|
|
Originally Posted by Redhawk
The only way I can see this is if the Tier 1 and 2 TV rights were never signed over to the conference. I do think that's possible. Wouldn't be surprised to find out that the document was only binding if Missouri decided to stay. And even then, it sounds like a major lawsuit for TCU and West Virginia who would have been better of staying in the Big East.
Obviously I don't know for certain, but I understand that they just agreed to give the Conference the media rights, and a lot of that was to get Missouri to stay. Not sure anyone signed anything, especially since it didn't get Missouri to stay after all.
It was actually said at one point by either a school official or a conference official (can't remember who it was) that a document was making the rounds to the various schools for signing over media rights to the conference. However, I'd be shocked if that document didn't contain language such that it wasn't pending unless all member signed it. Whether there was a contingency for Mizzou who knows or if there is a new one without Mizzou who knows. In any case, any movement by OU and Texas is going to depend on whether they own their tier 1 and 2 media rights. OU and Texas could be looking at paying more than just their own exit fees to get out of the conference now.
All that said, I still say that OU and Texas bailing now or in the near future seems like a huge lawsuit that would favor TCU and West Virginia. The Big 12 without OU and Texas is worse than the Big East and they wouldn't have joined a Big 12 if OU and Texas didn't intend to stay for the long term.
I agree with most of this...until the Big 12 sees it's paycheck/Offers for the new Tier One deal coming up in a few short years. When they realize that they won't be getting paid anywhere close to what the B1G/PAC/SEC are getting...I think this thing comes undone, with OU and UT leading the stampede to the door.
on soonerscoop.com, there is a link for members only that says, "Sooners set to Pull Big 12 switch?" on there. Maybe something is happening again..
I'd like to see that as well. Anyone with a membership that can give us a review?
Tidbit on Zack Sanchez
Must be about the 100th time someone forced speculation out of a misunderstood quote... (myself included)
Last edited by boomhorn.; 01-30-2012 at 04:29 AM.
Pretty sure everyone signed the agreement. The vote in favor of granting rights was 8-0, before the contracts were sent off for execution by the individual schools. And it has been reported since that everyone signed the right away. And at this point, it would be known if OU, Texas, etc., hadn't done so.
Hard to imagine that Louisville, BYU, West Virginia, etc., would even be talking with the Big 12 if those rights had not yet been granted. I've also go to believe that in order to properly value OU's tier 3 rights, Fox would need to know which conference OU was playing in. Best way to be certain of that would be if OU granted media rights to the Big 12.
http://cemetery-hill.com/2012-articl...he-way-in.html
read that wowz****
That's interesting, and it does make sense to an extent. The ACC will always be a basketball conference.
That would be awesome to see Clemson and FSU!! Just add Loyisville and USF and let's do this!
I have a hard time believing that a league no one watches (the PAC) will get a better draw than the Big 12 in the next round of negotiations. Yeah, they have a bigger footprint or whatever, but did you watch many Pac-12 games this year? No one out there gives a ****. There are 3 conferences people watch, and the Big 12 is one of them.
Just my opinion (and no, I'm not worried about ISU's future at all, actually), but there's no reason a league as good on the field as the Big 12 should be so powerless and unable to command a crap ton of money. Say what you will about the supposed bottom dwellers and how terrible we are, but I would bet schools like KSU, Baylor, and Iowa State had more people watching their games than most Pac-12 or ACC schools. It doesn't make much sense for OU to pull the plug on a football first conference to travel 2 time zones way and play in front of nobody in a league that doesn't give 2 ****s about college sports at all. I guess, what I'm saying, is that I don't get the Pac-12 boner some folks have. Big 10? Yeah, I'd get that. Terrible competition, but tons of prestige, money, and tradition. It's like having your cake and eating it too. The Pac-12 is a step down in everything but academics and the fact that fans who went to road games would be going to the coast.
The Big 12 could be extremely lucrative, and continue to be one of the top 2 conferences in the country, ****uming the powers that be don't get bored and wander off for the hell of it.
I think you are letting your regional bias affect your thinking on who watches what. Most regions don't watch other areas unless the game is truly big. The SEC has the advantage of having an exclusive deal with CBS therefore a national broadcast, but most of the ABC/ESPN games are regional broadcasts. Baylor/Oklahoma is on opposite USC/Oregon. In a Pac-16, one leads into the other in both areas.
As far as competition goes, you would have had 4 of this year's final AP top ten in a Pac-16 conference, and that doesn't include OU and UT.
Nice post, but you're a few months late. OU isn't going to the PAC. Only a very small online fringe within the entire fanbase still really wants that. Our upcoming deal with Fox will just reinforce that. We're staying.
As for Clemson and FSU....that would be a true game-changer. With those two as anchors, we could just keep building from there. We could flip other ACC schools before we added Big East schools or BYU.
The following users like this post: Al_4_ISU
With Clemson and FSU why take Louisville and USF? If we can get football schools in the ACC why not take Miami, Ga. Tech, or Va Tech, or Pitt?
Yeah, I thought about that afterwards and agree. Clemson and FSU gets you to 12, take USF and Louisville to get to 14. Then GaTech and VaTech to get to 16. Pitt would be the first alternative, Cincinnati the second.
Miami? **** em.
You agree with the setup for the B1G but bash OU & UT for "keeping an open eye" at the PAC possibility, why? For it hurts the 'clones bottomline...
This. ^^^Now I agree some PAC fans are too laid back but the influx of athletic funds would be great & the research funds to OU would be monumental for the academic end...
I would think FSU, G. Tech, V. Tech, Clemson, BYU, Rutgers would be cool for a while...
I think with that group of teams, there's a very good chance of ND in pace of BYU. Also, I'd take Pitt, BC, or Syracuse over Rutgers. And if V. Tech can't move cause it's tied to Virginia, then take Miami. All kinds of options once you start trying to bust up the ACC and Clemson and FSU are ripe for toppeling that conference over. I like this kind of move way better than any Pac option that's been on the table in the past and any SEC move that's been rumored possible.
I like how Clemson is forming a committee of businessmen (ie rich FANS). As I said in an earlier post, I skimmed over a bit of Clemson and FSU forums and the FANS hate, hate, HATE the ACC.
I wouldn't be so sure. Let's just that Mizzou to the SEC opened some doors and that if the Big 12 were to blow up as a result of the Pac-12 going to 16, ISU would have a softer landing spot than most folks ****ume. Of course, that ****umes all other conferences going to 16, which of course, would mean Notre Dame having to join the B1G.You agree with the setup for the B1G but bash OU & UT for "keeping an open eye" at the PAC possibility, why? For it hurts the 'clones bottomline...
What I was saying is that I don't see what advantage the Pac-12 offers over the Big 12 at this point in time, other than a few coastal vacation destinations for visiting fans.
I'm going more off tuning into games like Texas/UCLA and seeing 50,000 empty seats. Regarding competition, when you add WVU to the Big 12, you're looking at 3 top 10 teams going into next year out of 10. Outside of the top 3 in the Pac-12, one of which will be crashing back to reality soon (Stanford), you have two programs capable of being successful on a regular basis. In the Big 12, you have MUCH more depth outside the top half of the conference.I think you are letting your regional bias affect your thinking on who watches what. Most regions don't watch other areas unless the game is truly big. The SEC has the advantage of having an exclusive deal with CBS therefore a national broadcast, but most of the ABC/ESPN games are regional broadcasts. Baylor/Oklahoma is on opposite USC/Oregon. In a Pac-16, one leads into the other in both areas.
As far as competition goes, you would have had 4 of this year's final AP top ten in a Pac-16 conference, and that doesn't include OU and UT.
Does the Big 12 need to improve its TV package? Definitely. If you bring in FSU and Clemson, the money, reach, and TV footprint will EXPLODE. Even BYU could do that with the nationwide Mormon audience.
That's the read I've gotten other places too. I just popped in for the first time in awhile yesterday, and saw that the Pac love was alive and well for a few folks. With what the Big 12 has demonstrated recently, its clear it can be a first rate league, and on the field of play, TCU and WVU are going to make the league a lot more entertaining in the middle.Nice post, but you're a few months late. OU isn't going to the PAC. Only a very small online fringe within the entire fanbase still really wants that. Our upcoming deal with Fox will just reinforce that. We're staying.
I want the Big 12 to stay together not because I fear ISU's demotion to some ****ty league (which was how I felt in 2010), but its obvious to me that its an entertaining league that I have fun watching. We've been playing schools like KU and KSU since the dawn of the support, and OU and OSU almost just as long. We'll be pushing 2 decades with UT/TTU/BU, and the possible additions look like a lot of fun. I realize we've already lost a lot of tradition, but I don't want to see that splintered even further on what is more or less the whim of a restless few in a couple fanbases. Its a set up of schools with plenty of tradition, some great rivalries and similar cultures.
Al, if you're hope for ISU's landing spot hinges on ND joining the B1G, you're going to be disappointed if the Big 12, as we know it, doesn't survive. ND will join the ACC if it ever joins a league unless the Big 12 busts up the ACC.
B1G is not an option for ND.
If there is an exodus from the Big 12, ISU will be one of the schools that hangs on for exit fee money and BCS bowl money (if auto-births still exist) and will probably get the Big East leftovers to join the Big 12 to make it survive long enough to collect. I don't see any better options for ISU if OU and Texas leave.
Of course you don't see a landing spot for ISU. You also aren't aware of how much money ISU commands on the academic side of things, how much AAU status means to certain conferences, and the relationship between ISU administrators and the administrators of other conferences. We all know ISU doesn't command a large TV market, nor is it a traditional power.
If the Big 12 blows up, which I think is really unlikely, ISU has more going for it than you, and anyone else on the outside thinks. If the Big 10 ever went to 16, ISU would probably be included in that, along with KU. Don't sleep on AAU status and what that means financially for the other schools. This is all about money, and if ISU was bringing boat loads of grant money into a league, it would justify the lack of new TV money. Now, it wouldn't happen unless there was a move to 16, which is contingent on Notre Dame joining, which seems like it will never happen, so this is probably a moot point. If the Big 10 stays firm at 12, a league like the Big 12 is a lot more likely to stay intact as well.
That's not what this is about though. I was just trying to qualify why my stance on this issue is more than simply trying to rationalize desperation.
My point was that it makes a lot more sense for OU and UT to commit to the Big 12, and bring in some schools like FSU and Clemson than it makes to bolt for the Pac. The Big 12 can have pull if OU and UT make it clear they're staying (which from an institutional stand point, it seems like they have). My guess is that a lot of other folks are starting to lean that way too. What is there to gain by leaving a league where you're already the power brokers and have a chance to make wildly lucrative, where you have long time regional rivalries, to jump into a strange new league where you're travelling 2 time zones away against schools you have nothing in common with? I know that some folks think they're above playing the Iowa State's, KU's and Baylor's of the world, but I guess I don't see how playing Wazzu, Arizona, and Oregon State is any better. Every league has bottom feeders and power brokers. It's the nature of the beast.
I agree with the point that OU and Texas staying in the Big 12 looks like the best option as of now. I also agree that grant money is important. I'll stop agreeing at that point. My sentiment that ISU will not be in the Big 10 has more to do with that conference already being in Iowa than ISU being a traditional welfare program athletically. If the Big 10 wants to add AAU schools, they'll add AAU schools outside of their current footprint. I've seen no indication they would be willing to deviate from that.
FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech would be ideal. Name schools with great tradition, giant stadiums (except Georgia Tech. Still bigger than ****ing TCU), and national fan bases.
I think they're all doable except for Va Tech. Miami would be a sufficient substitute.
The following users like this post: MeMyself&Me
My opinion is based on what I've been told by people who know a lot more, and are a lot closer to this situation than either of us. KU and Rutgers are about all that's left in terms of AAU schools. I realize conventional knowledge would suggest that being within the footprint is a kiss of death, but I don't think that's true. There's a myriad of factors in ISU's favor, and a myriad of factors against us.
None of it matters one iota so long as Notre Dame is not part of the Big 10. Like I said, I was only trying to illustrate that my opinion on the Big 12 is not based on desperation, which I would think makes it a little more objective.
I would strongly prefer FSU and Clemson over GA Tech and Miami. They have awful fan support, and Miami plays in an NFL stadium. Plus, I think Miami is a smaller private school, right? We have two of those. Get me some land grants with high enrollments and rabid fanbases.
Miami has a national brand that draws TV viewers. Something this conference is totally lacking outside of OU and UT.
The reasoning behind OU to the Pac is a strategic decision for the athletic team and university as a whole. Athletically, it is critically important for OU to establish a long-term California recruiting base. OU has always built great teams with athletic talent from Oklahoma and Texas, and will continue to do so. However, A&M to the SEC is a game changer in that over time, the SEC teams will establish a more thorough presence in Texas and will make recruiting just that much difficult (in East Texas especially, as culturally it is a lot more like the Deep South than the rest of Texas and Oklahoma).
From a university-wide standpoint, the Pac would offer far greater job markets for OU graduates, than the Midwest, due solely to existing population bases and contined growth of the tech, media and bio-tech industries where California is the world leader. Pac conference admission would raise OU's profile over time, increase research funding and also provide a new "recruiting ground" for future OU students.
Adding quality schools to the Big 12 (like FSU and Clemson) will be a good home for athletics and media money, but it does not have the long-term, university-wide strategic benefits of the Pac affiliation.
3 users like DelMarSooner's post: Master Pandemonium, oubozfan44, suncoastsooner
Yeah... I'm not so sure how strong that brand still is. They have awful support in their own market. FSU would have a stronger brand I'd have to think, and possibly Clemson. Miami is not a bad pick up at all, but I think that there are other ACC schools that bring more.
OU could accomplish a lot of those things right where they are. The southwest is exploding and OU is in position to take advantage of that. Its not like you're picking up Oklahoma and putting it on the West Coast. I realize the Pac is a great academic league, but if I understood right, that was part of why they rejected OU and Texas the last time. They didn't want OU/OSU/TTU from an academic stand point.The reasoning behind OU to the Pac is a strategic decision for the athletic team and university as a whole. Athletically, it is critically important for OU to establish a long-term California recruiting base. OU has always built great teams with athletic talent from Oklahoma and Texas, and will continue to do so. However, A&M to the SEC is a game changer in that over time, the SEC teams will establish a more thorough presence in Texas and will make recruiting just that much difficult (in East Texas especially, as culturally it is a lot more like the Deep South than the rest of Texas and Oklahoma).
From a university-wide standpoint, the Pac would offer far greater job markets for OU graduates, than the Midwest, due solely to existing population bases and contined growth of the tech, media and bio-tech industries where California is the world leader. Pac conference admission would raise OU's profile over time, increase research funding and also provide a new "recruiting ground" for future OU students.
Adding quality schools to the Big 12 (like FSU and Clemson) will be a good home for athletics and media money, but it does not have the long-term, university-wide strategic benefits of the Pac affiliation.
Everything I read surrounding the last flirtation between OU/UT and the Pac was that while Larry Scott was rubbing himself raw over the idea, the University presidents and ADs were pretty staunchly opposed to expansion past 12.
So this leaves two options: 1) pining to jump the fence into the yard you think is better, or 2) fixing up your own yard. OU's gotta do whats good for OU, but it seems that fixing your own yard is a more logical solution than trying to jump the fence. Just my opinion.
The PAC is still an untapped market, which is not a negative, but a positive. A population base of 55 million people where 10% care about football is still greater than a population base of 3 million where 90% care about football. OU and UT would have made people on the West Coast care. The PAC has USC, and no one else, that draws opposing fans to their own stadiums. ASU isn't getting up for playing Utah or Cal or even Washington. They will when OU and UT come to town, though. In the long run, the ratings potential (and thus "earned income" potential, for OU) on the West Coast would far surp**** the income earned from the states of Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia.
I can't speak for all PAC universities, but I know that Stanford has developed research partners based on athletic conference. Within the past year, they have joined with CU and Utah on more research projects...coincidentally the new members of the PAC. So yes, joining the PAC would have had an impact on OU academics, which in turn would have had an impact on incoming grant funding and research opportunities. This in turn would lead to better networking and business opportunities for our landlocked, still relatively poor state. Penn St. joining the Big 10 did more for PSU than Joe Paterno did, and probably is the one thing protecting PSU from demolition.
The PAC may not have been the best conference for the OU football program, but it was (and is) the best conference for the university and the state. Raiding the ACC is a fair alternative, and one I can support, as long as it has FSU and Miami.
If we're going to raid the ACC, we raid the ACC. One advantage we have vs. the SEC is we have 6 spots available and they only have 2, so we can take some of these "tied together" programs, like Va Tech and Virginia, whereas the SEC can't. Even though I think Va Tech is the most overrated program of the past 15 years, I would love to see UVA in the Big 12. Charlottesville is a nice destination. To me, its us having to take Va Tech along, not us having to take UVA along. Heck, if the SEC goes to 16 taking Va Tech and NC State, I'd still in favor of taking UVA just because of academics, locale, and a share of the Va Beach/DC market footprint.
FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, UVA, VA Tech, with West Virginia on top, we've flanked the SEC and planted rebels in their own backyard.
The following users like this post: oorah_okie
Last year's PAC expansion was far more complex then just lack of academics. OU's academic rankings are higher then several current PAC members, and OU was promised help getting AAU status (takes a lot of research money, which means research grants, but those go to big research Universities...real chicken/egg).
It really came down to 14 schools didn't work for the PAC as that meant East/West split, and the East would have little ties to recruiting California and NO ties in Texas. With out Texas guaranteed to go, everyone got cold feet on both sides about just OU and OSU.
The Big 12 as it sits TODAY...without adding anyone isn't viable for the long term. Just not enough population base, not enough TV's, not enough national cache. The Big 12 just lost it's #2 and #3 population for states, and it's 3rd biggest TV draw in Nebraska, and it's only national brand besides OU and Texas.
Your point that OU can either "go some place better, or fix up it's own yard" is true. And it will have to do one of those. Status quo with a broken down 94 Chevy truck on blocks in the front yard, isn't going to get the desired results.
The following users like this post: Master Pandemonium
The Big 10 would most likely take UVA, and Maryland, and since the Big10 makes the most money...any school would jump for that. The SEC has wanted North Carolina, but not crazy about Duke or Wake Forest or NC state as tag alongs. North Carolina and Duke are not going to separate.
If the ACC is raided first by the Big 12 to get Clemson and FSU which I think makes a ton of sense for both sides, then the Big 10 would add Maryland, UVA, holding spots for Notre Dame (never gonna happen) and someone else. Granted the Big 10 hasn't been real aggressive in realignment so far
Then the SEC takes 2: I think that would be Va Tech and NC state, OR North Carlina and Duke
And that leaves several programs for the Big 12 to look at, Ga. Tech, Miami, Va Tech, Pitt, Rutgers, Louisville
Clay Travis has a good breakdown on this on his site: http://outkickthecoverage.com/secs-f...ns-of-four.php
I hadn't read that one. Bout what I had. His TV cable numbers are off, and too simplistic though, but the idea that New TV markets means more money is dead on.
And that's where we'd differ. I agree that there's work to do, but the idea that Big 12 as-is is some awful conference is just ridiculous. I'd like to get back to 12, but the 10 team Big 12 was better than anything but the SEC last year. People tune in to watch competitive, competent football, and the Big 12's ratings were pretty solid last year, even with only 2 "anchor" fanbases.
FSU and Clemson would be great additions for us.
It just makes far more sense that the ACC cease to exist as a football power conference than for the Big 12. If the Big 12 can wrangle some of the football powers, it leaves both leagues at 12, and sets up the SEC to take their pick of say, VA Tech and NC State as OKTC suggests. If the Big 10 wants to expand (which I don't see without ND) they can add Virginia and Maryland.
I think that the first conference to reach 16 will be studied by other conferences before they make the move. IMO, 16 is too big and will collapse under its own weight. I don't see the Big 10 getting into a game of "monkey see monkey do" without having an idea of what 16 will look like in practice. They avoided 12 teams until they watched the SEC, Big 12, and ACC do it for a long time. Once they were ****ured it was a workable model, they acted on it.
Take a look at the money the Big 10 is making and the PAC, and the SEC, to what the Big 12 schools make. Right now, the Big 12 is just slightly higher then the ACC but it's pretty comparable. The other 3 conferences are pulling away. The Big 12 has a Tier One contract up after the 2014 year. If they want to hope to stay up money wise with the big boys they have to do something.
Or by defininition the conference will be 2nd cl****. Which granted beats the Big East, or the MWC/CUSA....but the ACC and the Big 12 right now, are 2nd cl****...and that's not a good thing if you want to be 1st Cl****, and compete for National Championships.
50/50 Both conferences have "issues", and can't compete in the near future financially with the Big 10, PAC, SEC group. Both have reasons they can survive, both have reasons why they might get divided up. BUT....when this is all done, I don't think BOTH will be intact in my opinion.
Personally...I think the ACC is the one most LIKELY to get hit because they have the most pieces/states schools of value that are worth the most to divide up, and because there is a real difference in culture and goals from the member schools. Some are Football, some are Basketball, some are private, some are public, some are almost solely academic oriented (VA, Duke). In fact the ACC maybe worth more broken up to the Big12, Big10, SEC then they are as the ACC.
So you're saying the Big 12 is making less money than conferences who have more recently negotiated their TV contracts. I think we all know that.
As far as competing for National Championships, the Big 12 has more than the Pac and Big 10 in the past 10 years, so I don't think thats holding the league back.
The money needs to go up, and it will. That happens when you renegotiate TV contracts, which is looming on the horizon. With the ratings on Big 12 football, and NBC's desire to get into this market, there's going to be a lot of money for the Big 12. Maybe not as much as the SEC or Big 10, but as much as the Pac. The Pac's earning vastly more than the Big 12 will be over as soon as the Big 12 goes back to the negotiation table without a puppet commish and a slate of teams that people want to watch play. If the Big 12 as is is making more than the ACC, I would certainly think that the Big 12 + Clemson and FSU could make a LOT more than the ACC.
I agree with your last paragraph 100%. Right now, there is more cultural unity in the Big 12. The only school that values basketball more than football is KU and they're pretty happy because being the sole basketball power in a football league gives them a niche for success. The schools that are in the Big 12 right now want to be. TTU/OSU aren't going off on their own and neither are KU/KSU/ISU. TCU and WVU are happier than a pig in **** to be in a real league.
This is the time to prey on the dischord in the ACC. You send some football schools to the Big 12 and SEC and some of the academic powerhouses to the Big 10 and everyone wins.
Therein lies the problem. Nationally, aside from Oklahoma versus Texas, there is no marquee national-interest games in the Big 12. KU vs. Texas? Iowa State vs. Baylor? Texas Tech vs. Kansas State? OSU versus TCU? OU vs. OSU (in most years, people nationally could give two ****s about Bedlam)?
The original Big 12 had at minimum four national-interest marquee games that, God I hate this phrase..."moved the needle": OU vs. Texas; OU vs. Nebraska; Texas vs. A&M and Texas vs. Nebraska. Now we have one.
I don't believe the current conference can remotely keep up with the SEC, B1G and Pac considering the small population (outside of Texas) and the lack of marquee match-ups. The SEC and the B1G have both great historical match-ups and population. The ACC, Pac and Big 12 are all short of supply of numerous national interest games but the Pac and ACC have population (and growth on their sides). The Big 12 minus Texas is losing population as a whole. Texas is now fragmented as a TV market. All of the above facts lead to instability and the key to all of realignment is two-fold: A. Is SEC going to 16? B. When will the B1G get aggressive? If either of those two things happen, the college football landscape will change and change dramatically, fairly quickly, as all the major players will be forced to get aggressive.
And THIS is the problem with the next TV contract for the Big 12. It's why the Big 12 HAS to add big name teams....or the 2 teams still worth TV money (OU and Texas) have to go somewhere else.
(and I'd add to your TV match up games, OU-Nebraska, and CU-Nebraska as draws). I expect the Big12 to try and sell Texas-Tech as a national match up on Thanksgiving, but like the rest of the Big 12, to me it's just not the same....I mean Fruity Flakes are not Fruity Pebbles
I don't think the Pac has more than 2 marquee national-interest games most years either. Do you think that Oregon State v. Arizona gets anyone going? Its just like Big 10 football. No one outside the league watches games amongst non traditional powers. The B1G has a handful of traditional teams, and no one gives a **** after that. Do you think people salivate over the Iowa/Purdue game? The only league that really has more national interest than the others is the SEC, and how much of that is a function of constant ESPN hype? Do you really give a damn about Tennessee v. Kentucky? I'll watch about any college football game, but to the casual fan, there are no more than 2 or 3 teams in most leagues in a given year that they would find interesting. The 10 team Big 12 has far more interesting match ups to the average joe than a 14 team ACC.
I agree that the Big 12 needs to shore things up, but this idea that outside of the powerhouses that the Big 12 is any less interesting to the average viewer than another league makes no sense. Get the Big 12 into growth markets and you grow the league's bottom line. If the league puts together a unified front and moves against an inferior athletic conference like the ACC, there's no reason it can't and won't command more money than it ever has.
Every major conference has national draws and schools that no one outside the league care about. The Big 12 is no different.
Last edited by Al_4_ISU; 01-31-2012 at 01:58 PM.
The part I don't think you are getting is that the games INSIDE the conference for the Big 12 has no TV...and they can't make up the money with games with interest OUTSIDE the conference with only OU-TX game.
The PAC, Big 10 and SEC have far more TV sets inside their conference. Yes, the PAC doesn't have many national marquee national games, but USC-Oregon, Oregon-Stanford, Cal-Stanford, USC-Stanford all are of more interest then any non-OU vs Texas match up has for the Big 12 outside of their conference footprint.
The 2 things that TV broadcasters are looking for are that bring value to them are 1) National TV draw 2) TV sets in conference footprint/area. The Big 12 lacks in both categories when compared to the PAC, Big10, and the SEC. Heck they even lack in #2 to the ACC.
The other thing that makes the Big 12 weak...is that the Big 12 is 2 teams. OU and Texas. None of the rest of the schools really matter at all. If either school, or any TV broadcaster decides they would pay more for OU/Texas in another conference, they could be gone, and thus the conference won't be viable at all.
No YOU ARE CORRECT in no one will watch weak programs (OSU vs. ISU) anyone? It was "primetime by being on a friday" ... BUT, the problem is ISU-KU-Baylor-TCU are not national draws to watch... So if OU or UT lose the game its a double loss like what RG3 did to OU's undefeated streak 20-0 to Baylor... at least a loss to Stanford would pay OU-UT 15 million more per season...
Dont make Deloss & Castiglione err, (Boren & Powers) go all Jerry Maguire in this muthaf*'er, while the Big12 is playin with emotions... over this WVU-realignment (cash money) stuff...
Well, right now it looks to me, because the Big 12 schedule appears to be on the verge of being delayed again because of WVU's mess, that Joe C. and Boren are the dangerous precipice of having us in a conference with only 9 effing temas next year, which will undoubatbley cost us Fox money for 2nd tier rights.
What a stinking cluster. Some people need to have the absolutely crap beat out of them, the arrogant ****s.
The Dude at West Virginia is at it again.
I'm not sure what to make of this guy. Some of what he says just doesn't make a ton of sense and some does...(the SEC isn't done..yet they aren't expanding any time soon??? can't have it both ways)
He says the Big 12 is talking to BYU, Louisville, Clemson and Florida State, and only those 4. Well, I would ****ume the Big 12 has talked to those four...but why JUST those four? There are other schools I'd have ahead of BYU and Louisville. Also BYU deal fell through last year over TV rebroadcast rights.
He also says a Big 12 TV network is being vetted. OK......it's been talked about...but would it include OU and Texas? and if not would it be viable? Remember the Big 12 schools own their 3rd tier rights. OU and Texas already have deals in place for their rights. Granted if ESPN is in charge of the Big 12 Network, UT's deal could easily be rolled in somehow.
http://www.eerinsider.com/2012-artic...on-update.html
I'd put about as much stock in that guy's info. as I would the profitability of a John Wayne movie marathon in the Oaklawn district of Dallas.The Dude at West Virginia is at it again.
I'm not sure what to make of this guy. Some of what he says just doesn't make a ton of sense and some does...(the SEC isn't done..yet they aren't expanding any time soon??? can't have it both ways)
Since it appears we're headed east and not west, we need to leave BYU behind. That ship has sailed. Close the gap between Ames, IA and Morgantown, WV with Louisville. Like MP said earlier, if we're going to raid the ACC, then go hard. Clemson and FSU seem willing to jump so go after the Virginia schools and Ga Tech or Miami.
Of the ACC schools, I think Clemson, based on their fans - and presumably then, their donors - seems most willing to relocate. Based on message board interactions, they seem like the A&M of the ACC (misplaced perception of place in the CFB pecking order, huge chip on shoulder, and maybe willing to undertake dramatic jump as a result.)
If the Big 12 started out expansion by going to 12 initially, is Louisville and Clemson an acceptable pairing? I think so.
East: Clemson, WVU, Louisville, ISU, KU, KSU
West: OU, OSU, Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor
I can live with that permanently, but I think that would lead to FSU and probably GT joining the Big 12 down the road, unless ND joined the ACC. And the Big 10 will murder the ACC (UVA+Maryland) if it looks likely that Notre Dame will join it.
Big 12/SEC
Texas/A&M
FSU/Florida
GT/UGA
UL/Kentucky
Clemson/USCar
OU/Bama
OSU/UBarn
WVU/LSU
Tech/Arky
Baylor/Vandy
K-State/Ole Miss
Iowa State/Miss State
TCU/Tennessee
Kansas/Missouri
The SEC might still be better top to bottom, in football, but not noticeably so. The Big 12 would be better in basketball. Rivalry weekend would be huge, with all the in-state match-ups. Each league still left with two open spots for later additions.
Posting Permissions
