They've lost depth. That's the point.

(05-19-2022 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:22 AM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 08:48 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 08:31 AM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 09:41 PM)johnintx Wrote:  I like FSU, and I even like Tallahassee. I loved Bowden's teams in the 90's, and I was heartbroken by the wide rights against Miami.

But there is a punchline in the TV show The Office, when Dunder Mifflin was being bought by Sabre. Michael Scott and friends were excited about the possibility of moving to Florida, had bought the beach attire, and were ready to go to Florida (like good Northerners). But, it turned out that Sabre was based in Tallahassee. The people in The Office discovered that it isn't on a beach, and isn't near a theme park. It's remote and near a swamp.

In the 80's and 90's, it was easy for FSU to recruit. Florida and south Georgia had plenty of talent, and FSU was sending loads of guys to the league. FSU was competing for and winning national championships. When the team was going 11-1 every year, it was easy for people to drive from Tampa or Orlando to see it and enjoy it. But a 400-500 mile round trip to see a 6-6 team play Duke? Not so much.

The program got passed up by the SEC. FSU finds itself in a relatively remote location with a smaller donor base and locked into ACC dollars, while their would-be rivals in the SEC prosper.

When FSU had the chance to choose a conference, Bowden chose the ACC over the SEC. Short-term, it was a good decision. FSU won super-big. But as the SEC grew in stature and wealth, FSU found itself atrophying in the swamp. Hindsight is 20-20, but FSU blew it when they didn't choose the SEC. They may have only won big (and not super-big), but they would have been able to earn the income to stabilize their program in the down years. But, no one could see the growth of the SEC, and no one could see the down years coming for FSU.

I hope they can find their way back.

That's a great call back and truthfully I feel like Florida State's problems are more to do with internal issues than with financial issues or conference affiliation

I’ll say it again, there are soooo many more options in the south for great players to sign than 30 years ago. FSU and Miami’s second and third teams would beat many teams now. Southern Miss has suffered the same fate.

In the 90’s into the 2000’s, it seemed every directional or State U in the Deep South was moving up or starting programs to play big time football. Some even announced and never made it happen like Alabama State and FAMU.

Off the top of my head:

Arkansas St.
ULM
UCF
UAB
MTSU
Troy State
S FLA
FAU
FIU

And that’s not counting the noobs from the last 15 years.

Great point. Cincinnati while in C-USA struggled to recruit against MAC schools but once we got to the Big East our second team could hang with most of their second team. But it also hurt a lot of other schools because, like you mentioned, others moved up. USF becoming BCS hurt the then-Big 3's recruiting in Florida. Then UCF moving into the Big East and ACC and also having great success. And UCF moving to the Big 12 isn't going to help FSU and Miami either. And this has been happening nationally, but like you said, especially in the south, it is becoming saturated.

I don't agree. Miami, FSU and Florida don't compete in recruiting much against UCF and USF and FAU and FIU. They compete against the big SEC schools and the Big 10 schools. All those schools moving up weakened the G5 schools. And maybe a little bit the out of state 2nd tier P5 schools (i.e. MS. St., Purdue, etc.).

Its coaching. Jimbo recruited well, but wasn't a good coach. Miami has been through a lot of turnover. Plus, Alabama, Georgia and Ohio St. were picking the cream of the crop.

That's not what we're saying. We're saying that what made schools like Cincinnati and Louisville really good once we became BCS schools (Louisville even sooner) was an advantage that FSU had for years and lost: depth. They are competing with G5 schools the difference is what FSU recruited as depth and players who could be starters in their junior and senior years were being taken as starters for those schools. As a result schools like FSU did not have the depth that they usually had and their margin for error dropped dramatically. And yes they did recruit against UCF and USF they just won most of the battles, but once those schools got into better conferences they were able to pick off a player or two from FSU and that hurt them in the long run. There's a reason why USF had a Top 25 program in the Big East and UCF has a P5 program now and it coincided with the decline of Florida State football. The internal issues that I mentioned also played a huge part

The question is whether the ESPN would have an incentive to further raid the Big 12.

Let’s do the back of the envelope calculation.

Let’s say the current market price is $40m for the ACC schools, $40m for the Pac schools and $35m for the Big 12 schools. If the ESPN wants all media rights for all three conferences, the total payment per year would be 14x$40 + 12x$40 + 12x$35 = $1,460m.

What if the ESPN makes the following moves?
1. Move four B12 schools to the Pac and give them a 10 percent increase
2. Move two B12 schools to the ACC and give them a 5 percent increase
3. For the remaining six b12 schools, offer them a rate similar to the AAC deal, maybe around $10 million. If not accepted, simply give up the B12 media rights.

Then the new payment for the ESPN would be 16x$42 + 16x$44 + 6x$10 = $1,436 million. This is smaller than the original payment, meaning the ESPN would have an incentive to further raid the B12.

Of course, I am not saying this is going to happen. The Pac may not want to take the B12 schools with only 10 percent increase. The B12 may be willing to lower the payment significantly to make sure the ESPN won’t further damage the conference. But knowing that there is a possible move in the future, some B12 schools may not want to sign the GOR.

They might sign a GOR it might be a super small windows. Like 5-10 year GOR paired with a 5-10 year tv deal.

Big12 GOR will likely end right around the time the ACC GOR ends. So the teams that want to jump to the ACC have that opportunity.

(05-24-2022 10:36 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The question is whether the ESPN would have an incentive to further raid the Big 12.

Let’s do the back of the envelope calculation.

Let’s say the current market price is $40m for the ACC schools, $40m for the Pac schools and $35m for the Big 12 schools. If the ESPN wants all media rights for all three conferences, the total payment per year would be 14x$40 + 12x$40 + 12x$35 = $1,460m.

What if the ESPN makes the following moves?
1. Move four B12 schools to the Pac and give them a 10 percent increase
2. Move two B12 schools to the ACC and give them a 5 percent increase
3. For the remaining six b12 schools, offer them a rate similar to the AAC deal, maybe around $10 million. If not accepted, simply give up the B12 media rights.

Then the new payment for the ESPN would be 16x$42 + 16x$44 + 6x$10 = $1,436 million. This is smaller than the original payment, meaning the ESPN would have an incentive to further raid the B12.

Of course, I am not saying this is going to happen. The Pac may not want to take the B12 schools with only 10 percent increase. The B12 may be willing to lower the payment significantly to make sure the ESPN won’t further damage the conference. But knowing that there is a possible move in the future, some B12 schools may not want to sign the GOR.

By your math, the difference is about 24 million. At 12 teams, if each Big 12 teams takes a $2 million dollar pay cut, then there is no raid. The issue is that no team that has another option is going to take a pay cut. But, $33 million overall is a lot better than $10 million overall. Half the league will have an incentive to take that cut, the other half won't (in your system).

(05-24-2022 10:42 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  They might sign a GOR it might be a super small windows. Like 5-10 year GOR paired with a 5-10 year tv deal.

A GOR of 5 or 6 years might as well be no GOR at all. That length is too short to be a significant obstacle to moving. OU and UT were accepted into the SEC with 4 years remaining on the Big 12 GOR.

(03-08-2022 11:42 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

Definitely! There's no telling how big the Big 2 could get. If the PAC signs a new deal and no one leaves then we'd know that things have settled for the next few years.

However...

I don't think the massive SEC-B1G expansion concept is out of the question, but a what point does a conference become too large? I mean, does anyone really want to see something like this:

SEC North: Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, NC State.
SEC East: Florida State, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson.
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, Auburn.
SEC West: Texas, A&M, OU, Mizzou, Arkansas.

B1G South: Georgia Tech, Duke, UNC, Virginia, Maryland
B1G East: Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
B1G North: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
B1G West: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska.

ACC/Big XII: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Wake, Miami, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, BYU.

Well, the SEC (and their patron, Disney) won't allow southern ACC programs to join the Big Ten. So that path is out of the question. My preference now would be building a true Eastern division by taking Pitt and Syracuse from the ACC. That makes the Big Ten a lot more comfortable for the Domers, especially if a West Coast division is built around USC, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. Only Kansas is needed for the plains division. Geographic contiguity is not as important as branding and content for streaming/new media.

East: Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Mideast: Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois
Midwest: Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA

Why would ESPN allow any ACC school, whether Syracuse, Pitt or the Southern schools, to join a league that it doesn’t control outright? A 24 team conference is far too large, but to indulge you hypothetical, why not just add the 6 PAC-12 schools you mentioned, as well as Colorado? Kansas
doesn’t add much and ND isn’t joining the B1G.

East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana.

Central: Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska.

West: Colorado, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington.

Well, if you are indulging the 24-team hypothesis, your list contains only 21; why not move Purdue to the east with Indiana and add Kansas to the Midwest? You would still need two more, one for the midwest, where Kansas just added (Missouri or ISU?) and one for the west (Utah?). SEC might not mind losing Missouri, but would Mizzou leave for the Big Ten?

(05-24-2022 12:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 10:36 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The question is whether the ESPN would have an incentive to further raid the Big 12.

Let’s do the back of the envelope calculation.

Let’s say the current market price is $40m for the ACC schools, $40m for the Pac schools and $35m for the Big 12 schools. If the ESPN wants all media rights for all three conferences, the total payment per year would be 14x$40 + 12x$40 + 12x$35 = $1,460m.

What if the ESPN makes the following moves?
1. Move four B12 schools to the Pac and give them a 10 percent increase
2. Move two B12 schools to the ACC and give them a 5 percent increase
3. For the remaining six b12 schools, offer them a rate similar to the AAC deal, maybe around $10 million. If not accepted, simply give up the B12 media rights.

Then the new payment for the ESPN would be 16x$42 + 16x$44 + 6x$10 = $1,436 million. This is smaller than the original payment, meaning the ESPN would have an incentive to further raid the B12.

Of course, I am not saying this is going to happen. The Pac may not want to take the B12 schools with only 10 percent increase. The B12 may be willing to lower the payment significantly to make sure the ESPN won’t further damage the conference. But knowing that there is a possible move in the future, some B12 schools may not want to sign the GOR.

By your math, the difference is about 24 million. At 12 teams, if each Big 12 teams takes a $2 million dollar pay cut, then there is no raid. The issue is that no team that has another option is going to take a pay cut. But, $33 million overall is a lot better than $10 million overall. Half the league will have an incentive to take that cut, the other half won't (in your system).

Yes, no one wants to take a pay cut although I think the ESPN may make a lowball offer. The intriguing thing is both Pac and B12 will have the media deal negotiations soon. The Pac-12 decided not to expand the last time but things may change quickly...

(05-24-2022 03:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 12:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  By your math, the difference is about 24 million. At 12 teams, if each Big 12 teams takes a $2 million dollar pay cut, then there is no raid. The issue is that no team that has another option is going to take a pay cut. But, $33 million overall is a lot better than $10 million overall. Half the league will have an incentive to take that cut, the other half won't (in your system).

Yes, no one wants to take a pay cut although I think the ESPN may make a lowball offer. The intriguing thing is both Pac and B12 will have the media deal negotiations soon. The Pac-12 decided not to expand the last time but things may change quickly...

ESPN would have to win the entire Pac-12 contract to be in a position to convince the Pac-12 to expand with Big 12 teams. That is unlikely to happen. The Pac-12 wants more games in prime time and ESPN alone cannot give them that. The Pac also has their own network and I doubt if they would give that up for ESPN Plus. To win the entire Pac-12 contract is going to cost a lot more than $40 million per school and it does not make sense for either ESPN or the Pac-12.

(05-24-2022 12:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 10:42 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  They might sign a GOR it might be a super small windows. Like 5-10 year GOR paired with a 5-10 year tv deal.

A GOR of 5 or 6 years might as well be no GOR at all. That length is too short to be a significant obstacle to moving. OU and UT were accepted into the SEC with 4 years remaining on the Big 12 GOR.

They may have been accepted four years before the end of the GOR, but they apparently are planning to stay through the end of the GOR. A shorter term for GOR still has teeth.

(05-24-2022 09:56 PM)Realigned Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 12:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 10:42 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  They might sign a GOR it might be a super small windows. Like 5-10 year GOR paired with a 5-10 year tv deal.

A GOR of 5 or 6 years might as well be no GOR at all. That length is too short to be a significant obstacle to moving. OU and UT were accepted into the SEC with 4 years remaining on the Big 12 GOR.

They may have been accepted four years before the end of the GOR, but they apparently are planning to stay through the end of the GOR. A shorter term for GOR still has teeth.

Didn't even make them think twice about leaving, so at most those are only baby teeth.