(03-26-2019 08:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:02 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 06:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 04:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  If Oklahoma isn't going anywhere without OK State, then Oklahoma isn't going anywhere. And unless Texas is willing to go somewhere else and wants to bring Texas Tech with them, then there will be no movement out of the Big XII.

Fact is, the only schools anyone wants to poach from the Big XII are Texas and Oklahoma. Kansas could probably hitch a ride with one of those. Otherwise, they are stuck where they are. The Big XII has some other consistently good football and basketball programs, but none of them are schools anybody wants.

So unless OU changes its mind about OK State, the only realistic scenario is UT and Texas Tech to the SEC. In that event, would the Big XII replace those two in order to keep its CCG, or would they just stay at 8 and give OU another marquee OOC game to sell as part of its Tier 3 inventory outside the B12's media contract?

There is no minimum number of teams required to have a CCG anymore. I don't know how this misconception that 10 is the minimum persists.

The NCAA only recently approved a reduction from 12 teams to 10 for a CCG which allowed the Big 12 and Belt to stage one. When did they reduce it further?

they did not "reduce it to 10"

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

the rule simply states "conferences with fewer than 12 teams" it does not specify a number of teams as a minimum (though other NCAA rules require 8 teams)

the rule simply states that with fewer than 12 teams you either play a full conference round robin and you have a CCG with the two top teams in the conference

OR

you have divisions that are as equal in number as possible and you play a DIVISIONAL round robin and then you MUST have the division winners play in the CCG

currently the Big 12 uses the full conference round robin and the two best teams in the CCG

the Big 12 was actually stupid enough to consider breaking into divisions and still playing 9 conference games and then they would have been forced to have the division winners in the CCG which would have been completely idiotic since they would still be playing a conference round robin as well yet they would have been forced to pair the division winners in the CCG

even worse they were so stupid they considered "changing up" the divisions every year or so to try and make the CCG match up the best

until someone with a brain kicked someone with their head in their a-- and informed them that if they were going to be stupid enough to continue with 9 conference games they coulds have no divisions and place the two best teams in the CCG

if the Big 12 had a brain they would break into divisions and play 7 conference games, but that math and the benefits is totally lost on them as it is with most people that do not understand how strength of schedule works or the downsides of more conference games in general especially in a conference with fewer members

My bad. I had read early media reports about the change which pointed out that the Big 12 with 10 members could now hold a CCG. That was true, but not because they had 10. Apparently the actual wording of the change doesn't specify a number, leaving the possibility that even an 8 team conference could also have one. So if the Big 12 shrinks by two schools, they don't have to replace them if they don't want to. Thanks for pointing that out - I won't make that mistake again.

in the case of the Big 12 unless something changed in Sept of 2012 when the Big 12 and ESPN signed a new tier 1 contract (and Fox altered their tier 2 contract from a year prior) the Big 12 needs 10 teams for the Fox contract to stay in place

the Big 12 signed their tier 2 contract with Fox when they had 10 teams including aggy and MU and that contract required 10 teams for it to stay in place

that is why the Big 12 HAD to add at least two teams immediately after aggy and MU left and the Big 12 was not able to wait on Louisville that had made clear they were going to wait out the full exit period for their Big East contract

WVU made it clear they would be willing to leave the Big East before the required period of time to exit and fight it out in court

WVU and TCU joined in early 2012 then in Sept of 2012 ESPN ask the Big 12 to renegotiate their tier 1 contract 3 years early and at that time Fox also paid a bit more for some better football picks

I do not know of the ESPN contract required 10 members to reain in place, but the Fox contract did and most likely still does

so if the Big 12 was to lose members they would almost certainly need to add members until they were back at 10

The only catalyst is the increasing money Texas A&M is making versus the money Texas is making. Oklahoma is quite content. I don't see anything happening until those GORs expire.

Pass a bill that allows conferences larger than 14 or 15 to split into 3-4 divisions and have a 4-team playoff. That would be an interesting catalyst.

(03-26-2019 08:03 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  With the PAC-12 mess, I can see Zona or ASU or both going to the B-12... If TV market plays into it, I can see Houston & ASU or Zona joining the B-12... If the PAC only loses one Arizona school, I could see the PAC offering BYU ASAP!

Short of the California schools leaving the Pac-12 first, there really isn't anything the Big-12 would be able to offer either Arizona or ASU that would entice them to consider leaving.

In regards to BYU, the LDS is persona non grata to the Pac-12, their only path to a power conference would be through the Big-12 having a change of heart.

If I remember correctly, previous Texas leadership has said if UT looks to leave The Big 12, it will look east. If The Big 12 has to backfill it will be as a result of the conference losing programs to The Big 10 and/or SEC.

What has insulated The PAC 12 from conference upheaval the last few years, being alone on the west coast, has also proven to be its biggest detriment. The PAC for all practical purposes is on an island. No P5 is going to voluntarily put themselves on that island.

(03-27-2019 01:54 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:03 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  With the PAC-12 mess, I can see Zona or ASU or both going to the B-12... If TV market plays into it, I can see Houston & ASU or Zona joining the B-12... If the PAC only loses one Arizona school, I could see the PAC offering BYU ASAP!

Short of the California schools leaving the Pac-12 first, there really isn't anything the Big-12 would be able to offer either Arizona or ASU that would entice them to consider leaving.

In regards to BYU, the LDS is persona non grata to the Pac-12, their only path to a power conference would be through the Big-12 having a change of heart.

I think the PAC-12 is going to be the lowest Paid P-5.... So the Phonex TV market along with the P-5 school prestiage would add something for the B-12... $$ and a new TV contract would be the reason why one of the Arizona schools leaves... Instead of ttrying to expand with G5 leftovers the Pac-12 Money issues will allow the BIG-12 to expand with P-5 schools...

As far as BYU goes... The Pac-12 will have to cater to BYU to get them in, however in the world of college football where TV Money rules$$ BYU could bring ESPN back to the PAC-12..

(03-26-2019 09:58 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  The only catalyst is the increasing money Texas A&M is making versus the money Texas is making. Oklahoma is quite content. I don't see anything happening until those GORs expire.

Pass a bill that allows conferences larger than 14 or 15 to split into 3-4 divisions and have a 4-team playoff. That would be an interesting catalyst.

Texas is making more money than anyone and continuing to grow revenue rapidly.

Texas is not obsessed with A&M. If they grow their revenue, more power to them.

(03-27-2019 09:29 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 01:54 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:03 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  With the PAC-12 mess, I can see Zona or ASU or both going to the B-12... If TV market plays into it, I can see Houston & ASU or Zona joining the B-12... If the PAC only loses one Arizona school, I could see the PAC offering BYU ASAP!

Short of the California schools leaving the Pac-12 first, there really isn't anything the Big-12 would be able to offer either Arizona or ASU that would entice them to consider leaving.

In regards to BYU, the LDS is persona non grata to the Pac-12, their only path to a power conference would be through the Big-12 having a change of heart.

I think the PAC-12 is going to be the lowest Paid P-5.... So the Phonex TV market along with the P-5 school prestiage would add something for the B-12... $$ and a new TV contract would be the reason why one of the Arizona schools leaves... Instead of ttrying to expand with G5 leftovers the Pac-12 Money issues will allow the BIG-12 to expand with P-5 schools...

As far as BYU goes... The Pac-12 will have to cater to BYU to get them in, however in the world of college football where TV Money rules$$ BYU could bring ESPN back to the PAC-12..

The Arizona schools would not provide enough value to increase the Big-12 conference per team payout, at best they would be status quo additions. On the flip side the Big-12 wouldn't be able to offer the Arizona schools enough to get them to sever their ties to their recruiting and alumni pipelines in California, neither of which the state of Texas would ever be able to replace.

To the Pac-12 it simply doesn't matter what BYU would "bring" so long as they are run by the LDS the powers that be in the Pac-12 will never let them in regardless of ESPN wanting it or not. Only way BYU gets into the Pac-12 is if the Big Ten decides to raid half the conference first and then the leftovers who didn't get picked up by the Big12 decided to pick-up the pieces and create a western version of the AAC.

Texoma 4 to the PAC is the only realistic mass move. Nobody else will take the little brothers that politicians want taken care of or deal with LHN no matter what the message boarders say. In reality, a realignment slot to the SEC or B1G is the most valuable thing in college sports and will NEVER go to someone like Oklahoma State or Iowa State.

That really just leaves the PAC. Will they try one last time? Is going West something UT or OU even want? Stay tuned.

Am I crazy/alone in thinking the Big 12 will stay put? Oklahoma only moves if Texas moves, and Texas would have to give up its third-tier rights on any move, meaning either they and/or ESPN have to agree to void or buyout the remainder of the LHN contract that pays Texas $15M a year on its own. That's a payment the other third-tier networks would struggle to match; hell, the Pac-12 Network barely pays out a third of that. They'd be taking a multi-million dollar haircut.

I think they re-up with a new TV deal with a GOR that once again allows schools to keep their third-tier rights and maybe add a couple of schools that can contribute to both football and men's hoops (or even just Houston and a football-only BYU), if they add anyone at all. It will be far less dramatic than everyone is hoping it will be, IMO.

No Mister Consistency, you are not the only one. Most sane people believe the Big 12 will stay put. Only the those who have wild imaginations think otherwise. The Pac-12 will not change either in spite of their less than stellar TV deal.

I agree though with the unfortunate caveat that UT and OU will wait till the last possible minute to recommit to the B12, maybe even take a few calls from the other suitors first to see what concessions can be extorted from the league first. Hope I’m wrong but it’s kind of just the reality of the league.

(03-27-2019 08:37 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  No Mister Consistency, you are not the only one. Most sane people believe the Big 12 will stay put. Only the those who have wild imaginations think otherwise. The Pac-12 will not change either in spite of their less than stellar TV deal.

Says the fan of the school with the most to lose if Texahoma leaves the B12. Not saying it’s happening but acting like there is a 0% chance of it happening is disingenuous. Plus I like TCU solely because Jamie Dixon left the right way, not that he’s had a huge amount of success post PITT.

(03-27-2019 08:26 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Am I crazy/alone in thinking the Big 12 will stay put? Oklahoma only moves if Texas moves, and Texas would have to give up its third-tier rights on any move, meaning either they and/or ESPN have to agree to void or buyout the remainder of the LHN contract that pays Texas $15M a year on its own. That's a payment the other third-tier networks would struggle to match; hell, the Pac-12 Network barely pays out a third of that. They'd be taking a multi-million dollar haircut.

I think they re-up with a new TV deal with a GOR that once again allows schools to keep their third-tier rights and maybe add a couple of schools that can contribute to both football and men's hoops (or even just Houston and a football-only BYU), if they add anyone at all. It will be far less dramatic than everyone is hoping it will be, IMO.

Texas made in total media revenue roughly 51 million last year. That's equal to the Big 10 media payouts. That's 5 million ahead of the SEC's media payout last year. So that part of your argument is correct.

But what years are we speculating about here? It's sure isn't last year. It's what happens in 2023-4 for 2024-5 right? Expect the Big 10 to get at least a % bump in 2023. That puts them at ~54 million. The SEC is expected to renew with CBS early (and that's the president of CBS speaking). So by 2021 the SEC will likely unfold a new T1 deal with CBS expected to jump from the $55 million it paid in 2008 to 250-315 million range when it is renewed. At the lowest talked about figure that makes the new SEC media payout 62.5 million accounting for the conference share, and will likely include a few more games for CBS.

So here's where you are not accurate. Texas won't be comparing T3 revenue to other conference's T3 revenue. They will be comparing total media revenue to total media revenue and adding in the value they would bring to the conference being considered. Texas's brand power and current revenue producing model is strong enough to add roughly 2.5 - 3 million in value for every member of the current Big 10 or SEC if they move.

So Texas administrators will be having to weigh whether they desire to remain a Big 12 with a limited ceiling, or make a move that breaks through that ceiling. If Texas joined the Big 10 by 2024 their average payout in the Big 10 for total media would exceed 57 million. That's 6 million more per year than they are making now. If the Big 10 surprises everyone and gets a 10% bump in their media revenue when they renew then that figure will be 60 million. That's roughly 9 million more in media revenue per year than they are making now.

If Texas decides to join the SEC by 2024 their TV revenue would be in the neighborhood of 65 million. That's roughly 15 million more in media revenue than they are currently making.

In either case that's significantly more than the 51 million they make with the LHN being 15 million of that figure. The LHN is a ticking time bomb. It goes away (blows up) in 2031. If Texas can more than cover that revenue prior to 2031 they will. My point being the LHN is not that great of an obstacle to overcome.

The obstacle to overcome is their desire to abandon the most successful business model in college sports which is predicated upon playing at least 8 games in Texas per year. With their 6 home games Texas desires to play 2 more games in Texas per year at least. The RRR takes care of 1 of those. Playing Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech have taken care of at least 1 more a year based upon rotation and sometimes 2.

The Big 10 can not offer Texas a deal that saves that model. They can't take enough Texas schools, guarantee any late season time slots for the RRR based upon their current scheduling models, and can't take enough Texas schools in to make that happen.

The SEC on the other hand already has A&M. Should they take both Texas and Tech they can give a guarantee of 7 Texas games a year and if Oklahoma heads to the Big 10 and the Big 10 does relent on the October RRR date in Dallas then they have their 8. If they don't then Arkansas can become that annual game in Dallas and that would make Jerry Jones very happy and preserve Texas's 8 state game business model.

There is only 1 other conference that can guarantee Texas at least 7 games in their home state and that's the PAC who by taking Texas and 3 other Texas schools could guarantee 7 and 8 in state games based on schedule rotation. The issue of course with the PAC is that the revenue would be a step down for Texas because even with Texas and buds in the fold the payout per PAC school wouldn't hit anywhere near 50 million a year for total media payouts.

And in spite of all of that, Texas would have to want to move before change happens. What I'm merely pointing out to the board is that by 2023 the obstacle of Media revenue sufficient to make the LHN moot will be a very tangible part of the consideration.

CBS is not going to be paying $17+ million dollars per game for regular season games that is just nonsense

They will or else Fox or NBC or ESPN will

Somebody gets to be the new owner of that gold mine but only for a high price

(03-28-2019 01:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  They will or else Fox or NBC or ESPN will

Somebody gets to be the new owner of that gold mine but only for a high price

yea it will be NBC for sure....they are going to pay the SEC SEC SEC $2 million more for a single game X (16 or 17 games) than what they pay Notre Dame for all the games they get from them in a season

yea I can see NBC jumping up to make that deal as soon as it is offered

Imagine if you will: pairing Notre Dame with SEC game of the week. Both the North and the South tuned in to them for the exclusive content

And you think they wouldn’t pay for that?

The point is: All the big fish will be bidding high for this. Who cares which one of them it is that decides they want it most, it’s going to come with a huge pay out for the league

Against JRsec's view (understandably he is very pro-SEC),

The decision of Texas will be institutional not athletic, and not monetary driven only. And that says ACC or B1G and NOT the SEC. There would be a faculty revolt if the SEC weer the planned destination. It's a non starter.

For Oklahoma and Kansas the SEC is a very desirable destination. But again their decision, like Texas will be institutionally driven, as demographics are working against them, as the depth of quality HS students is shrinking in the plains states they are part of. They need to fill seats and be academically associated with schools that align them to larger pools of students. They need increasingly to recruit national and internationals students to maintain and improve their stature to insure their long term future.

Texas faces no such pressures, as they are on their own a top research and learning institution in a growing state where greater numbers of high quality HS grads are being produced, and both national and international students are already drawn to Austin. So long as OU and KU remain in the B12 they have no need to move. And as one of the two richest athletic departments, they have no need of money. But if OU leaves (and if Texas stays KU will be the almost certain choice to be the second school for whichever conference gets OU) Texas will almost certainly want to leave. They are not going to stay in a conference made up of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, West Virginia Iowa State, K State, Oklahoma State, UCF and Cincinnati. That group just doesn't fit Texas. In this we agree. But where they go will be driven by preferred associations.

No question the faculty would say the Pac-12, with Stanford, Washington, Cal, UCLA and even Colorado as peer institutions, but the athletic department would --just as they did in 2010-- veto that on the grounds that travel west is detrimental to the student athletes who would miss significant class time (two hour time zone differences with the California, Washington, Oregon and during DST Arizona schools) as home bound flights would get back in Texas a few hours after midnight for the Olympic sports (only a non-issue for Football). While Florida and Vandy are fine, the SEC offers a lot of rather uninspiring academic schools, especially in the west with the two Mississippi, two Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana schools who do not make the best associations for a school like Texas, in addition to being ridiculously stiff athletic competition that would mire the Longhorns in mediocrity most years. If money is the driver then the B1G offers the same as the SEC without those two negatives.Association with schools like Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Penn State, Minnesota and Ohio State, whom Austin sees as academic peers, along with an easier path to football playoffs, offers far better upside with the same money as the SEC. The ACC is an intriguing option as well. The money is not as good, but the wealth of the Atlantic Coast and the top academic HS students that come from there, as well as association with schools like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami and even Pitt and Notre Dame has to be appealing to Texas.

The only thing the SEC offers is maybe a little bit more cash than the B1G, but probably not even that. In exchange you get worse academic associations (the very reason they would bail on the B12 in the first place) and an extremely difficult path, more difficult than any other conference, for Football Playoff berths.

The SEC just doesn't make sense for Texas. (Mind you this is faculty mindset, not real world, where econ 101 taught anywhere is the same, rather "special" at elite schools)

Why would the SEC add West Virginia and Oklahoma State?

The only schools that would makes sense for the SEC to add would be Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, Clemson, and I guess Notre Dame. Of those only Oklahoma and Texas are realistic. Without at least one of those there won't be further additions.

(03-28-2019 01:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec

The decision of Texas will be institutional not athletic, and not monetary driven only. And that says ACC or B1G and NOT the SEC. There would be a faculty revolt if the SEC weer the planned destination. It's a non starter.

For Oklahoma and Kansas the SEC is a very desirable destination. But again their decision, like Texas will be institutionally driven, as demographics are working against them, as the depth of quality HS students is shrinking in the plains states they are part of. They need to fill seats and be academically associated with schools that align them to larger pools of students. They need increasingly to recruit national and internationals students to maintain and improve their stature to insure their long term future.

Texas faces no such pressures, as they are on their own a top research and learning institution in a growing state where greater numbers of high quality HS grads are being produced, and both national and international students are already drawn to Austin. So long as OU and KU remain in the B12 they have no need to move. And as one of the two richest athletic departments, they have no need of money. But if OU leaves (and if Texas stays KU will be the almost certain choice to be the second school for whichever conference gets OU) Texas will almost certainly want to leave. They are not going to stay in a conference made up of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, West Virginia Iowa State, K State, Oklahoma State, UCF and Cincinnati. That group just doesn't fit Texas. In this we agree. But where they go will be driven by preferred associations.

No question the faculty would say the Pac-12, with Stanford, Washington, Cal, UCLA and even Colorado as peer institutions, but the athletic department would --just as they did in 2010-- veto that on the grounds that travel west is detrimental to the student athletes who would miss significant class time (two hour time zone differences with the California, Washington, Oregon and during DST Arizona schools) as home bound flights would get back in Texas a few hours after midnight for the Olympic sports (only a non-issue for Football). While Florida and Vandy are fine, the SEC offers a lot of rather uninspiring academic schools, especially in the west with the two Mississippi, two Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana schools who do not make the best associations for a school like Texas, in addition to being ridiculously stiff athletic competition that would mire the Longhorns in mediocrity most years. If money is the driver then the B1G offers the same as the SEC without those two negatives.Association with schools like Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Penn State, Minnesota and Ohio State, whom Austin sees as academic peers, along with an easier path to football playoffs, offers far better upside with the same money as the SEC. The ACC is an intriguing option as well. The money is not as good, but the wealth of the Atlantic Coast and the top academic HS students that come from there, as well as association with schools like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami and even Pitt and Notre Dame has to be appealing to Texas.

The only thing the SEC offers is maybe a little bit more cash than the B1G, but probably not even that. In exchange you get worse academic associations (the very reason they would bail on the B12 in the first place) and an extremely difficult path, more difficult than any other conference, for Football Playoff berths.

The SEC just doesn't make sense for Texas.

Says the guy who said the SEC couldn't travel and who slinked off when the National Championship game proved him wrong.

Texas has never moved. And when they've talked about it it has never been over academic considerations in which they stand just fine on their own. Texas was part of the SWC for most of its life and even then their academic associations weren't great. Until 4 AAU schools left the Big 12 they had the best academic associations they've ever had. And none of that caused them to even blink over acting in their self interest athletically.

It's the business model for them. It always has been and always will be. If they choose not to move it will be the business model they protect. If they choose to move it will be to protect as much of the business model as possible.

End of story and you are just as wrong about this as you were about the attendance at a crappy California venue.