Realignment talk not going away

[CustersDoctor 584]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

the cutoff part of the tweet is the best:

"Moving from one conference to another is no simple process and, to be frank, IF we are considering changing memberships for exposure reasons then we need to see the number of games we will be getting on linear in advance.  It makes no sense to move if we are getting less exposure than @byu  @GoBEARCATS  @UHouston  or @UCF_Football."

Conference deals always Include a minimum number of good appearances for even the worst school. So Oregon state and Washington state get more exposure than they ought and therefore UO and UW have a few less than they ought. It's a reasonable question to ask, "What's the linear minimum in the BIG12?" On the surface you might think it would be identical to the other NEW12 members, then you might think, it might be identical but wouldn't the number of guaranteed linear appearances go down with multiple PACX teams moving over? Well a great thing about coming to the Big12 with the top 6 schools is this: Let's say the PACX deal is a 2linear-3streaming mix. If 6 schools come over BOTH of those linear spots come with them and you don't have to split them with CALSTAN and OST & WSU. So their linear appearances improves.

If the PACX claim that they OWN the Saturday late night time slots are true, then there's 14 Saturday night time slots per season for the BIG12 WEST to have all to themselves. They'll have three rivalry games to put in there. UOvsUW, BYU vs UU, AST vs UA. Maybe a non-con game or two vs an SEC,ACC or B1G team. Then your other late night games will come from the west of the rockies teams that travel out west.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

['stache 21824]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

cue the brethren who will be here shortly to tell us how they are a massive side, and protest the gaul of the unnamed 4c admin for grouping byu with the city schools

THey HAVe a naTIonwIDe faNbase

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

the cutoff part of the tweet is the best:

"Moving from one conference to another is no simple process and, to be frank, IF we are considering changing memberships for exposure reasons then we need to see the number of games we will be getting on linear in advance.  It makes no sense to move if we are getting less exposure than @byu  @GoBEARCATS  @UHouston  or @UCF_Football."

Yeah i hate how twitter copies in, thanks for adding the rest

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Idk where else to put this but this seems cool 

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

18 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Idk where else to put this but this seems cool 

 

 

 

Where the people are...

Edited June 28, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Deej 76847]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That seems like no change?

It’s also why there’s no Pac deal. GK is just stonewalling because he knows he hasn’t getting a better deal, but they won’t leave before he presents one.

So if he never presents a deal, they never leave.

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

7 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Colorado = 1/12

Mizzu = 2/11

A&M = 10/11, though if you look at conference winning records = 3/11

Not sure why he left those off.

[gatormarc 911]

3 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Colorado = 1/12

Mizzu = 2/11

A&M = 10/11, though if you look at conference winning records = 3/11

Not sure why he left those off.

It was cut off by Twitter's embed feature.

Utah 8 in 12 years
Pitt 5 in 10
TCU 5 in 11
Louisville 4 in 9
West Virginia 4 in 11
Nebraska 5 in 12
Texas A&M 3 in 11
Missouri 2 in 11
Syracuse 1 in 10
Colorado 1 in 12
Maryland 0 in 9
Rutgers 0 in 9

[camel at sea 589]

49 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

They hired their new AD away from NBC Sports.  They just got an AAU invite despite not having the research metrics to justify it. 

Maybe that Big Ten leap is coming soon.  If so, then it'll be interesting to see who comes with them.  Stanford makes some sense and could go right away.  USF and Miami each getting an AAU invite might be tea leaves worth reading into, also.        

['stache 21824]

16 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Maryland 0 in 9
Rutgers 0 in 9

Edited June 28, 2023 by 'stache

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

THey HAVe a naTIonwIDe faNbase

like aggy, who never runs out of time, there are certain delusions which are inviolable canon within the church echochamber

like aggy who believes they have unlimited resources and are the Richest Skool in THE WERLD, the brethren party line is the church is constantly growing in double-digit percentages, always, everywhere, all around the planet; membership is never flat or in decline, it is constantly growing, has grown constantly, and will continue to grow constantly, everywhere.

upthread i posted the map which shows they have less than 1/100th of 1% of every county east of the continental divide

only aggy are aggy

only brethren are brethren

they both believe everyone wants to be like them

they both believe they appeal to everyone everywhere

and both believe they are NATIONAL POWERS to be awoken

FEARLESS ON EVERY FRONT = LYING FOR THE LORD

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Idk where else to put this but this seems cool 

 

 

it's amazing how that mirrors a satview of the US at night....  hmmm......  (/smart jethro)

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

 

you may be on to something here....

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

44 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

They hired their new AD away from NBC Sports.  They just got an AAU invite despite not having the research metrics to justify it. 

Maybe that Big Ten leap is coming soon.  If so, then it'll be interesting to see who comes with them.  Stanford makes some sense and could go right away.  USF and Miami each getting an AAU invite might be tea leaves worth reading into, also.        

tree will drag cal along at the expense of anyone which leaves the rest of the pacx really up shit creek

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

 

I'm really starting to think this is George Kilavkoff's strategery.   And the fact that his name is George is no mere coincidence!

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

38 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

i can tell you what they are going to be this year....  a grease stain in the 3rd ward if they don't move this game to NRG

[statsman 5473]

4 hours ago, camel at sea said:

They can't *really* get to B1G numbers, but they can definitely put some highly unrealistic "if... then" clauses into that contract.  The media guys will push the unrealistic possibilities and it'll force those who want to exit to explain to those that don't, that the deal's numbers, as per the PAC friendly media, aren't real.

"Why would we leave when we're going to get $55M per?"
"We aren't."
"It says here in the Canzano article that we are..."


The SMU thing is interesting because it's exactly what the PAC needs.  They need more inventory but they need that extra inventory to not be distributed into more slices (since that overcomes the benefit of the additional inventory.) SMU Is the kind of place that might sign off on something like that for a year.  If the Ponies ever get their foot back into the P5 door, they'll take advantage.  Their donors have been ready for the NIL era for forty years.        

The Pony Express was something else. Best team money could buy. Top 10 team with half filled stadium. 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3286]

47 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

it's amazing how that mirrors a satview of the US at night....  hmmm......  (/smart jethro)

Its almost like we already know building many schools out in the desert where nobody actually lives a la Texas Tech is a bad idea...who'd have thunk it?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

39 minutes ago, statsman said:

The Pony Express was something else. Best team money could buy. Top 10 team with half filled stadium. 

That's the weird dichotomy with SMU.

They have some serious, and I mean serious, money, power, and influence sitting on their Board and throughout their alumni ranks (and even non-alumni supporters).

Yet, there just isn't the emotional fervor for their athletic teams.  Only time I've seen Ford Stadium sold out is when Tech came to town...didn't even sell out with cross-town rival TCU.  Basketball did enjoy some support when they were winning a ton of games a few years ago, but it pretty much died when Larry Brown left (under a cloud of scandal, of course).

Their money and influence just does not translate to success in the revenue sports.  But they build some amazing facilities for their non-revenue sports.  Track, Soccer, LaCrosse, Tennis...some of the finest facilities you'll find.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Its almost like we already know building many schools out in the desert where nobody actually lives a la Texas Tech is a bad idea...who'd have thunk it?

It's all West Texas, bitches.

Once you have Tech sitting firmly on the 101st meridian, there is no need for another University to occupy the space.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

On 6/26/2023 at 11:08 AM, Hurtlocker said:

The thing here though is the over the air depends mainly on the amount of inventory you have.    The more you have, the more good stuff you can put on linear for a higher return and you dump the garbage on streaming/conference networks for some extra loot.   

The B1G, at 14, usually puts 50% of its 63 games on linear, but they're massive games, so they drive big numbers.   The rest funds the BTN carriage because all those fans want to see those games.   

The Big12, at ten teams, had nearly 75% of their 45 games on linear, because they didn't have enough to find a network/streaming and it was the only way to maintain the same level of competitive revenue.   You'll see this get distorted in twitter viewership analysis, because all the stuff that would end up on a conference network, which isn't metered, was now on FS1, which is, so they have a lot of low interest games that most conferences bury in the not-metered market.   If you ever wonder how the B12 survived losing Texas and Oklahoma, its because they drew really well in these games everyone figured would go unwatched.

The Pac currently only has ten teams, but also has an anchor of the Pac 12 networks, with an agreement of 2 football games per year.   This means that, unless they fold the PACN, which would be a massive loss write off, the Pac only has about 25 football games they can even take to market, any market, linear or streaming.   Even if they could sell all of those, its still less than what the B12 sold to get their current number.   

The only thing I can think of that is "creative and forward thinking" that can save the PAC's ass at this point, is...

• Sell the entirety of the PACN to Apple for around $100m, which pays off the Pac's current issues and gives Apple a linear footprint in 14m west coast homes
• Apple gives the Pac a $3b deal over ten years for the rights to all of their content to be used in any way Apple wants, but most games are now Linear, just on this new channel.
• Apple rebrands and begins to fill the network off sports, featuring their shows on linear before they move to streaming, increasing buzz and viewership
• Apple expands its footprint organically by providing local MLB (who is losing local rights in many markets with RSN melt down) and MLS games, in market only (the NFL model) the US in sports markets - double win when the there is both a baseball and soccer team.   Each expansion increases size and carriage.
• Become a player in future local rights, including the NBA

That saves the Pac with a $30m/year deal, in PR at least as they won't hit that $30m/year average until 2030.

Feeling kind of redeemed:

Edited June 29, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2213]

Interesting info on production cost:

 

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

7 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

That's the weird dichotomy with SMU.

They have some serious, and I mean serious, money, power, and influence sitting on their Board and throughout their alumni ranks (and even non-alumni supporters).

Yet, there just isn't the emotional fervor for their athletic teams.  Only time I've seen Ford Stadium sold out is when Tech came to town...didn't even sell out with cross-town rival TCU.  Basketball did enjoy some support when they were winning a ton of games a few years ago, but it pretty much died when Larry Brown left (under a cloud of scandal, of course).

Their money and influence just does not translate to success in the revenue sports.  But they build some amazing facilities for their non-revenue sports.  Track, Soccer, LaCrosse, Tennis...some of the finest facilities you'll find.

the 2 biggest games ever played on The Hilltop were 1) Tornado 2-2 Manchester United, Ownby Stadium, 30 May 76 and 2) Mavs 105-104 SuperSonics, Moody Coliseum, 26 April 1984

[notre dame joe 190]

11 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

 

Where the people are...

 

10 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

it's amazing how that mirrors a satview of the US at night....  hmmm......  (/smart jethro)

[TxEx84 405]

8 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

the 2 biggest games ever played on The Hilltop were 1) Tornado 2-2 Manchester United, Ownby Stadium, 30 May 76 and 2) Mavs 105-104 SuperSonics, Moody Coliseum, 26 April 1984

I was at this game.  I'm so old.  Not @Armybrat old, but still.

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

The only way I'd be cool with SMU joining the Big 12 is if someone made a documentary about their fans travelling to Morgantown, Ames, Manhattan, Stillwater, etc for games.  I have a feeling watching them try to mingle with those crowds would be pure comedy.

[YGIFS 19452]

I'm picturing the tennis club bar scene in "Trading Places"........(clenches jaw)"...and she stepped on the ball." 

[CustersDoctor 584]

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

FIFY

[TKthunder2 4992]

58 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The only way I'd be cool with SMU joining the Big 12 is if someone made a documentary about their fans travelling to Morgantown, Ames, Manhattan, Stillwater, etc for games.  I have a feeling watching them try to mingle with those crowds would be pure comedy.

lol at thinking they have fans, much less fans that travel.

[Hagbard Celine 10884]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The only way I'd be cool with SMU joining the Big 12 is if someone made a documentary about their fans travelling to Morgantown, Ames, Manhattan, Stillwater, etc for games.  I have a feeling watching them try to mingle with those crowds would be pure comedy.

that's the thing, they will be a fantastic fit on the farm, in berkeley, gslc, tucson and seattle

[closetohumping 17453]

41 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

that's the thing, they will be a fantastic fit on the farm, in berkeley, gslc, tucson and seattle

[camel at sea 589]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The only way I'd be cool with SMU joining the Big 12 is if someone made a documentary about their fans travelling to Morgantown, Ames, Manhattan, Stillwater, etc for games.  I have a feeling watching them try to mingle with those crowds would be pure comedy.

They'd just be a third version of TCU and Baylor.  The big drawback with the Ponies is that they haven't experienced the extended period of winning that grew the fanbases in Ft. Worth and Waco.  They probably need to have a stretch of double digit win seasons before they can get their bandwagon going and that stretch of success is very unlikely to happen in either the current PAC or the Big 12.  They need to take advantage of being in the depleted AAC and grab some conference titles and expanded CFP trips.

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

They'd just be a third version of TCU and Baylor.  The big drawback with the Ponies is that they haven't experienced the extended period of winning that grew the fanbases in Ft. Worth and Waco.  They probably need to have a stretch of double digit win seasons before they can get their bandwagon going and that stretch of success is very unlikely to happen in either the current PAC or the Big 12.  They need to take advantage of being in the depleted AAC and grab some conference titles and expanded CFP trips.

SMU is not like TCU and Baylor.  They are the Vanderbilt wannabes who didn’t have the grades. 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

25 minutes ago, bullet said:

SMU is not like TCU and Baylor.  They are the Vanderbilt wannabes who didn’t have the grades. 

They also attend games like Vandy, barely getting 25k to show up.  

[Hurtlocker 2213]

“I’d like to stay at 14 [teams] even w/ the departures of Texas & Oklahoma. Candidly. It’s not so much a number that we’re thinking about. It’s really more about the fit… that’s critically important.” - @Big12Conference Commissioner @brettyormark

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

SMU is not like TCU and Baylor.  They are the Vanderbilt wannabes who didn’t have the grades. 

When Larry Brown had their basketball team in the Top 25 for two or three years, they were selling out for basketball and those games had a good environment.  I think they'd be front-runners for football, too.  But I'll admit I have no proof of concept for that belief because they've never put together a multiple-season stretch of good football to test it out.    Not since the death penalty, anyway.

[USC Traveler 488]

On 6/27/2023 at 5:55 AM, statsman said:

Oregon- they are much more of a taker than a sharer. Oregon (more importantly, Phil Knight) wants to win big, but has a poor recruiting base (the same as Oregon State’s). They are willing to pay for recruits, and they have to, because there are so few in Oregon. They don’t have a huge fanbase, so they don’t bring a large viewership. 
 
They recruited southern California, but that is harder with no games there. In the B12, they would recruit Texas hard (like everyone else with a foothold in this state). 
 
When you invite Oregon to your conference, you get a team with big ambitions, willing to bid up the price of your recruits and that doesn’t make a big positive impact on your media contract. 
 
Are they worth it?

This is a conversation that took place at all the mid-lower tier BIG schools.

Why would they want to have their games moved lower down the pecking order and shoved onto streaming to bring in a team that's revenue dilutive, has a small tv market, and has very few BIG alums, as well as the lack of recruiting grounds, etc that you mentioned above ?

For the big dogs in the conference, they're not worried about having their games pushed onto streaming, but all of the other points apply.

It's the other end of the spectrum to bringing in ND, which also has very few local recruits, but ND is already a threat in recruiting and brings tv value that is orders of magnitude higher than what the Eugene Community College Zeros bring.

I literally can't think of one BIG school that would have voted to bring in the Zeros.  And unless the BIG strikes out completely on ACC schools, which I can't see happening, I don't think UO is ever getting in.  Too many other options that bring more to the table.

[bullet 1597]

8 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

This is a conversation that took place at all the mid-lower tier BIG schools.

Why would they want to have their games moved lower down the pecking order and shoved onto streaming to bring in a team that's revenue dilutive, has a small tv market, and has very few BIG alums, as well as the lack of recruiting grounds, etc that you mentioned above ?

For the big dogs in the conference, they're not worried about having their games pushed onto streaming, but all of the other points apply.

It's the other end of the spectrum to bringing in ND, which also has very few local recruits, but ND is already a threat in recruiting and brings tv value that is orders of magnitude higher than what the Eugene Community College Zeros bring.

I literally can't think of one BIG school that would have voted to bring in the Zeros.  And unless the BIG strikes out completely on ACC schools, which I can't see happening, I don't think UO is ever getting in.  Too many other options that bring more to the table.

They have very good viewership because they have been one of the most successful programs of the BCS/CFP era.  They also will generate playoff berths and big games.  They are probably #4 on the list after Notre Dame and FSU who they won’t get anytime soon if ever and Washington. 
 

[bullet 1597]

16 hours ago, camel at sea said:

When Larry Brown had their basketball team in the Top 25 for two or three years, they were selling out for basketball and those games had a good environment.  I think they'd be front-runners for football, too.  But I'll admit I have no proof of concept for that belief because they've never put together a multiple-season stretch of good football to test it out.    Not since the death penalty, anyway.

Well they filled the cotton bowl in the 40s and 50s (the house that Doak built) but the Cowboys arrived in 1960. 

[DFW Horn 6129]

9 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

This is a conversation that took place at all the mid-lower tier BIG schools.

Why would they want to have their games moved lower down the pecking order and shoved onto streaming to bring in a team that's revenue dilutive, has a small tv market, and has very few BIG alums, as well as the lack of recruiting grounds, etc that you mentioned above ?

For the big dogs in the conference, they're not worried about having their games pushed onto streaming, but all of the other points apply.

It's the other end of the spectrum to bringing in ND, which also has very few local recruits, but ND is already a threat in recruiting and brings tv value that is orders of magnitude higher than what the Eugene Community College Zeros bring.

I literally can't think of one BIG school that would have voted to bring in the Zeros.  And unless the BIG strikes out completely on ACC schools, which I can't see happening, I don't think UO is ever getting in.  Too many other options that bring more to the table.

What ACC teams are truly additive to the B1G using your rationale? We know the B1G will probably want UVA, UNC, FSU, and maybe GT. Clemson is probably a non-starter academically .

ND is the only real slam-dunk addition for them.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

What ACC teams are truly additive to the B1G using your rationale? We know the B1G will probably want UVA, UNC, FSU, and maybe GT. Clemson is probably a non-starter academically .

ND is the only real slam-dunk addition for them.

I would say their main targets are ND, Miami, NC, and GT, in that order.

Perhaps you could switch GT and NC around. Miami and Atlanta are so inviting for FOX.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

17 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

What ACC teams are truly additive to the B1G using your rationale? We know the B1G will probably want UVA, UNC, FSU, and maybe GT. Clemson is probably a non-starter academically .

ND is the only real slam-dunk addition for them.

Also literally the only additive.

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

The only ACC affiliated schools that would make the Big 10 money are Notre Dame (obviously) and then probably UNC (assuming they'd want to keep an even number).

I don't think anything happens there until Notre Dame comes along, and I don't think Oregon and Washington are ever getting that call.  So they need to either commit to the Pac with a shitty TV deal and begin to fade in value, or join the Big 12.

I'm not sure that any of the ACC teams are additive to the SEC, FWIW.  Clemson and Florida State make a lot of sense, but ISU and Kansas make a lot of sense for the Big 10 too and that's never going to happen because those schools won't add to their bottom line.  

At this point I think it's a lot more likely that the blue bloods in the SEC and Big 10 rework those conferences deals to take a bigger share than it is that they add anyone (outside of the Big 10 adding Notre Dame and an evener).

[statsman 5473]

The problem with Clemson and FSU to the SEC is that S. Carolina and Florida are already in the SEC. The SEC has a gentleman’s agreement to not take any programs from a state it’s already in, unless the possible new program is the clear flagship program for that state. 

[Al_4_ISU 12470]

6 minutes ago, statsman said:

The problem with Clemson and FSU to the SEC is that S. Carolina and Florida are already in the SEC. The SEC has a gentleman’s agreement to not take any programs from a state it’s already in, unless the possible new program is the clear flagship program for that state. 

I get the joke behind the second comment, but the first sentence is spot on.  FSU is a big brand, but it's not on Texas's level and they already have Florida.

Clemson is in the same position ISU is in, they've just had way more on-field success.  If Clemson had joined the SEC prior to South Carolina, the idea of adding South Carolina would seem absurd.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[statsman 5473]

Ten years ago, an Aggie (with insider connections, for real, he was friends with a reagent) told me that Florida, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Georgia had an agreement to be a voting bloc to keep out FSU, Clemson, Texas and GT (I know GT used to be in the SEC, 60 years ago). He was dead serious. 😂

[DFW Horn 6129]

5 minutes ago, statsman said:

Ten years ago, an Aggie (with insider connections, for real, he was friends with a reagent) told me that Florida, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Georgia had an agreement to be a voting bloc to keep out FSU, Clemson, Texas and GT (I know GT used to be in the SEC, 60 years ago). He was dead serious. 😂

He still loses a 10-4 vote.

I forget what percentage the SEC bylaws state as the minimum to add members. Moot point