currently paying $36.5 million ever could pay any new member a full share.....because they are only getting $20 million per new member.......there is no other new money and another team in a spare bowl game does not cover anything

and it gets to be the same for other conferences as well

the NCAA is not going to hand a conference that adds UT and OU 100% of the football playoff money that used to go to the Big 12 they will split it by all the P level conferences.....ESPN is not going to hand that conference 100% of the money they save by The Orange Bowl going away (they will most likely pocket it) and if they do not pocket it they will simply use if for The Rose Bowl and The Sugar Bowl

so with that money all the members of all the (now 14) team P conferences will get the same raise in money.....so the PAC 12 is still way behind the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10

4. then comes in the last failed argument that ESPN, FOX, (CBS haha) will pay the PAC 12 a big chunk of what they paid the Big 12 and save a bunch of money on leaving the "little 8" behind

but of course that does not work either

because it makes no sense to take two members making a great deal more money in a 10 team conference and move them to a 12 team conference and raise the pay to those other 12 members (plus the two new ones) so they not only make what the two new members were making in their former conference.....but they make almost the same as other even higher paid conferences

the math simply does not work out at best it is about a break even to move UT and OU to the PAC 12 and pay the PAC 12 even what UT is earning now and into the future much less what the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 are making

5. then any other "factors" are just crap.....academics is not an issue for UT they can participate in research with any member of any conference now and they do...they participate in the GMT with AU while the 30mm Telescope pushed by Cal and UCLA and others has Hawaiians shutting it down right as we all type right now and possibly forever

UT and OU would be in the least interesting half of the PAC 12 by a long shot and UT has made it clear time and again that the PAC 12 is not appealing from the time and travel aspects

UT and OU would be in the boring half of the Big 10 as well and Nebraska would be an endless source of crying

UT has made it clear they do not want in the SEC SEC SEC

the ACC has the same financial issues as the PAC 12 and the ACCn is not going to help that very much

so when it comes down to is all of the math about how the Big 12 is over paid and that will not happen again is nonsense and put out by people that are clueless and all of the math where larger conferences making a lot less money somehow add new members and start to make more money in an amount that moves them past the Big 12 earnings and up to the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 just makes no sense when you actually do the math

because there is a lot more money than just straight TV money and because two of the five conferences make a lot less than the Big 12 and have more members

and the other two that make more have a lot of unappealing aspects especially for UT and no matter what people try and say on here the Big 10 has never shown much interest if any in OU

(07-24-2019 07:40 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Teams to watch:

UCF
USF
Cincy
Temple
Houston
Memphis

As long as Texas is in the conference none of those schools have any chance especially Memphis which the Big XII disqualified on academic grounds in 2016 and Houston which would saturate the market.

(07-23-2019 11:34 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 04:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 04:03 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:01 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Big Ten and SEC are the top dogs and aren't losing anybody

Pac 12 is geographically compact and no additions really make sense.

The ACC is stuck together until 2037 or whenever the GOR ends

The Big 12 is the only conference that realistically could experience attrition, but i don't think Texas and Oklahoma are really going anywhere because the money difference in negligible and they have an easy path to the playoff. The other 8 probably aren't super happy but none of them are getting invites to other conferences that make sense. Small possibility that they look at adding some combination of UCF, USF, or Houston, but it would take an exceptional run by one of those teams to get there.

I think the only realignment we see is with the G5 and independents.

The money difference and institutional security are not "negligible" for Oklahoma to move to say the B1G.

The current B12 setup includes roughly a 20% premium paid by CBS and ESPN to keep the conference together. But it's ludicrous to image that will continue. The SEC is about to get a big bump in pay, and the B1G continues to grow the separation. To believe the B12 will keep pace is simply delusional

For OU you are talking about $10-15M a year minimum, plus the institutional security. That was a huge factor in Nebraska joining the B1G and also Colorado the P12, as schools are seeking associations and geographic orientations to fit their needs to fill classrooms. The pressure on OU to move will be very high, and it extends well past football.

I think your read of the P12, SEC and B1G are correct, and the ACC is actually fairly stable, benefits from sitting on the wealthiest constituencies in the US (after California and Seattle), which means their classrooms are filled with high achieving students (well the schools that care anyway, like UVa, UNC, Pitt, Miami, Georgia Tech, et al).

The big question is not whether OU leaves, which is pretty much a given, but whether Texas sticks around without them. Texas does not need the SEC or B1G and do not want to be swallowed up as just another school, and prefer to stand out as the big kahuna. They have that in the B12, and I think they'd have it in the ACC. The question is will the money work in the B12 without OU? And is the ACC good enough money that Texas wont be at a disadvantage?

I don't agree with the argument that "Texas has their business model and their going to stick with it." I agree even less with the argument that "Texas wants to be The Big Kahuna." Who do you mean when you say "Texas... ?" Is it the football fans, the alumni, the general public? Because if it's any of those, well, they don't much matter. The decision will be made by a very small knot of eggheads who care only a little bit about football when it is weighed against the future of the institution as a whole. These guys likely see their university as The Big Kahuna no matter where they align themselves, and it has precious little to do with the football won-loss record. Maybe these fine fellows in the halls of academe regard "Texas" as a synecdoche for themselves.

Obviously you have never spent any time in Texas to come to that conclusion. When people say Texas, it’s usually the administration, athletic department, boosters and fans. They’re all intertwined and they’re all agree on one thing: power.

Texas doesn’t have money issues. They have tons of it, they’re the wealthiest athletic department program in the most important football state. $10-15 million more in the SEC (a conference they consider is academically beneath them plus their ego won’t allow them to follow their “little brother”) or the Big Ten (or Big Slow as their fans call it) is not going to convince them to make a move. They’re Texas not Nebraska, Colorado or Maryland.

What Texas has is power issues. They like to be in control and exercise their power when it comes to conference matters. They would lose that power in the B1G, SEC and Pac-12. The thought of being seen as an equal to Illinois, Mississippi or Oregon State terrifies them. That’s why you won’t see Texas make a move based on money. It’ll take more than that. Worse case scenario, they’ll go independent in football and ask the next weakest P5 (ACC) to give them a Notre Dame type of deal. They won’t be forced to pick a conference either.

As much as I dislike Texas fans, I admit the school is one of, if not, the hottest property in FBS and any conference would take them in a heartbeat.

It's true. I havent been to Texas for many years. But Texans are just about everywhere, so we all know how they feel about being a Texan. When I was in the Army, I felt that I could identify a Texan by the reverence with which he spoke of his Daddy. Maybe that was just me.
It is obvious to me that you haven't lately had a glimpse of that "Adminstration" you referenced. I looked at the Pres, seven VPs, and the first few Deans listed on the UT website. Only one mention of a Texas school in all of those biographies; lots of California, plenty of Ivy League of course, and OMG, a ton of B1G schools! I don't suggest that these associations mean much of anything when it comes to realignment. But I like to point out that UT Austin is a different world than what is experienced by the stereotypical Texan Longhorn fan.
Texas will make a move when the current contract expires. Traditional in-state football schedules, long standing rivalries, and the health of the Athletic Department ( football ) will be considered, but the positioning of the academic institution that is UT Austin for the near and distant future will carry the most weight.

Texas (the academic and administration side) have a thing for Pac-12 schools especially the ones in California. They would love to be associated with Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington and Oregon. Austin is a California city trapped in Central Texas. Look at past and future Texas OOC games.....it’s full of Pac-12 schools. However, that doesn’t mean they’ll make a move when the current contract expires. As I said, they like to be in control and the Big XII gives them that. Like Notre Dame, they won’t be forced to join a conference, on the contrary, they’ll choose which conference they want to join.

Oklahoma might make a move but they been able to make the last three CFP in the Big XII. Going to the SEC or B1G will make their CFP path more difficult and they only have to look at Arkansas (at one point it was Texas biggest rival) and Nebraska (their Big 8 rival). Do they want to become an irrelevant program like those two?

(07-23-2019 03:16 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Yeah sure, Oklahoma is just gonna move away from their recruiting grounds because stingray says so.... yeah .... right
Check Nebraska

Will Nebraska ever be relevant in sports again? I think they are done unless they decide to go all in on cheating. There aren't enough legit players willing to go to Lincoln. That should give Oklahoma some pause.

IMHO Texas is the 800 lb gorilla setting in the corner of the B12. They have everything and need nothing. The best thing for Texas is status quo. But the best thing for the other B12 teams is more TV coverage and a populous recruiting base.

(1) It would seem good to me that for the B12 (other nine teams) Texas remaining in the conference as a full member plus adding 2 teams in Florida, 2 teams in California, a team in Ohio and adding BYU would be most beneficial.

(2) Texas goes independent but has a relationship with the B12 like ND has with the ACC. Then the Big 12 adds the teams under #1 plus Houston, and Oklahoma becomes the sole king pin.

(3) None of the above happens

"The Athletic" has a series on realignment currently running. One article was on future realignment possibilities. There were a few that sounded very possible and werent really classic realignment at all. One was the 65 P5's making no changes to their conferences at all---but simply negotiating as a single block of 65 P5 schools for purposes of a TV deal--kinda like the old CFA. That option sounds very viable and makes a lot of sense. Another similar concept was 32 top teams that break away from the NCAA for a football only league. Those 32 team would theoretically remain in their current NCAA conferences for all other sports. The final interesting option was a view that since just a few teams actually bring most of the value to a P5 conference, the best way for those teams to maximize their TV rights revenue would be to drop the dead weight and go independent. Thus, that possibility was envisioned as a new wave of teams super teams like Texas, USC, Oklahoma, 'Bama, and Penn St, Clemson, etc going independent to realize their full TV value.

(07-26-2019 10:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "The Athletic" has a series on realignment currently running. One article was on future realignment possibilities. There were a few that sounded very possible and werent really classic realignment at all. One was the 65 P5's making no changes to their conferences at all---but simply negotiating as a single block of 65 P5 schools for purposes of a TV deal--kinda like the old CFA. That option sounds very viable and makes a lot of sense. Another similar concept was 32 top teams that break away from the NCAA for a football only league. Those 32 team would theoretically remain in their current NCAA conferences for all other sports. The final interesting option was a view that since just a few teams actually bring most of the value to a P5 conference, the best way for those teams to maximize their TV rights revenue would be to drop the dead weight and go independent. Thus, that possibility was envisioned as a new wave of teams super teams like Texas, USC, Oklahoma, 'Bama, and Penn St, Clemson, etc going independent to realize their full TV value.

" a single block of 65 P5 schools for purposes of a TV deal "

This idea pops up now and then. Whom does it benefit? It usually isn't proposed by fans of the SEC or B1G, who feel no discomfort whatsoever about out-earning the other conferences in media money. The two leading conferences would not object if the other three confernces should choose to pool their own content. Can you envision that? I think an underlying pecking order would surface among those three, as well.

" 32 top teams that break away from the NCAA "

Athletic conference is not synonymous with football league. These schools to varying degrees have loyalties and associations with one another beyond athletics. The secondary programs would not graciously subvert themselves financially while the premier programs took their talents elsewhere. Bonds would have to be broken that are much more substantial than previous realignment moves. A&M to the SEC and Maryland to the B1G were earthshaking, but many of the other moves involved schools that had moved from Metro to Big East to P5, or schools that held lesser status in their conference (Missouri). We cannot know how seriously the visionaries in these schools are questioning the long-term viability of organized football. But I'll guess that making a hudred years decision on relignment will include discussions about life after football.