Realignment talk not going away

[Trojan Man 429]

5 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

People always mention the idea of dissolving conferences, but they generally have a disinterested party clause that means that the other schools can declare another school disinterested if they are trying to leave and then they do not get to vote on whether to dissolve the conference.  Even if you somehow got eight teams to want to dissolve the conference (and that alone seems pretty far-fetched), you'd somehow need to make sure the other schools did not suspect any of them were trying to leave, which would be difficult to do if they are calling for a vote on dissolution.

Just for fun, let's say they can do it (or the ACC doesn't have a disinterested parties clause), who are the eight schools?  Obviously (1) Clemson and (2) FSU.  Then (3) UNC and (4) UVA seem like the most talked about.  I guess after that it would be (5) Miami?  Although that seems like it would only happen if FSU goes to the SEC and the Big Ten desperately wants into Florida.  For the last three, maybe (6) VaTech, (7) NCState, and (8) Pitt?

1-4 are slam dunks.  UNC and UVA could probably each get away with bringing along a little brother school if they want to/if state politicians demand it because the B1G and SEC will both be fighting for those schools, which gives the schools some leverage.  Add VT and either NC State or Duke, that gets you to 6.  Miami is an interesting case.  They might get into the B1G or the SEC, but if not the Big 12 would definitely invite them.  Louisville and Pitt would have homes waiting for them in the Big 12.  Duke or NC State, whichever one doesn't get invited onto UNC's lifeboat, would probably also get a Big 12 invite.

It all comes down to convincing a few middle tier ACC schools they'll be better off in the Big 12 than with the status quo because that's the group to get you over 8 to dissolve the ACC.  You could make a compelling financial argument.  The Big 12 is already going to out-earn the ACC and they'll go to market again before the ACC's contract is up, which will widen the gap even more.  But their administrations and fanbases would be going through the same identity crisis the Pac 12's currently are, where they think they're too good for the flyover conference of lowly ag schools and they'd rather hold out hope for the B1G/SEC miracle or keep the ACC together in a way that earns close to Big 12 money.  Ultimately I think that would be too big of a hurdle to overcome for institutions that are inherently adverse to major changes and taking risks.  But the threat of it happening still might be enough to convince the ACC schools that would be up Shit Creek if the ACC dissolves to give a little to the power programs, like more favorable postseason money distribution, to keep the peace.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

4 hours ago, Gaffords said:

They are making noise for something, and it isn't to try and bully the ACC into more money.  The ACC schools are well aware FSU is tied to them for 13 years, if they like it not not.  Just like they are aware that FSU will bolt after if there is an opening somewhere for them, no matter how unequal the revenue they get.  So why give them more of the pie now when they are leaving anyways.  The ACC can't give Clemson and FSU (and UNC.. ECT) enough money to get them within the same universe as the power two, and those schools aren't wanting Big 12 money either. 

I feel there's more to the story  than just noise..  

The playoff is about ready to triple its payout.   The ACC currently makes $80m a year off the CFB post season and about $240 on the regular.   That means in 2024, half of their revenue could come from the post season.

FSU and Clemson are making noise to say "we're not splitting that evenly"

That's what's happening.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

3 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

People always mention the idea of dissolving conferences, but they generally have a disinterested party clause that means that the other schools can declare another school disinterested if they are trying to leave and then they do not get to vote on whether to dissolve the conference.  Even if you somehow got eight teams to want to dissolve the conference (and that alone seems pretty far-fetched), you'd somehow need to make sure the other schools did not suspect any of them were trying to leave, which would be difficult to do if they are calling for a vote on dissolution.

Just for fun, let's say they can do it (or the ACC doesn't have a disinterested parties clause), who are the eight schools?  Obviously (1) Clemson and (2) FSU.  Then (3) UNC and (4) UVA seem like the most talked about.  I guess after that it would be (5) Miami?  Although that seems like it would only happen if FSU goes to the SEC and the Big Ten desperately wants into Florida.  For the last three, maybe (6) VaTech, (7) NCState, and (8) Pitt?

Pretty sure they have one because the Big12's can go down to a single remaining member and most of the ACC's bylaw/GoR changes occurred with the B12's help after the FSU/Clemson noise last time.   They went tougher on everything than the B12 did.

UVA/UNC won't dissolve the ACC unless the world has ended.   And by world ending I don't mean they got an invite to the Big Ten.   I mean world ending like the Big Ten and SEC have chosen to dissolve their own conferences to merge into a bigger entity and invited the ACC teams to join.

That is literally the only way I can see UVA/UNC leaving the ACC.

[notre dame joe 188]

10 hours ago, Laga4 said:

College football will be around in 50 years,  it just won't look like it does today.

1972 college football wasn't anything like 2022 football and 2072 football won't look like 2022 football.  

Ranking	Team	Conference	Bowl
1	USC	Pac-8	Won Rose, 42–17
2	Oklahoma	Big Eight	Won Sugar, 14–0
3	Ohio State	Big Ten	Lost Rose, 17–42
4	Alabama	SEC	Lost Cotton, 13–17
5	Texas	Southwest	Won Cotton, 17–13
6	Michigan	Big Ten	none
7	Auburn	SEC	Won Gator, 24–3
8	Penn State	Independent	Lost Sugar, 0–14
9	Nebraska	Big Eight	Won Orange, 40–6
10	LSU	SEC	Lost Bluebonnet, 17–24
11	Tennessee	SEC	Won Bluebonnet, 24–17
12	Notre Dame	Independent	Lost Orange, 6–40
13	Arizona State	WAC	Won Fiesta, 49–35
14	Colorado	Big Eight	Lost Gator, 3–24
	North Carolina	ACC	Won Sun, 32–28
16	Louisville	MVC	none
17	UCLA	Pac-8
	Washington State	Pac-8
	Utah State	Independent
20	San Diego State	PCAA

 

 

It looks pretty normal to me. 

[bullet 1597]

8 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Ranking	Team	Conference	Bowl
1	USC	Pac-8	Won Rose, 42–17
2	Oklahoma	Big Eight	Won Sugar, 14–0
3	Ohio State	Big Ten	Lost Rose, 17–42
4	Alabama	SEC	Lost Cotton, 13–17
5	Texas	Southwest	Won Cotton, 17–13
6	Michigan	Big Ten	none
7	Auburn	SEC	Won Gator, 24–3
8	Penn State	Independent	Lost Sugar, 0–14
9	Nebraska	Big Eight	Won Orange, 40–6
10	LSU	SEC	Lost Bluebonnet, 17–24
11	Tennessee	SEC	Won Bluebonnet, 24–17
12	Notre Dame	Independent	Lost Orange, 6–40
13	Arizona State	WAC	Won Fiesta, 49–35
14	Colorado	Big Eight	Lost Gator, 3–24
	North Carolina	ACC	Won Sun, 32–28
16	Louisville	MVC	none
17	UCLA	Pac-8
	Washington State	Pac-8
	Utah State	Independent
20	San Diego State	PCAA

 

 

It looks pretty normal to me. 

You can go back to 1968 and it looks pretty much the same.  Early 60s slowly looks different.  1967 looked a little different. 1. USC, 2. Tennessee, 3. OU, 4. Indiana, 5. Notre Dame, 6. Wyoming, 7. Oregon St., 8. Alabama, 9. Purdue, 10. Penn St.   By 1960 Minnesota won the MNC and it looks totally different-1. Minnesota, 2. Ole Miss, 3. Iowa, 4. Navy, 5. Mizzou, 6. UW, 7. Arkansas, 8. Ohio St., 9. Alabama, 10 Duke.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

21 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

This is the part that I think is not only spot on but also the most ironic.   The blue chips are still going to go where they are going now, it's just going to cost more to get them.  Programs that develop 3 stars are still going to be programs who develop 3 stars.   Its not like they had a bunch of 5s and now they can't get them any more.

In a sense, the biggest brands are able to cash in now, but will also end up paying more to trade paint with historic peers on the recruiting front.

Yep this is my point exactly.

The blue blood programs that can afford to pay big $ for recruits are where all of the big-time recruits have been going all along anyway.

So if you're telling me that OSU won't be able to afford a bunch of 5-star recruits, I'm like well... OK then. I guess we'll have to get by with zero 5-star recruits instead of our normal number of zero 5-star recruits.

 

21 hours ago, hook me said:

 

Did they raise T. Boone from the dead or is there another oil tycoon that we haven't been introduced to yet that is ready, willing, & able to fund the facility &, now, NIL arms races? 

Do you think he's the only donor we have?  His big donation pretty much caught us to par in the mid-2000s after like 50 years of doing nothing.

Since then we have done hundreds of millions in additional facility expansions that he had no part in, including but not limited to:

• New football Indoor Practice Facility ($20mm)
• New baseball stadium ($60mm)
• New tennis facilities ($20mm)
• Additional upgrades to BPS ($50mm+)

We literally just announced another round of facility upgrades yesterday totaling $300mm+ that includes a new softball stadium, new indoor track facility, new basketball and wrestling practice facilities, a human performance center and several other amenities.

[hook me 2103]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

 

We literally just announced another round of facility upgrades yesterday totaling $300mm+ that includes a new softball stadium, new indoor track facility, new basketball and wrestling practice facilities, a human performance center and several other amenities.

He donated $600mm+ in 20 years - probably not all direct to athletics, but I'm sure athletics benefited in some form or fashion from the vast majority of it. I'm not saying he was your only donor, I'm saying he was y'alls Phil Knight with the kind of "F you" money & dedication you need when you don't have any advantages. You live in a place that has few D1 recruits, you're already second fiddle to an in-state blue-blood, you have very little history, & now you don't even have the ability to tell recruits "come here and beat up on UT & OU for not recruiting you". I'm not here to speculate on the demise of OSU, but acting like nothing is going to change when UT & OU are pulling in triple what you are from TV revenue alone & you no longer have a T Boone to help make up what's lost while enjoying no inherent advantage of any sort seems a little optimistic to me.

You LITERALLY announced a plan with almost $0 funding (ETA: $55mm was previously raised for upgrades to BPS, so $270mm)- it even says that in the announcements.

“I think it’s a great day for the future, but it is really just a roadmap,” Weiberg said. “This is the plan, and as we’ve talked internally, with our team, [senior associate AD] Larry Reece and [deputy athletic director] Reid Sigmon and others involved, we’re very aware that now is when the work begins. This is just the start. Now, the real work begins both in the fundraising and acquiring the resources, but also in the next steps of the planning and construction. This will be a long process, but you got to start somewhere. Today is the start.”

“So as far as the timeline, we don’t have one specifically for a couple of different reasons,” Weiberg said. “One, this will all be predicated on gathering the resources needed to do these, but regardless, it’s a years-in-the-making project. Even if we had all of the resources readily available now, you can see that these projects will take a lot of time to design and plan for and build. The timeline will be set by how we are able to gain the resources.”

Kinda like how I have plans to buy the Dallas Cowboys from Jerry Jones for a price even he couldn't refuse, just waiting on a few big donors... The road map is there, can anyone spot me $20 billion?

Edited February 28, 2023 by hook me

[oSuJeff97 3435]

18 minutes ago, hook me said:

He donated $600mm+ in 20 years - probably not all direct to athletics, but I'm sure athletics benefited in some form or fashion from the vast majority of it. I'm not saying he was your only donor, I'm saying he was y'alls Phil Knight with the kind of "F you" money & dedication you need when you don't have any advantages. You live in a place that has few D1 recruits, you're already second fiddle to an in-state blue-blood, you have very little history, & now you don't even have the ability to tell recruits "come here and beat up on UT & OU for not recruiting you". I'm not here to speculate on the demise of OSU, but acting like nothing is going to change when UT & OU are pulling in triple what you are from TV revenue alone & you no longer have a T Boone to help make up what's lost while enjoying no inherent advantage of any sort seems a little optimistic to me.

You LITERALLY announced a plan with almost $0 funding (ETA: $55mm was previously raised for upgrades to BPS, so $270mm)- it even says that in the announcements.

“I think it’s a great day for the future, but it is really just a roadmap,” Weiberg said. “This is the plan, and as we’ve talked internally, with our team, [senior associate AD] Larry Reece and [deputy athletic director] Reid Sigmon and others involved, we’re very aware that now is when the work begins. This is just the start. Now, the real work begins both in the fundraising and acquiring the resources, but also in the next steps of the planning and construction. This will be a long process, but you got to start somewhere. Today is the start.”

“So as far as the timeline, we don’t have one specifically for a couple of different reasons,” Weiberg said. “One, this will all be predicated on gathering the resources needed to do these, but regardless, it’s a years-in-the-making project. Even if we had all of the resources readily available now, you can see that these projects will take a lot of time to design and plan for and build. The timeline will be set by how we are able to gain the resources.”

Kinda like how I have plans to buy the Dallas Cowboys from Jerry Jones for a price even he couldn't refuse, just waiting on a few big donors... The road map is there, can anyone spot me $20 billion?

Yeah a P5 athletics program planning on spending $300 million to upgrade facilities is the exact same as you wanting to buy the Dallas Cowboys.

Boy you got me there. What a completely apt comparison.

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

22 minutes ago, hook me said:

He donated $600mm+ in 20 years - probably not all direct to athletics, but I'm sure athletics benefited in some form or fashion from the vast majority of it. I'm not saying he was your only donor, I'm saying he was y'alls Phil Knight with the kind of "F you" money & dedication you need when you don't have any advantages. You live in a place that has few D1 recruits, you're already second fiddle to an in-state blue-blood, you have very little history, & now you don't even have the ability to tell recruits "come here and beat up on UT & OU for not recruiting you". I'm not here to speculate on the demise of OSU, but acting like nothing is going to change when UT & OU are pulling in triple what you are from TV revenue alone & you no longer have a T Boone to help make up what's lost while enjoying no inherent advantage of any sort seems a little optimistic to me.

...

I think his main point, which seems both simple and accurate to me, is that they weren't getting 5 stars before, so not being able to keep up with paying 5 stars now isn't going to be some monumental change.     

[hook me 2103]

19 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think his main point, which seems both simple and accurate to me, is that they weren't getting 5 stars before, so not being able to keep up with paying 5 stars now isn't going to be some monumental change.     

That's a fair point 5 years ago & even now as most NIL is just getting going. How many 4* do they get while recruiting against OU & UT by offering playing time? How many do they get vs. second & third tier teams around the country that they're on mostly equal footing with in regards to program status & location?

Now, how is that going to change when UT is offering $50k+ minimum NIL for every roster spot + the availability of corporate deals if they come in & become starters vs. what OSU has to offer? What happens when OSU discovers a bunch of those under-valued HS players but can't afford them after their sophomore year because literally any and every B1G & SEC team can afford to pay them more or they can play closer to home (Dallas, Houston, wherever else OSU recruits) & they can make as much/more there? Have you been watching their portal attrition this year? Maybe a lot of that is players not jiving with probably the best coach OSU has ever had (that may be an issue in and of itself), but how much more is it that OSU can't afford their best players & they're leaving to make more money? That's a big change & the longer it goes on the bigger the ripple will be.

Just look at the new Big 12

Houston - better location more corporate sponsors

TCU - ditto

UCF - ditto

Cincinnati - ditto (even though I personally don't like Cincy)

TTU - New boosters with F you type of money - we'll see how long they intend to fund TTU athletics, but the start looks promising

BU - no clue about NIL but certainly closer to home for most Texas recruits

BYU - no clue but they seem rabid enough. Does/Can the Mormon church or any of the companies it owns help?

WVU/KSU/KU/ISU - probably going to be the group that OSU falls into with the obvious exception of KU MBB

That's just the BIG 12. It's not just the blue chips that are going to be paid & that line of thinking is exactly how you end up behind the curve.

[billfromlaketravis 11518]

18 minutes ago, hook me said:

That's a fair point 5 years ago & even now as most NIL is just getting going. How many 4* do they get while recruiting against OU & UT by offering playing time? How many do they get vs. second & third tier teams around the country that they're on mostly equal footing with in regards to program status & location?

Now, how is that going to change when UT is offering $50k+ minimum NIL for every roster spot + the availability of corporate deals if they come in & become starters vs. what OSU has to offer? What happens when OSU discovers a bunch of those under-valued HS players but can't afford them after their sophomore year because literally any and every B1G & SEC team can afford to pay them more or they can play closer to home (Dallas, Houston, wherever else OSU recruits) & they can make as much/more there? Have you been watching their portal attrition this year? Maybe a lot of that is players not jiving with probably the best coach OSU has ever had (that may be an issue in and of itself), but how much more is it that OSU can't afford their best players & they're leaving to make more money? That's a big change & the longer it goes on the bigger the ripple will be.

Just look at the new Big 12

Houston - better location more corporate sponsors

TCU - ditto

UCF - ditto

Cincinnati - ditto (even though I personally don't like Cincy)

TTU - New boosters with F you type of money - we'll see how long they intend to fund TTU athletics, but the start looks promising

BU - no clue about NIL but certainly closer to home for most Texas recruits

BYU - no clue but they seem rabid enough. Does/Can the Mormon church or any of the companies it owns help?

WVU/KSU/KU/ISU - probably going to be the group that OSU falls into with the obvious exception of KU MBB

That's just the BIG 12. It's not just the blue chips that are going to be paid & that line of thinking is exactly how you end up behind the curve.

They need to employ the TCU Model. Hit Texas and Louisiana track meets hard and find diamonds in the rough. And work the portal hard. 
 

Give me TCU and Cincy as the class of the new conference. TCU will need to evaluate the Metroplex well and hold on through the whistle on early finds. Same for Cincy, but I think they’re better positioned than TCU. Ohio is a very good football state and Ohio State recruits at such a high level that they’re not interested in stealing Cincy’s lunch money. 
 

I don’t think Greater Houston High School Football is deep enough to feed the SEC, Ohio State, USC, aggy, Texas, and then Coug High. The number of state titles and D1 recruits have fallen off a cliff. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[Okie State 3821]

Don't invest in your brand and you're ripped for being a leech. Do invest in your brand and get told you're fucked anyway so why bother?

[bullet 1597]

Only watched the first 10 minutes so far, but Fox/Turner/CBS out.  Ion is a possibility.  Apple has not yet made an offer.

Still expects Big 10 expansion.  Maybe aggressive.  Big 10 has definitely not written off future expansion.  Doesn't know timing.

Pac survival depends on contract.  $5-$10 below Big 12/ACC and they start looking. 

 

[CleverNickname 1319]

I'm curious (if you could get the GORs to line up) if 12-16 of most valuable non P2 could break away from PAC/Big12/ACC to make a clear #3 conference in like 2030.

[statsman 5472]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think his main point, which seems both simple and accurate to me, is that they weren't getting 5 stars before, so not being able to keep up with paying 5 stars now isn't going to be some monumental change.     

That’s a solid point, because nothing has changed in the last theee years to upset the competitive balance and baseline. 😂

[Hurtlocker 2213]

1 hour ago, CleverNickname said:

I'm curious (if you could get the GORs to line up) if 12-16 of most valuable non P2 could break away from PAC/Big12/ACC to make a clear #3 conference in like 2030.

Only the Big12 teams could at this point, in 2031.   The ACC is locked up until 2036 and the Pac is still up in the air.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

52 minutes ago, statsman said:

That’s a solid point, because nothing has changed in the last theee years to upset the competitive balance and baseline. 😂

Has it?

Has a school started really out kicking their own coverage?  Have schools who never ever got blue chips before getting entire platoons of them?   

Or is bag men money just over the table now and the ones who always got them, still keep getting them?

I really haven't seen any titanic changes.   Most of the big, highly publicized deals have flopped (How's that $30m doing in College Station?).  The deals we kind of expected, where someone uses their regional celebrity status to hawk goods for a local business, are successful.   The transfer portal has had a bigger impact than NIL so far, and that seems to have both helped and hurt the haves and have nots rather equally.

[Nueces River Rat 5539]

16 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Yep this is my point exactly.

The blue blood programs that can afford to pay big $ for recruits are where all of the big-time recruits have been going all along anyway.

So if you're telling me that OSU won't be able to afford a bunch of 5-star recruits, I'm like well... OK then. I guess we'll have to get by with zero 5-star recruits instead of our normal number of zero 5-star recruits.

 

Do you think he's the only donor we have?  His big donation pretty much caught us to par in the mid-2000s after like 50 years of doing nothing.

Since then we have done hundreds of millions in additional facility expansions that he had no part in, including but not limited to:

• New football Indoor Practice Facility ($20mm)
• New baseball stadium ($60mm)
• New tennis facilities ($20mm)
• Additional upgrades to BPS ($50mm+)

We literally just announced another round of facility upgrades yesterday totaling $300mm+ that includes a new softball stadium, new indoor track facility, new basketball and wrestling practice facilities, a human performance center and several other amenities.

Spend a couple million or so to add about 20 feet of space between the sidelines and the first row of seats in your stadium then we can be friends again.  

[CustersDoctor 584]

The networks and the Big time programs both want conference consolidation. The networks would rather just broadcast marquee games. Big time programs like the idea of the giant pie of cash being cut into fewer and fewer pieces, thus increasing their share. But in the last thirty years the only legit consolidation was when the BIG8 added the four good Texas schools and shed the dead weight of TCU, SMU and Coug High. And then when the Big East money makers joined the ACC. But it now in order to stay relevant, the BIG12 had to let TCU back into the party, and now adding UH, Cincy and UCF the numbers of schools in the major conferences is growing not shrinking. Soon the PAC12 may replace USC & UCLA with SDSU & SMU. Its going in the wrong direction!

[Uncle Nate 2097]

26 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

The networks and the Big time programs both want conference consolidation. The networks would rather just broadcast marquee games. Big time programs like the idea of the giant pie of cash being cut into fewer and fewer pieces, thus increasing their share. But in the last thirty years the only legit consolidation was when the BIG8 added the four good Texas schools and shed the dead weight of TCU, SMU and Coug High. And then when the Big East money makers joined the ACC. But it now in order to stay relevant, the BIG12 had to let TCU back into the party, and now adding UH, Cincy and UCF the numbers of schools in the major conferences is growing not shrinking. Soon the PAC12 may replace USC & UCLA with SDSU & SMU. Its going in the wrong direction!

 

No, the Big 12 didn't have to.  Would have made more sense to invite Louisville when we invited West Virginia.  If you will recall, Louisville joined the ACC after TCU and WVU were invited to the Big 12.

TCU joining the Big 12 was all on Dodds.  CDC will tell you himself (he told me these exact words)...he (CDC) drove to Austin, took DeLoss out for drinks, and talked him into getting the Big 12 to invite TCU instead of another school.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Louisville with WVU would have made way more sense and given the Big 12 a better footprint.  I'm still bitter about this dumb decision, as you can tell.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

2 hours ago, Nueces River Rat said:

Spend a couple million or so to add about 20 feet of space between the sidelines and the first row of seats in your stadium then we can be friends again.  

The sidelines will remain tight until morale improves.

[hook me 2103]

15 hours ago, Okie State said:

Don't invest in your brand and you're ripped for being a leech. Do invest in your brand and get told you're fucked anyway so why bother?

I don't think you're fucked at all. I just don't think the changes that have come should be easily dismissed by teams facing the disadvantages that your school faces. Hopefully, there are a group of people figuring out how y'all can lure the same talent you've been getting & figuring out how to keep that talent for 4-5 years so that you don't become a farm system for the bigger schools. I really do hope so because in the new Big 12 OSU will likely be the team I pull for the most in football.

[Crockett 491]

1 hour ago, CustersDoctor said:

The networks and the Big time programs both want conference consolidation. The networks would rather just broadcast marquee games. Big time programs like the idea of the giant pie of cash being cut into fewer and fewer pieces, thus increasing their share. But in the last thirty years the only legit consolidation was when the BIG8 added the four good Texas schools and shed the dead weight of TCU, SMU and Coug High. And then when the Big East money makers joined the ACC. But it now in order to stay relevant, the BIG12 had to let TCU back into the party, and now adding UH, Cincy and UCF the numbers of schools in the major conferences is growing not shrinking. Soon the PAC12 may replace USC & UCLA with SDSU & SMU. Its going in the wrong direction!

[LTbear 4170]

K State "insider" is saying we'll hear something about PAC deal within a couple days and that it's 25/ team/ year with ESPN and Amazon. Some unequal sharing (maybe postseason?). Expects Arizona and Colorado to apply for Big XII. Take it FWIW.

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

8 minutes ago, LTbear said:

K State "insider" is saying we'll hear something about PAC deal within a couple days and that it's 25/ team/ year with ESPN and Amazon. Some unequal sharing (maybe postseason?). Expects Arizona and Colorado to apply for Big XII. Take it FWIW.

Been flying around all over.  I'll believe it when I see it.

[LTbear 4170]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Been flying around all over.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Same

[statsman 5472]

CFB is structuring like EPL soccer, with the playoffs looking like the FA Cup. (IOW, participation by all divisions)

Edited March 1, 2023 by statsman

[oSuJeff97 3435]

1 hour ago, hook me said:

I don't think you're fucked at all. I just don't think the changes that have come should be easily dismissed by teams facing the disadvantages that your school faces. Hopefully, there are a group of people figuring out how y'all can lure the same talent you've been getting & figuring out how to keep that talent for 4-5 years so that you don't become a farm system for the bigger schools. I really do hope so because in the new Big 12 OSU will likely be the team I pull for the most in football.

My point is that OSU has been structurally disadvantaged all along. None of the things that have been pointed out ("second school" in a small state, location disadvantaged relative to Texas peers, etc.) are new problems.

If you're telling me the new world order in college football heavily favors blue bloods, I'll say the new world sure seems like the old world order to me.

I'll say this - if all of this had happened in about 1996 or so then I'd be singing a different tune. OSU would truely be fucked.

But we've spent the past 25 years investing in football and building a successful brand in that regard. We have the pieces in place to navigate the new world and be successful, IMO.

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

The blue bloods have always get the best players coming out of high school.  That didn't change with NIL, and it won't change with conference consolidation.  Texas and OU have been pulling in top 10 classes in the Big 12 and they will continue to do so in the SEC.  This doesn't change the landscape for the Big 12 schools left behind.

You have more money?  OH NO.  You've always had more money.  The gap has always been so wide that widening it doesn't really change anything on our end - it was always insurmountable.  We aren't really competing with the blue bloods anyways in terms of recruiting and facilities.  Never have been.

5 stars will keep going to the same schools that 5 stars have always gone to.  Maybe Clemson and FSU will be affected significantly by this, but for the Big 12 schools this isn't anything new.  The successes we've had come from developing 2 and 3 stars into good players.  For every guy an OK State or ISU develops and gets poached by a blue blood, there's going to be some talented kid buried on the bench at a big school that's looking for playing time and exposure, or some kid who's a stud in the MAC looking to come up a level.

It's good to be king, sure.  But it's always been good to be king.  

Edited March 1, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

No, the Big 12 didn't have to.  Would have made more sense to invite Louisville when we invited West Virginia.  If you will recall, Louisville joined the ACC after TCU and WVU were invited to the Big 12.

TCU joining the Big 12 was all on Dodds.  CDC will tell you himself (he told me these exact words)...he (CDC) drove to Austin, took DeLoss out for drinks, and talked him into getting the Big 12 to invite TCU instead of another school.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Louisville with WVU would have made way more sense and given the Big 12 a better footprint.  I'm still bitter about this dumb decision, as you can tell.

You are missing what happened.  OU and the rest of the Big 12 were sold on TCU.  CDC had to get Dodds to buy in to get it to happen.  Texas was the holdout, not the driver.

And TCU has significantly outperformed UL in football.

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

K State "insider" is saying we'll hear something about PAC deal within a couple days and that it's 25/ team/ year with ESPN and Amazon. Some unequal sharing (maybe postseason?). Expects Arizona and Colorado to apply for Big XII. Take it FWIW.

Seen several media people say numbers between $22 and $25.  None of them are especially credible though.  Wilner indicated he was expecting high 20s about a week ago, but changed his guess a few days ago to Big 12 +- 10%, so high 20s to 35.

[closetojumping 62747]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

My point is that OSU has been structurally disadvantaged all along. None of the things that have been pointed out ("second school" in a small state, location disadvantaged relative to Texas peers, etc.) are new problems.

If you're telling me the new world order in college football heavily favors blue bloods, I'll say the new world sure seems like the old world order to me.

I'll say this - if all of this had happened in about 1996 or so then I'd be singing a different tune. OSU would truely be fucked.

But we've spent the past 25 years investing in football and building a successful brand in that regard. We have the pieces in place to navigate the new world and be successful, IMO.

You have an amazing coach when he isn't shitting the bed against big brother in Bedlam. That's the reason OSU is relevant in football, after being a college football backwater for the majority of its history. The other time you guys were consistently a force was when, wait for it, another amazing coach was running the program during the Great Depression.

Gundy took some good things that Les Miles started and put it all on steroids, with Pickens helping him propel things further. You juiced some refs at home against Texas while Texas has been mediocre for some additional value. That's it. You guys are talking yourselves into believing that Okie State is on some form of permanent terra firma, but let's see how stable things feel when Gundy hangs up his headphones or whenever your AD is dumb enough to force him out. 

Coaches and quarterbacks can cover up a whole lot of ugly when they're elite. We've experienced a metric ton of both from 1998 to now at Texas. We're freaking Texas with all of the bedrock to a foundation for a program that anyone could dream of, and we're going through 12+ years of program instability in football because we've completely fucked up the hires. Fuck up your next hire in football and see how long you remain feeling comfortable with your situation.

That considered, keep living the dream as long as Gundy is there. Even if 2023 is rough, I figure he'll get y'all back to top 25 rankings and competing for the conference title regularly and enviably, irrespective of revenues and realignment.

[NoName 16354]

9 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

You have an amazing coach when he isn't shitting the bed against big brother in Bedlam. That's the reason OSU is relevant in football, after being a college football backwater for the majority of its history. The other time you guys were consistently a force was when, wait for it, another amazing coach was running the program during the Great Depression.

Gundy took some good things that Les Miles started and put it all on steroids, with Pickens helping him propel things further. You juiced some refs at home against Texas while Texas has been mediocre for some additional value. That's it. You guys are talking yourselves into believing that Okie State is on some form of permanent terra firma, but let's see how stable things feel when Gundy hangs up his headphones or whenever your AD is dumb enough to force him out. 

Coaches and quarterbacks can cover up a whole lot of ugly when they're elite. We've experienced a metric ton of both from 1998 to now at Texas. We're freaking Texas with all of the bedrock to a foundation for a program that anyone could dream of, and we're going through 12+ years of program instability in football because we've completely fucked up the hires. Fuck up your next hire in football and see how long you remain feeling comfortable with your situation.

That considered, keep living the dream as long as Gundy is there. Even if 2023 is rough, I figure he'll get y'all back to top 25 rankings and competing for the conference title regularly and enviably, irrespective of revenues and realignment.

people truly don't understand how good Gundy has been there. Easily the best coach in program history. 

in their history, OK State has played in 30 total bowl games. Gundy has been the coach for 17 of them. Gundy has won half of the bowl games they have won as a program (11 of 21.) Longest tenured coach in program history and he has the best winning % outside of a guy who left the last time A&M won a national championship.

when he left OSU he was the all time leading passer at OSU, he has been coaching for 33 years and has spent 28 of them at OSU.

...and they still have people wanting to run him off.

 

[DFW Horn 6125]

53 minutes ago, bullet said:

You are missing what happened.  OU and the rest of the Big 12 were sold on TCU.  CDC had to get Dodds to buy in to get it to happen.  Texas was the holdout, not the driver.

And TCU has significantly outperformed UL in football.

OU wanted additional games in TX for recruiting, DFW in particular, plain and simple.

['stache 21820]

13 minutes ago, NoName said:

people truly don't understand how good Gundy has been there. Easily the best coach in program history. 

in their history, OK State has played in 30 total bowl games. Gundy has been the coach for 17 of them. Gundy has won half of the bowl games they have won as a program (11 of 21.) Longest tenured coach in program history and he has the best winning % outside of a guy who left the last time A&M won a national championship.

when he left OSU he was the all time leading passer at OSU, he has been coaching for 33 years and has spent 28 of them at OSU.

...and they still have people wanting to run him off.

 

It is known. As someone mentioned, if the current wave or realignment happened in the 90s, we'd be in the AAC, if we were lucky. How we weren't kicked out before then is astonishing. Pat Jones tells stories that they would take recruits to all parts of campus, except for the stadium and football facilities. It was a fucking disaster. I've mentioned it before, but there is plenty out there that Coach Iba, who was also AD until the 70's, hated football or was at least indifferent. With the facilities in place we'll have every chance to make a good hire when Gundy decides to hang it up, and yes people who want him fired are morons. We suck against OU, but so has everyone else, and that one game seems like a strange standard for coaching that seems to only apply to us. Other than UT, I think KSU has only marginally more success against them than the rest of us, so the "he shits the bed against OU" seems more a function of the fact that is a rivalry game. Technically, everyone over the last 20 years has shit the bed against them except UT to some extent and everyone who has gotten them in the BCS title game or CFP.

Edited March 1, 2023 by 'stache

[nineliveslost 2784]

24 minutes ago, NoName said:

people truly don't understand how good Gundy has been there. Easily the best coach in program history. 

in their history, OK State has played in 30 total bowl games. Gundy has been the coach for 17 of them. Gundy has won half of the bowl games they have won as a program (11 of 21.) Longest tenured coach in program history and he has the best winning % outside of a guy who left the last time A&M won a national championship.

when he left OSU he was the all time leading passer at OSU, he has been coaching for 33 years and has spent 28 of them at OSU.

...and they still have people wanting to run him off.

 

Gundy got nothin' on Pappy, besides less tie games. 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

You are missing what happened.  OU and the rest of the Big 12 were sold on TCU.  CDC had to get Dodds to buy in to get it to happen.  Texas was the holdout, not the driver.

And TCU has significantly outperformed UL in football.

Yeah it was never TCU vs Louisville.   TCU was in for one primary reason, 2 games in Texas after A&M left for everyone every year with H/Hs.   TCU's competition was Houston, not Louisville/WVU.   No one wanted 5 teams in Texas though, so the loser was out.

The debate for 10 was Louisville vs WVU, with WVU winning.    To get Louisville the Big 12 would have had to go to 11, or find another like Memphis to get to 12, but there was no appetite for the 12th option at the time.

Then Maryland left for the Big Ten and FSU/Clemson started flirting with the Big 12 after the SEC started up the SECN.   The ACC added Louisville to provide another "football" school to go with their ND deal.   They signed the ACCN, everyone is happy.

Until they're not.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

PAC mouthpiece, behind wall.

Pac-12 media rights: Our (final) predictions for the revenue, media partners, expansion decisions and more

Spoiler

By JON WILNER | jwilner@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: March 1, 2023 at 10:23 a.m. | UPDATED: March 1, 2023 at 11:18 a.m.

 

It has been 244 days since USC and UCLA announced their plans to enter the Big Ten and almost as many since the Pac-12 began the process of renegotiating its media rights.

The conference spent 90 days in an exclusive window with ESPN and Fox, then took its content to the market and now, finally, is nearing the end of the saga.

On the first day of March, we are reasonably confident that resolution — in some form or fashion — will come by the first day of April.

Here are the Hotline’s predictions for the key pieces of the process …

*** Survival odds

For several months, we viewed Pac-12 survival as a 5.5-point favorite over Pac-12 extinction, which equated to a probability of about 67 percent. The conference had a two-in-three chance to successfully navigate this existential crisis.

But as the Hotline detailed a few weeks ago, time and risk move in lockstep in the realignment game.

Risk that unknown or hibernating factors can rise up to derail expectations.

Risk that institutional priorities could change or economic pressures could appear.

Risk that anxiety could lead to panic.

Risk that forces of instability could prevail.

Commissioner George Kliavkoff’s decision to take the negotiations across the holidays and into a second calendar year — “No need for a rush,” he said in December — has created an additional level of uncertainty.

As a result, our Pac-12 survival odds have changed for the first time in months, ticking down to five points.

And they will continue to decrease by a half-point every week that comes and goes without a deal.

If the end of March arrives and the same state of uncertainty still exists, then survival will be favored over extinction by merely a field goal.

*** The media valuation

We project the Pac-12’s valuation to fall within 10 percent of the Big 12’s agreement with ESPN and Fox, which will pay each school an average of $31.7 million annually starting in 2024-25.

That places the Pac-12’s range as $28.5 million (per school) annually on the low end and $34.9 million annually on the high end.

Our target number is $29.7 million.

How did we arrive at that figure? The Hotline always disagreed with the notion that the Big 12 and Pac-12 would get clobbered by the departures of Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA — that their next media deals would pay less than their current deals.

That view ignored the massive increase in the value of live sports that has unfolded since the current deals were signed early in the 2010s.

In October, we set a valuation range of $38 million to $42 million per school for the reconfigured Big 12 and $35 million to $40 million per school for the Pac-12. The former had a slight advantage because of its tremendous basketball product.

Then the Big 12 renewed its agreement with ESPN and Fox instead of taking its rights to the market — a smart play by commissioner Brett Yormark because of the security it provided with the conference’s longtime network partners.

It also reset (i.e., lowered) the market for the Pac-12.

The midpoints of our October estimates were $37.5 million for the Pac-12 and $40 million for the Big 12. Put another way, we valued the former at 94 percent of the latter.

If we apply that comparative value using the Big 12’s actual average annual value ($31.7 million per school), we arrive at $29.7 million per school for the Pac-12.

And look what we have here: The Pac-12’s current deal with Fox and ESPN averages $20.8 million per school while the Big 12’s current agreement averages $22 million — the former is about 94 percent of the latter.

Yes, the Big 12 has replaced Texas and Oklahoma, while the Pac-12 hasn’t (yet) filled the hole left by the Los Angeles schools.

But don’t forget, the Longhorns and Sooners accounted for a greater percentage of the Big 12’s valuation than USC and UCLA did for the Pac-12.

And as we have stated throughout the process, any difference in valuation between the Big 12 and Pac-12 would be on the margins compared to the difference between those leagues and the SEC and Big Ten.

*** The media partners

Our best advice with regard to every aspect of the Pac-12 media rights negotiations is the following: Only an extremely tight circle of people know the details.

The Hotline has been tracking the situation closely for eight months, and we can merely take an educated guess at the outcome.

Piecing together the crumbs, we believe ESPN, Apple and Amazon are keenly interested in the content, with the possible existence of a fourth entity. An X factor, essentially.

We also believe the Pac-12’s ability to fill the 7:30 p.m. Pacific window is a valuable asset. And not just on Saturday night.

In theory, the conference could fill that window every Friday and Saturday night for 13 weeks — that’s 26 games (90 hours of programming) unopposed by competition from the NFL or other Power Five leagues.

Amazon makes the most sense for the Friday game, because it could promote the broadcast during ‘Thursday Night Football,’ while ESPN makes the most sense for the Saturday night game.

We should also point out that it’s difficult for fans in other regions to grasp how entrenched Apple and Amazon are in the culture and economics of the West Coast.

Washington president Ana Mari Cauce is the chair of the Pac-12’s Board of Directors. Her office is 3.5 miles from Amazon’s headquarters.

Stanford president Marc Tessiere-Lavigne is on the board’s agenda-driving executive committee (along with Cauce and WSU’s Kirk Schulz). His office is 14 miles from Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino.

Our sense is the presidents don’t look at the streaming giants with the wariness that might exist in other conferences. They would view partnerships as enhancing deeper connections than mere broadcast agreements.

That said, the conference needs its best football games on linear platforms (either broadcast or cable networks) in order to maximize reach to mainstream fans.

As a result, the Hotline expects a media deal with ESPN and either Apple or Amazon, and we wouldn’t rule out the possibility for both companies to be involved.

All options must be considered until we have evidence to the contrary.

The key for Kliavkoff, however, is striking a balance between the linear and streaming platforms. Admittedly, we don’t know where the presidents will draw the line, but within that broad calculation are the number of night games and the timing of the selection process.

Nothing has created more frustration across the conference footprint than the six-day selection windows — ESPN and Fox have two each (per season) — that make planning for games extremely difficult.

*** The Pac-12 Networks

As a media company with distribution deals and content available on linear platforms, the Pac-12 Networks probably will cease to exist in the summer of 2024 when its current contracts expire.

But the technology and infrastructure likely will live on.

The conference has leased 42,000 square feet of office space in the East Bay. The facility will serve as a production studio for massive amounts of video content, including Olympic sports events, that could be streamed directly to consumers or made available to a media partner.

The studio and cutting-edge technology also could be used by Apple or Amazon to produce live sports events involving the Pac-12 (or other leagues).

We expect Pac-12 football and men’s basketball games to be included in the rights agreement with one of the major media companies.

Sometime next November, the conference’s wholly-owned media company will broadcast its final football game.

*** The expansion calculation

Multiple sources believe the Pac-12 is considering three options for membership structure: add four schools, add two schools or don’t add any schools.

The final decision depends on the media deal and the relationship between inventory and valuation — whether the ability to play more games (e.g., a weekly Friday night kickoff) will increase revenue for the existing members.

Our view of the outcomes:

— Two schools: 50 percent– Zero schools: 45 percent– Four schools 5 percent

SMU and San Diego State seemingly sit atop the candidate list but are not the only universities Kliavkoff has evaluated for membership. (We have been unable to confirm the others.)

The calculation for expansion is comparable to the decision on streaming: The Pac-12 must assess the long-haul benefits of both.

Would a partnership with Apple or Amazon become exponentially more beneficial by the end of the decade than it appears now?

Would the SMU and SDSU football brands be markedly stronger after five or six years in the Pac-12 than they are today?

Because ultimately, the decisions made this month are about strategic position for the next six or eight years.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

You have an amazing coach when he isn't shitting the bed against big brother in Bedlam. That's the reason OSU is relevant in football, after being a college football backwater for the majority of its history. The other time you guys were consistently a force was when, wait for it, another amazing coach was running the program during the Great Depression.

Gundy took some good things that Les Miles started and put it all on steroids, with Pickens helping him propel things further. You juiced some refs at home against Texas while Texas has been mediocre for some additional value. That's it. You guys are talking yourselves into believing that Okie State is on some form of permanent terra firma, but let's see how stable things feel when Gundy hangs up his headphones or whenever your AD is dumb enough to force him out. 

Coaches and quarterbacks can cover up a whole lot of ugly when they're elite. We've experienced a metric ton of both from 1998 to now at Texas. We're freaking Texas with all of the bedrock to a foundation for a program that anyone could dream of, and we're going through 12+ years of program instability in football because we've completely fucked up the hires. Fuck up your next hire in football and see how long you remain feeling comfortable with your situation.

That considered, keep living the dream as long as Gundy is there. Even if 2023 is rough, I figure he'll get y'all back to top 25 rankings and competing for the conference title regularly and enviably, irrespective of revenues and realignment.

College football success is almost always dependent on having a good coach.  Bama spent 20 years being average before Saban.  Michigan had a lengthy streak of mediocrity prior to Harbaugh's last few years.  OU went 6-6 in Venables first year.  Texas has spent the last 13 years averaging 7 wins per season.

What you're saying is absolutely true for OK State, but it's true for everyone.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

College football success is almost always dependent on having a good coach.  Bama spent 20 years being average before Saban.  Michigan had a lengthy streak of mediocrity prior to Harbaugh's last few years.  OU went 6-6 in Venables first year.  Texas has spent the last 13 years averaging 7 wins per season.

What you're saying is absolutely true for OK State, but it's true for everyone.

Yeah, UT is leaving the B12 with the same number of conference football titles as BU and KSU. They obviously have way more potential and history than those two schools, but coaching hires are so important to college athletics.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

21 hours ago, Okie State said:

Don't invest in your brand and you're ripped for being a leech. Do invest in your brand and get told you're fucked anyway so why bother?

Because who gives a shit what us message board morons think?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

44 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Because who gives a shit what us message board morons think?

What?  Are you insane?  This is serious, serious business going on here!

[cochamps 1879]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah, UT is leaving the B12 with the same number of conference football titles as BU and KSU. They obviously have way more potential and history than those two schools, but coaching hires are so important to college athletics.

Kansas State only has two.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

2 minutes ago, cochamps said:

Kansas State only has two.

03, 12*, 22 

 

*B12 recognized co-champs as both champions (hence the TCU/Baylor thing of whatever year that was with the playoffs)

[cochamps 1879]

3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

03, 12*, 22 

 

*B12 recognized co-champs as both champions (hence the TCU/Baylor thing of whatever year that was with the playoffs)

Missed that.  I remembered the 2014 tie / Ohio State drama.  If I wanted to be picky< I'd say both schools have 2 1/2.

Edited March 1, 2023 by cochamps

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

And yet we still can't get regular season champs recognized in football like we do in basketball.

[statsman 5472]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah, UT is leaving the B12 with the same number of conference football titles as BU and KSU. They obviously have way more potential and history than those two schools, but coaching hires are so important to college athletics.

(And not getting fucked over, like in 2008)

[closetojumping 62747]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

College football success is almost always dependent on having a good coach.  Bama spent 20 years being average before Saban.  Michigan had a lengthy streak of mediocrity prior to Harbaugh's last few years.  OU went 6-6 in Venables first year.  Texas has spent the last 13 years averaging 7 wins per season.

What you're saying is absolutely true for OK State, but it's true for everyone.

I made that point in the post. What I was addressing is the OSU poster's unwitting false sense of security about how the way things will be not being demonstrably different than the way things have been. That may only remain true as long as Gundy is manning things. The assumption that the gaps in resources and competitive advantages increasing non-linearly won't be a big fucking deal because it's "same as it ever was" is either a very tenuous one (Mike Gundy and a same level replacement keep things going well) or sadly correct but the "ever was" part is OSU football 1900-2004 but even worse because the floor has been lowered to levels we've yet to conceive and the competition's ceiling has been raised to the penthouse. 

The ACC for basketball, right now, is a good analog for the risk with the Big 12 in football, or OSU in a microcosm. Make a few coaching mistakes and that leads to dissipation in value, and then inability to attract talent, which leads to brand destruction and ultimately revenue stagnation and a fully blown out doom loop is crafted.

There are only two basketball brands that can withstand that, probably, in the ACC out of 15 schools. For the Big 12 in football, ex-Texas/OU, I think it is very arguable that there are zero brands capable of withstanding that kind of problem, and there would be only 5 with clear cut competitive advantages (UH/TT/TCU/Baylor in Texas and BYU with global mormon reach) to offset that kind of hit. Then you wake up in 2030 and the media deals for the conference are stagnant or backwards relative to inflation and SEC and B1G growth.

So, y'all better keep the coaching terrific and keep the games highly competitive and entertaining, or you're de facto relegated to CFB limbo as a conference when that happens. My preference is to see 65 teams, at least, continue to be viewed as on the same level going for the same trophy into perpetuity.

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

2 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I made that point in the post. What I was addressing is the OSU poster's unwitting false sense of security about how the way things will be not being demonstrably different than the way things have been. That may only remain true as long as Gundy is manning things. The assumption that the gaps in resources and competitive advantages increasing non-linearly won't be a big fucking deal because it's "same as it ever was" is either a very tenuous one (Mike Gundy and a same level replacement keep things going well) or sadly correct but the "ever was" part is OSU football 1900-2004 but even worse because the floor has been lowered to levels we've yet to conceive and the competition's ceiling has been raised to the penthouse. 

The ACC for basketball, right now, is a good analog for the risk with the Big 12 in football, or OSU in a microcosm. Make a few coaching mistakes and that leads to dissipation in value, and then inability to attract talent, which leads to brand destruction and ultimately revenue stagnation and a fully blown out doom loop is crafted.

There are only two basketball brands that can withstand that, probably, in the ACC out of 15 schools. For the Big 12 in football, ex-Texas/OU, I think it is very arguable that there are zero brands capable of withstanding that kind of problem, and there would be only 5 with clear cut competitive advantages (UH/TT/TCU/Baylor in Texas and BYU with global mormon reach) to offset that kind of hit. Then you wake up in 2030 and the media deals for the conference are stagnant or backwards relative to inflation and SEC and B1G growth.

So, y'all better keep the coaching terrific and keep the games highly competitive and entertaining, or you're de facto relegated to CFB limbo as a conference when that happens. My preference is to see 65 teams, at least, continue to be viewed as on the same level going for the same trophy into perpetuity.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's of the belief that either of those things can really slack in the future.

My only point, and the Pokes' only point, is that this is normal life for us non-blue bloods.  Whether you guys had stuck around or not, these are things that our survival depends on.  Always has been.  Always will.

A big part of the reason the "have not" schools are have nots, outside of the obvious demographic ones, are that their administrations did not place a high priority on sports or football specifically prior to the Big 12 era.  Iowa State's a great example.  We didn't put dick into football until 1996 or so.  It's a big reason the Pac 12 is struggling to find a TV partner currently.  They just don't give a fuck.

The schools that continue to give a legitimate fuck by investing what they have in facilities, staff, and players will have their opportunities.  It's just that some of us will always be at a competitive disadvantage, and we're fine with that because that's all we know as fans.

[notre dame joe 188]

11 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

No, the Big 12 didn't have to.  Would have made more sense to invite Louisville when we invited West Virginia.  If you will recall, Louisville joined the ACC after TCU and WVU were invited to the Big 12.

TCU joining the Big 12 was all on Dodds.  CDC will tell you himself (he told me these exact words)...he (CDC) drove to Austin, took DeLoss out for drinks, and talked him into getting the Big 12 to invite TCU instead of another school.

 

That's not the story posted on the old site went.