(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

Cincinnati? One of the Florida schools?

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

(12-06-2020 04:28 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

Cincinnati? One of the Florida schools?

When the XII dropped to 8, going back to 12 with Cincinnati, Louisville, TCU, and West Virginia would’ve been fairly solid.

North: Cincinnati, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Louisville, West Virginia
South: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech

Plus, basketball would’ve been even stronger than it is today.

(12-06-2020 04:28 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

Cincinnati? One of the Florida schools?

Florida schools were nothing then. Networks obviously told them Cincinnati, Houston and BYU didn't add enough combined with Louisville.

(12-06-2020 04:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

You can't (at least at that time) have a championship game with 11. Scheduling is a mess.

(12-06-2020 04:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 12:17 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real problem with the Big 12 is that they have no idea where they fit in the market. You would’ve thought after the last round of realignment it would have sharpened their perspective and given them a more realistic view of things. However, that does not appear to be the case. They are the dominant league in Texas and a bunch of Great Plains states.

Also, there’s no question that there’s discord in that league. There’s been a lot of upheaval in that league and aw the article attached above shows, it’s nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.

Which current Power Five school is going to leave its current situation to join that league?

Nobody.

So, the discussion then becomes which Gang of Five programs (or independents) make sense for the Big 12? Further, do any of those programs make sense for the Big 12?

I have always thought the answer to that question was a resounding yes because it gave them greater stability. I will always believe that when they added West Virginia they missed a golden opportunity to also add Louisville and Cincinnati, all three from the Ohio Valley.

I think that would have been best for that conference and it certainly would’ve been best for West Virginia. I also think Louisville and Cincinnati would have flourished in that conference.

However, Louisville is now off the market, so I probably would not pursue that strategy.

That said, I would be damn tempted if I were a Big 12 to look at Cincinnati and UCF as members numbers 11 and 12. Those programs would make West Virginia much less of an outlier and they open up your recruiting to two very Football Ridge states. Also, both of those programs have proven a financial commitment to their programs that will surely continue.

If you’re feeling really bold, I would also strongly consider adding BYU and Boise State as members numbers 13 and 14. I think that would give you a base of programs in multiple time zones That could play to your advantage from a television perspective. Also, that quality would be indisputable.

Sometimes, you have to take a short term loss to make long-term gains. From my perspective, the turkey is on the table for the Big 12. The question is will they be savvy enough to recognize it this time around? Because they definitely were not savvy enough the last time around — which is exactly why we continue to have these types of conversations.

Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

When the Big Ten invited Penn State in 1990 the SEC Championship Game hadn't started so there wasn't the motivation to go to 12 as there is now or when the Big 12 added TCU and West Virginia (2011). At the time you couldn't have a conference championship with fewer than 12 teams (that has obviously changed) but with 10 teams you can have a full round robin and 9 conference games per team and the Big 12 had advertised that fact, something like "One True Champion" and everyone plays everyone. 11 teams is no man's land, no conference champion and no full round robin in football. Right now, we still don't know if the AAC will be allowed to keep their championship game despite fewer than 12 teams and no divisions (I guess they could have 2 uneven divisions). But in 2011, 11 teams was probably not going to happen for the Big 12, it was either 10 or 12.

Some of these realignment scenarios are very repetitive. I really don’t see how adding teams to the Big 10 and SEC increase revenue significantly enough for them to expand. There are only two schools that can move the needle and they are UT and Notre Dame. I don’t believe OU without UT can add enough to justify expansion.

The Big 12 is currently in a decent situation but I agree that the financial gap between the SEC and Big 10 is widening. There needs to be a balance between influence and financials which may make the BIg 12 still attractive to OU and UT.

(12-06-2020 01:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say FOX ends up being the full rights holder of the Big 12 in 2024.

ESPN owns Florida right now—Florida (SEC), Florida St (ACC), Miami (ACC), UCF (AAC), and USF (AAC) are all wrapped up in deals that ESPN 100% of the content.

Would FOX have interest in motivating the Big 12 to take the U_Fs?

I think FOX is out of the game. They've shed a bunch of rights for the Big 12 already. They added nothing to replace it.

What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

(12-06-2020 10:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  The secret to playoff sports is symmetry.

Even if the Big 12 were able to add 2 school of value we would still end up with only 5 conferences which does not translate well into providing an even number of playoff teams.

So we are faced with either having to reduce the number of conferences down to 4, which moves were made to be able to do when Notre Dame (the 65th P school) was attached to the ACC as a partial member or expand the number of conferences to 6 (which would fit in the MLB model of having 6 divisions among 2 leagues).

Over time, nobody could agree on the distribution of schools that would fit into 4 leagues, so the simple solution would be to expand the number of conferences to 6 with a membership of 11 per conference. Since there are only 65 P teams, this would necessitate the elevation of one school into the P club. I would suggest that Cincinnati should be that school. They are the highest rated school in and area (northeast/eastern midwest) which needs populating.

Playoff sports has proven to generate more fan interest and more revenue dollars across all sports spectrums. College football is no different, and 6 conferences with either two byes or two wild card participants provides flexibility and penetration into multiple parts of the country for maximum fan involvement.

My first take at dividing into 6 conferences goes like this:

Northeast:
Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio State, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, Louisville

ACC
UVa, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Duke, NC State, Carolina, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Old Miss, MSU, LSU, Texas A&M

B1G

Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa

Big 12
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Colorado

PAC
Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU, Utah

Not only does the regular season increase value with round robin play of ten conference games, but the playoff value is increased by having all regions of the country represented.

It's a win-win for everybody.

I suppose the B1G wouldn't be the same without Ohio State so perhaps moving Ohio State back to the B1G and Purdue to the Northeast so that they could continue their association with Notre Dame would be a prudent thing to do.

(12-06-2020 05:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

Fox can't develop a streaming service like those mentioned above because they sold their entertainment library to Disney. The Murdochs and other Fox shareholders presumably decided that getting all that Disney stock was a better long-term investment than launching a streamer.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see a split of what they have left. The best way to maximize the value of their sports properties is to sell them to AT&T, because combining the Fox and Turner sports rights would create the strongest possible competitor to ESPN.

(12-02-2020 05:30 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There are no AAC teams that will bring enough viewship, revenue, or academics to the Big 12. And every other school already has a home, except BYU and that is doubtful. The only possible option is some sort of merger or scheduling alliance with the Pac 12.

(12-06-2020 05:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 01:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say FOX ends up being the full rights holder of the Big 12 in 2024.

ESPN owns Florida right now—Florida (SEC), Florida St (ACC), Miami (ACC), UCF (AAC), and USF (AAC) are all wrapped up in deals that ESPN 100% of the content.

Would FOX have interest in motivating the Big 12 to take the U_Fs?

I think FOX is out of the game. They've shed a bunch of rights for the Big 12 already. They added nothing to replace it.

What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

FOX's whole reason for selling everything like they did was to pivot to live sports. They just re-up'd big time for MLB, they'll for sure be involved with the Big Ten and they have the rights to the Mountain West. The question is do they want Big 12 & Pac-12 back? CBS is losing the SEC Game of the Week, I'm sure they would take Big 12 if the price is reasonable. You have to wonder more with ESPN, they have too many rights and not every conference will want to be behind a paywall on ESPN+ when they could do that themselves. FOX also has "tubi" as their streaming service.

(12-06-2020 05:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 04:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 03:54 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Yes it would have, but people in Texas, Iowa and Kansas thought UC and Louisville had “city” cooties or something. Would have been a firm flag in the Ohio River Valley with those three schools plus coverage from multiple media outlets in not only those cities but Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, etc.

True hindsight was that the Big 12 could have grabbed Louisville and sat at 11 while the ACC scrambled regarding Maryland. The southern ACC were not at interested in the UCONN proposal and really needed a football add to solidify the conference. There ACC would be much weaker without Louisville and there was an actual chance that other teams might have started looking around.

11 doesn't work. I think they would have taken UL as #11 when they took WVU if they had a viable #12.

You can't (at least at that time) have a championship game with 11. Scheduling is a mess.

You are correct. If you have an 11 team conference(playing a round robin schedule with, 6 conferences) and an 8 team playoff, in order to fit in the extra week of the championship series in, the conference championship games would have to be eliminated.
That was the allure or the 4 x 16 format, in that it preserved the championship game with four champions playing in the playoff tournament.
If you reduced to four conferences, you could have conferences with varying numbers of members and maintain championship games.

(12-06-2020 11:12 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 05:30 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There are no AAC teams that will bring enough viewship, revenue, or academics to the Big 12. And every other school already has a home, except BYU and that is doubtful. The only possible option is some sort of merger or scheduling alliance with the Pac 12.

(12-06-2020 05:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 01:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say FOX ends up being the full rights holder of the Big 12 in 2024.

ESPN owns Florida right now—Florida (SEC), Florida St (ACC), Miami (ACC), UCF (AAC), and USF (AAC) are all wrapped up in deals that ESPN 100% of the content.

Would FOX have interest in motivating the Big 12 to take the U_Fs?

I think FOX is out of the game. They've shed a bunch of rights for the Big 12 already. They added nothing to replace it.

What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

FOX's whole reason for selling everything like they did was to pivot to live sports. They just re-up'd big time for MLB, they'll for sure be involved with the Big Ten and they have the rights to the Mountain West. The question is do they want Big 12 & Pac-12 back? CBS is losing the SEC Game of the Week, I'm sure they would take Big 12 if the price is reasonable. You have to wonder more with ESPN, they have too many rights and not every conference will want to be behind a paywall on ESPN+ when they could do that themselves. FOX also has "tubi" as their streaming service.

Sure, but they haven't really done that. They allowed Big 12 3rd tier rights to just go away along with the conference championship game. They let UEFA go to another bidder.

A new deal with MLB was good, but they also shed all those RSNs. What's interesting about that is the RSNs broadcast oodles of baseball games...in addition to the other sports. Now, they're in the hands of Sinclair and have lost more subscribers. In a way, they owed MLB something, but it could also be in preparation for a sell-off later.

To that point, I would expect them to go hard renewing rights with the NFL. Deals with the NFL and MLB among others would still make the product attractive to a bidder. That doesn't mean they plan to build a large portfolio of sports rights like it seemed they wanted to do when they launched FS1.

What's more significant to me is their refusal to go big on streaming. Tubi is free so their return isn't going to be significant. They are literally the only major media company that hasn't invested in a unique pay streaming platform and seemingly have no plans for one. That's not just a matter of focusing on sports...a lot of services have live sports now.

I agree with your take on ESPN, but FOX tried to be their prime competitor. The others invest in college sports only to a small degree and might not have any interest in changing approaches.

(12-06-2020 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 05:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

Fox can't develop a streaming service like those mentioned above because they sold their entertainment library to Disney. The Murdochs and other Fox shareholders presumably decided that getting all that Disney stock was a better long-term investment than launching a streamer.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see a split of what they have left. The best way to maximize the value of their sports properties is to sell them to AT&T, because combining the Fox and Turner sports rights would create the strongest possible competitor to ESPN.

AT&T/Warner seems like a natural fit, I agree. It's a huge conglomerate that's into everything except broadcast TV.

If you sold them FOX, FS1, FS2, and BTN then they would have quite the package.

AT&T will likely spin off DirecTV at some point, and if they do it sooner than later then maybe they're prepared for another big purchase in a few years.

(12-07-2020 07:38 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 05:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

Fox can't develop a streaming service like those mentioned above because they sold their entertainment library to Disney. The Murdochs and other Fox shareholders presumably decided that getting all that Disney stock was a better long-term investment than launching a streamer.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see a split of what they have left. The best way to maximize the value of their sports properties is to sell them to AT&T, because combining the Fox and Turner sports rights would create the strongest possible competitor to ESPN.

AT&T/Warner seems like a natural fit, I agree. It's a huge conglomerate that's into everything except broadcast TV.

If you sold them FOX, FS1, FS2, and BTN then they would have quite the package.

AT&T will likely spin off DirecTV at some point, and if they do it sooner than later then maybe they're prepared for another big purchase in a few years.

Turner currently works with CBS Sports for March Madness though. If AT&T/Warner is going to team up with someone on a more serious basis, CBS would seem to be the more natural pairing. They already partnership for the CW Network as well although does anyone still watch it?

(12-07-2020 07:38 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 05:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What stands out to me more than anything is that FOX has not developed anything robust when it comes to online offerings. Everyone else already has at least something...

ABC/Disney = Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
NBC/Comcast = Peacock
CBS = CBS All Access
AT&T/Warner = HBO Max

That's just the established networks and doesn't account for others like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like they're interested in getting into that space. With the sell off of their studios and Murdoch's stock payday, I wouldn't be shocked to see what's left of FOX parceled out or sold as a whole to another entity. What we know of as FOX might not exist in 10 years.

Fox can't develop a streaming service like those mentioned above because they sold their entertainment library to Disney. The Murdochs and other Fox shareholders presumably decided that getting all that Disney stock was a better long-term investment than launching a streamer.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see a split of what they have left. The best way to maximize the value of their sports properties is to sell them to AT&T, because combining the Fox and Turner sports rights would create the strongest possible competitor to ESPN.

AT&T/Warner seems like a natural fit, I agree. It's a huge conglomerate that's into everything except broadcast TV.

If you sold them FOX, FS1, FS2, and BTN then they would have quite the package.

AT&T will likely spin off DirecTV at some point, and if they do it sooner than later then maybe they're prepared for another big purchase in a few years.

DirecTV has been used instead of UVerse to expand their cable/internet market. They really aren't pushing UVerse expansion. I don't think they intend to get rid of DirectTV. I think they would like a merger with Dish.