(08-16-2022 02:45 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:12 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 11:52 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 11:29 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 11:03 AM)Huan Wrote:  Imprudent to go bigger than the sec or B1G
I think 16 with 4 pods on a 3:2:2:2 schedule works well: west, east, north, south

Going bigger is certainly an option. What other real strategies are their to stay competitive with the Godzillas?

The big12 needs to minimize financial disparity with the SEC and B1G. Going for numerical superiority won’t do that as there just aren’t any available program to do so with. An Arizona and Colorado would increase value whereas a second Arizona and Utah wouldn’t by much.
While going bigger is an option it might be dilutive and thus there is a limit. Imo the big12 should only take 2 in the west and stay at 14: 8 central and 3 each west and east, until better options opens east.

I understand what you are saying. But growing your brand and continue with the energy this brings. Having three divisions has the Big 12 where they can add teams if the ACC gets weaker and adding western teams dries up the PAC 10's options. The Big 12 can have games on at every time slot and with some interesting matchups. I don't think the BIG 12 will poach Washington or Oregon and Stanford and Cal aren't good fits. Teams of interest should be Memphis, SMU, the four corner schools, San Diego State and Boise State has created a following beyond Idaho with their successes. The possible matchups of Utah/BYU, Boise State/BYU, SMU/TCU. Arizona state has an incentive to get better again. As a basketball conference, no conference would have this many quaility teams and baseball should be solid.

I really think going big is the way to compete.

You have a larger pool to draw your marquee games. That should improve ratings for those games. The larger conference footprint and team count should both increase ratings for those marquee games. Then you have a large swath of time zones and matchups for the lower tiers that should allow you to maximize the profits on those games as well.

Properly managed, I think TV revenue under a big conference arrangement will grow more than the dilution by the number of teams. These teams will be able to draw more viewers than they can today, and those numbers should grow as the conference rivalries develop.

A big conference of mid-tier schools has audience growth potential that the B1G and SEC frankly do not have. The P2 are already as big as they are going to get. The growth potential is with everyone else, and the way to do that is with a big conference.

there is a difference between a conference's growth and its current member's growth. the conference shouldn't grow at the expense of its members, after all, it exists to serve its members. the right balance can be difficult to strike.

Edit:
The r8 of the b12 are already anticipating revenue lost (of what could have been, I know, bird in tree) with the lost of of OUT in 2025. This was only partially mitigated by the n4 additions. Any further additions must be revenue neutral to at least the r8.

After everything shakes out, I hope we can get down to having (1) "BIG" conference and do away with the "AAC" name (seemed almost intentionally close to ACC). It's ridiculous.

(08-16-2022 02:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  BYU is super excited to join the Big 12.

Great; welcome! T-minus 10.5 months, and counting down.

In order of best new states or teams to potentially add to the Big XII, and from BYU's perspective, which are the best? E.g.,

1) State of Arizona
2) State of Colorado
3) University of Utah
... ?

(08-16-2022 10:55 AM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 10:53 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 10:49 AM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  For the Big 12 to get a better media deal would be to explore the western teams.

A good division of the teams would be:

East: Baylor, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Iowa State and West Virginia

Central: Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, *SMU, TCU and Texas Tech

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State, BYU, Utah and Washington State

This would feature natural or existing rivalries.

SMU/TCU, Arizona/Arizona State, Kansas/Kansas State, Baylor/Houston, BYU/Utah, Boise State/Washington State, Cincinnati/West Virginia, Oklahoma State/Texas Tech,
Boise State/BYU, Cincinnati/Houston, and TCU/Baylor.

Games available from early games to late games.

Substitute Memphis for Boise and shuffle a bit and I can live with that.

Then...move Baylor to the Central Division and Texas Tech to the west and Memphis to the east.

PAC 5 would most likely add, San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise state, UNLV, and Colorado State...if Boise State goes to the nBig 18, then New Mexico would go to PAC 10. I could see the nBig 18 add two of Memphis, SMU and Boise State.

If the four corners move to the Big XII, I'm guessing they would get a massive say on who the Big XII could potentially invite to do a pod system. Would they want Boise, SMU, and Memphis or would they prefer USF for access to Florida? I honestly have no idea except to say that that adding a 6th member to a western pod makes a lot of sense and Boise is far and away the best fit.

West

Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Utah
BYU
Boise

Central

Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

East

Houston
WVU
Iowa State
UCF
Cincinnati
Memphis/USF

(08-16-2022 01:45 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 10:49 AM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  For the Big 12 to get a better media deal would be to explore the western teams.

A good division of the teams would be:

East: Baylor, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Iowa State and West Virginia

Central: Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, *SMU, TCU and Texas Tech

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State, BYU, Utah and Washington State

This would feature natural or existing rivalries.

SMU/TCU, Arizona/Arizona State, Kansas/Kansas State, Baylor/Houston, BYU/Utah, Boise State/Washington State, Cincinnati/West Virginia, Oklahoma State/Texas Tech,
Boise State/BYU, Cincinnati/Houston, and TCU/Baylor.

Games available from early games to late games.

With the PAC 10 losing five members they would add the best five remaining from the MWC. Most likely San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Colorado State and New Mexico.

Ok, so for the PAC, there's really mainly 2 options.

Either:

a.) WA et al join another conference and the PAC is toast (or is a shell inviting MWC teams)
or b.) WA et al stay in the PAC (and at most the B10 takes stanford plus 1-3 others, but not WA or OR), and PAC invites a few to get back to 10 or 12.

This thread seems to be talking about a PAC to Big12 merge.

There are currently 10 in the PAC right now. Every pundit out there suggests Stanford is the next B10 invite. And if Stanford goes, the rest might then accept being in a conference with BYU and Baylor (religious schools). Cal is also a maybe along those lines, but we'll just pretend on that count. If unhappy, Cal could always go to the WCC and indy in football to the MWC.

And there are those who suggest WA state and OR state to MWC. But might as well bring them along, since they are WA and OR rivals.

The most common suggested invites to the PAC (and B12) are SDSU and BSU. The most common invites suggested for the B12 are USF and SMU, and maybe Memphis.

There's also talk of the eastern schools (Cin, WV, and UCF) going to ACC.

So with all that in mind, let's look at some options:

Take everyone except Stanford - 26 schools:

Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
Boise State
BYU
California
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Colorado
Houston
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Memphis
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Oregon State
San Diego State
SMU
South Florida
TCU
Texas Tech
Utah
Washington
Washington State
West Virginia

Same list but east schools go to ACC (Cin, WV, USF, UCF, Memphis): 21

Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
Boise State
BYU
California
Colorado
Houston
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Oregon State
San Diego State
SMU
TCU
Texas Tech
Utah
Washington
Washington State

Then imagine B10 likely takes one more school besides Stanford. Could be Kansas or any 1 former PAC school (except WA). - 20 schools.

And this 20 school "best of the rest" conference easily survives/thrives. Even if B10 eventually takes 2 more, or if Cal does the WCC/MWC split.

Add UNLV, Fresno State, Memphis, USF and UNR to go to 26.

(08-16-2022 12:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 11:52 AM)Huan Wrote:  The big12 needs to minimize financial disparity with the SEC and B1G. Going for numerical superiority won’t do that as there just aren’t any available program to do so with. An Arizona and Colorado would increase value whereas a second Arizona and Utah wouldn’t by much.
While going bigger is an option it might be dilutive and thus there is a limit. Imo the big12 should only take 2 in the west and stay at 14: 8 central and 3 each west and east, until better options opens east.

Does anyone really believe that Utah or ASU aren't more valuable than the majority of Big 12 programs? WVU in their current state of affairs? Check. UC? Probably edged out, but recency bias gives them clout. ISU/KSU? Check. TTech? Check.

That's like half the Big 12. I really don't understand where this 50 million figure is coming from. Not even UCF/Houston/OSU/Baylor are worth that much. If networks want to overbid then more power to them. But I'm just not seeing this 10 million dollar difference (or higher) over the PAC that 365 and other pundits are pushing.

If they get that kind of money from Fox/ESPN, good for them. Maybe Fox is desperate for more early window content. I still don't know how the B1G is making potentially 1.5 billion when CBS/NBC are footing just half the bill.

None of the 4 corners will be dilutive to the Big 12. It's going passed 16 where it becomes a problem. They have to bring in additional schools at reduced shares, and they should be able to do that. 18 is better for the wider geography.

I’m trying to fathom how the 4 Corners schools can be worth less than K St, Iowa St, and WVU.

I’d think they’d at least be on par. UO and UW ought to be worth well more than that.

(08-16-2022 08:07 PM)Charlie Broadway Wrote:  

Yeah... I read that too back on July 1st. It's Wilner shilling for the PAC whilst tweeting how the MWC has great PAC expansion candidates.

You see, when networks negotiate these things, they typically don't want to pay the extra man. It's overhead from excess inventory that can't be showcased on the main viewing platforms. The problem is easily solved by finding another partner/distributer (although that's a little more sophisticated), or getting your main TV partner to fork over the money.

There is no credible valuation metric that has Utah/ASU in the bottom half of the current neoBig 12, so by definition it cannot be dilutive for the rest of the conference. It's just a network exec lowballing and feeding the same recycled arguments to desperate reporters looking for a slant.

(08-16-2022 08:48 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 08:07 PM)Charlie Broadway Wrote:  

Yeah... I read that too back on July 1st. It's Wilner shilling for the PAC whilst tweeting how the MWC has great PAC expansion candidates.

You see, when networks negotiate these things, they typically don't want to pay the extra man. It's overhead on excess inventory that can't be showcased on the main viewing platforms. The problem is easily solved by finding another partner/distributer (although that's a little more sophisticated), or getting your main TV partner to fork over the money.

There is no credible valuation metric that has Utah/ASU in the bottom half of the current neoBig 12, so by definition it cannot be dilutive for the rest of the conference. It's just a network exec lowballing and feeding the same recycled arguments to desperate reporters looking for a slant.

It is about market value adjustment rather than just intrinsic value. The modifier varies from conference to conference. Another consideration is first to market. The big 12 adding BYU first means significant value to the conference but adding Utah now wouldn’t be as much. The same would have been the case had the big 12 added Utah first rather than byu.

(08-16-2022 09:53 PM)Huan Wrote:  It is about market value adjustment rather than just intrinsic value. The modifier varies from conference to conference. Another consideration is first to market. The big 12 adding BYU first means significant value to the conference but adding Utah now wouldn’t be as much. The same would have been the case had the big 12 added Utah first rather than byu.

Fair enough, but there is still a strong split there among Utah and BYU. Both programs still carry the state and have distinct fan bases. In the case of Zona, AU is not a football power so they have the same problem as Colorado and are located in a much smaller market. You can argue that ASU is not a juggernaut either, but they are still stronger than say a SDSU football and have a huge alum. You need a credible football school coming out of that state to compliment AU basketball and capture Phoenix proper.

(08-16-2022 03:52 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 02:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  BYU is super excited to join the Big 12.

Great; welcome! T-minus 10.5 months, and counting down.

In order of best new states or teams to potentially add to the Big XII, and from BYU's perspective, which are the best? E.g.,

1) State of Arizona
2) State of Colorado
3) University of Utah
... ?

1) University of Oregon
2) University of Washington
3) State of California
4) State of Arizona
....
....
....
....
.....
....
....
51) University of Phoenix
....
....
....
Last Place) University of Utah