Realignment talk not going away

[camel at sea 589]

44 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

 

Nobody gives a shit about the Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma. It sucks, because oSu, ISU, and....well those two are cool, but without a bell cow or two, the Big 12 isn't comparable. It's ridiculous to compare the Irate 8 to the ACC with Clemson, FSU, and UNC. You keep saying Pitt and BC like the top tier doesn't exist. The Pac 12 is a better comparison, but SC, UCLA, and Oregon are still light years above anything in the Big 12-2-2.

 

Nobody fucking cares about Midwest and Texas second tier football, and honestly nobody really gives a shit about west coast football either. Nobody is going to pay anything for a Kansas State and Texas Christian match up and nobody is going to put that on any channel worth a damn. Oklahoma State and Iowa State will sneak into a decent time slot on a decent channel when they are ranked, but you aren't getting a contract close to the ACC in hopes of nailing that shit, especially with Oklahoma and Texas out.

"Nobody" is a term that doesn't reflect reality.  The TV numbers are out there and available to look at.  Just with respect to fan support, most of the Irate8 are better on TV than most of the ACC.  It's just true.  Obviously Clemson and Florida State (when they aren't in the gutter) are the distinguishing factor.  

[camel at sea 589]

14 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:

This is actually why the Networks over paid for the Big 12, adding OU and Texas to the Pac would bring massive brands and markets for the Pac12 network and should the Pac12 had succeeded in getting their networks in peoples houses it could have been a huge problem for them when all the other conferences followed suit. So over paying for the Big 12 and throwing UT the LHN and OU FSSW would have kept the networks as the middle men and severly hurt the Pac12's attempt to circumvent them.

The Big 12 didn't get overpaid.  The Big 12's TV number were 3rd.  The Big 12 is paid 3rd place money.  If you wanted to argue the Big 12 was overpaid, then you'd see something different than that.  It's not like the PAC or ACC are outperforming the Big 12 on TV.  The Big 12 didn't get any of the LHN or OU's SSTV deal. 

Texas and OU left b/c the gap between 3rd place and 1st/2nd was going to get a lot wider going forward.  They probably also left to help sell season ticket packages and to be in the room when the SEC sets the NIL terms for college football. 

[Pato del Muerto 52354]

[Not a Sock 2309]

Quote

The Big 12 didn't get overpaid.  The Big 12's TV number were 3rd.  The Big 12 is paid 3rd place money.

Which can still result in the Big 12 being overpaid.

Quote

The Big 12 didn't get any of the LHN or OU's SSTV deal. 

Which kept OU and UT in the Big 12 and out of the Pac.

[VoteforHank 117]

So the best thing for the conference this year is for Iowa State to go undefeated. 
Look for some heavy assistance from B12 zebras looking to keep their jobs in the future…… 

[camel at sea 589]

5 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:

Which can still result in the Big 12 being overpaid.

If the Big 12 is "overpaid," then you're also arguing that the PAC and ACC are overpaid.  

[Gaffords 755]

1 hour ago, Not a Sock said:

This is actually why the Networks over paid for the Big 12, adding OU and Texas to the Pac would bring massive brands and markets for the Pac12 network and should the Pac12 had succeeded in getting their networks in peoples houses it could have been a huge problem for them when all the other conferences followed suit. So over paying for the Big 12 and throwing UT the LHN and OU FSSW would have kept the networks as the middle men and severly hurt the Pac12's attempt to circumvent them.

You nailed it right there.  I've said that for awhile now.  ESPN had several reasons to throw Texas a huge bone and sticking a dagger in the PacNet was one of the biggest reasons.  

ESPN had been doing this a long time and knew the only way the PacNet would work and thrive was by bridging the gap east. It needed the Texas market and the UT fan base to make it thrive... 

ESPN was already making plans to SEC it up, but were waiting to see how the BugNet did on securing carriers...  The last thing they needed was for the PacNet to come into the sports market strong which would've cost them a partnership in the SecNet, so they slit the Pac's throat.

[TKthunder2 4981]

2015-2019 regular season games with more than 4 million viewers (t3xt from the article linked below).  Texas only had 8 and most of those were OU (x3) or OOC games (ND, USC, LSU)

Conference only games:

-55 SEC-only games 
-49 Big Ten-only games 
-13 ACC-only games 
-12 Big 12-only games
-Five Pac-12-only games 
-One American Athletic Conference-only game (2017 South Florida at UCF)

2 hours ago, camel at sea said:

"Nobody" is a term that doesn't reflect reality.  The TV numbers are out there and available to look at.  Just with respect to fan support, most of the Irate8 are better on TV than most of the ACC.  It's just true.  Obviously Clemson and Florida State (when they aren't in the gutter) are the distinguishing factor.  

So the ACC charted 13 4 million viewer games and keeps all of its members (which includes better brands than you seem to acknowledge in Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, VA Tech, Louisville, NCSU and UVA which I would stack up against the remaining 8 any day) to the Big12’s 12, and without Texas or Oklahoma only 2 Big 12 games cracked the 4 million club (both in the same year) 2015 Baylor-Oklahoma State and 2015 Baylor-TCU (so when Baylor was the little engine that could with Art Briles pre rape scandal).  So the ACC is currently outperforming the Big12 with UT/OU still in the conference and you’re arguing that even without their only two blue bloods that they are still better? The remaining Big 12 is one game away from being the American, you might grab a year where you can chart a game or two but mostly the remaining Big 12 schools will be pretty irrelevant.  The TV dollars will not be kind to the Big 12, which is why I hope most find landing spaces elsewhere.

4 hours ago, bullet said:

To be accurate they didn't want to bid early.  They both wanted to keep their options open to bid on the Big 10.  They didn't want to commit slots to the Big 12 until they knew how much of the Big 10 they had.

This is fair, but they could have locked it down at a lower price by bidding early.  The fact that they didn’t still is very notable.  That chart above speaks volumes and it doesn’t include Wisconsin or Nebraska.

The only way to increase your TV number is to add Notre Dame or raid the PAC (USC/Oregon) or ACC (Clemson/FSU)

 

[bullet 1596]

13 games over 5 years vs. 12 over 5 years.  There are between 420 and 490 ACC games over 5 years and 300 to 350 Big 12 games and you are saying the ACC outperformed the Big 12 because of that with 40% more games?  You must be a social science major.

The R8 have better average attendance than the Pac 12 (2016-2019) or the ACC.  They can't match the TV ratings of Clemson or USC.  But they beat the average teams.  And virtually every member of the R8 has been in the hunt for an MNC in November in the last 15 years.  TCU and Oklahoma St. may have well won one if ESPN had given them the chance.  TCU maybe 2.  Tech, Baylor, KSU, WVU and even KU(!) have been a late November (or December) loss from a title game.  No other conference can match that top to bottom consistency.  Half the SEC has never been that close.  The r8 have no superstars, but they have some good performers.

[TKthunder2 4981]

48 minutes ago, bullet said:

13 games over 5 years vs. 12 over 5 years.  There are between 420 and 490 ACC games over 5 years and 300 to 350 Big 12 games and you are saying the ACC outperformed the Big 12 because of that with 40% more games?  You must be a social science major.

The R8 have better average attendance than the Pac 12 (2016-2019) or the ACC.  They can't match the TV ratings of Clemson or USC.  But they beat the average teams.  And virtually every member of the R8 has been in the hunt for an MNC in November in the last 15 years.  TCU and Oklahoma St. may have well won one if ESPN had given them the chance.  TCU maybe 2.  Tech, Baylor, KSU, WVU and even KU(!) have been a late November (or December) loss from a title game.  No other conference can match that top to bottom consistency.  Half the SEC has never been that close.  The r8 have no superstars, but they have some good performers.

You do understand that this is comparing conference to conference TV deals not school to school.  Attendance doesn’t drive TV dollars, big time games is what drives it, regardless of how they get there the ACC has more big time games, you can try to justify it all you want (more games, more team, better time zone) but that’s what the networks want and are willing to pay for.

I get the argument that the Big 12 has a good set of schools (though I think you’re reaching including Kansas and Tech’s success from over 12+ years ago) but they don’t bring eyeballs even with that consistency and that’s the point.  A lot of this stems from their small state population, outside of Texas none of the 4 other Big 12 states (80%) ranks in the top half of US states by population (#28, 31, 34, 38). ACC only has 1 out of 9 (11%) at #26, B1G has 2 out of 11 (18%) at (#31, 39), SEC has 4 of 12 (33%) including Oklahoma (#26, 28, 32, 33), and PAC 2 of 6 (33%) at (#27, 35) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#State_and_territory_rankings

Most conferences would love to have that depth which is likely why the Big 12 was likely number 3 behind the SEC/B1G but K State isn’t going to be in a power conference because their fans/alumni don’t watch/support them enough, it’s because no casual cfb fan unaffiliated with K State wants to watch their games.  They just don’t have appeal to draw bandwagon fans or haters.  The Dallas Cowboys have sucked for decades but still draw fans and hater alike, winning only 3 playoff games since 2000 doesn’t change that fact.  No one left in the Big 12 (outside of Kansas basketball) will be able to draw enough fans/haters to equal the number of eyeballs required to keep up with the other power conferences.  Their best bet (collectively speaking) is to simply position themselves as the next best power conference (like the AAC has been doing).  Raid the AAC and be ready to pickup the pieces from the PAC or ACC when the next major realignment come calling.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

You do understand that this is comparing conference to conference TV deals not school to school.  Attendance doesn’t drive TV dollars, big time games is what drives it, regardless of how they get there the ACC has more big time games, you can try to justify it all you want (more games, more team, better time zone) but that’s what the networks want and are willing to pay for.

I get the argument that the Big 12 has a good set of schools (though I think you’re reaching including Kansas and Tech’s success from over 12+ years ago) but they don’t bring eyeballs even with that consistency and that’s the point.  A lot of this stems from their small state population, outside of Texas none of the 4 other Big 12 states (80%) ranks in the top half of US states by population (#28, 31, 34, 38). ACC only has 1 out of 9 (11%) at #26, B1G has 2 out of 11 (18%) at (#31, 39), SEC has 4 of 12 (33%) including Oklahoma (#26, 28, 32, 33), and PAC 2 of 6 (33%) at (#27, 35) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#State_and_territory_rankings

Most conferences would love to have that depth which is likely why the Big 12 was likely number 3 behind the SEC/B1G but K State isn’t going to be in a power conference because their fans/alumni don’t watch/support them enough, it’s because no casual cfb fan unaffiliated with K State wants to watch their games.  They just don’t have appeal to draw bandwagon fans or haters.  The Dallas Cowboys have sucked for decades but still draw fans and hater alike, winning only 3 playoff games since 2000 doesn’t change that fact.  No one left in the Big 12 (outside of Kansas basketball) will be able to draw enough fans/haters to equal the number of eyeballs required to keep up with the other power conferences.  Their best bet (collectively speaking) is to simply position themselves as the next best power conference (like the AAC has been doing).  Raid the AAC and be ready to pickup the pieces from the PAC or ACC when the next major realignment come calling.

With the exception of about 10-12 programs, casual college football fans watch the games involving ranked teams.  That's it.  That can be K-State, Arizona State, Michigan State, or whoever.   

The ACC has better Tier 1 games than the R8 but they're not exactly competitive with the SEC or B1G on that front.  Tier 1 inventory is only one component of a media rights deal.  The R8 has MUCH better inventory with respect to Tier 2 quality games than the ACC.  Think about the chart you posted.  Even with the ACC beating the Big 12 in 4M+ viewer games, and even with the ACC not having about half of its inventory rated at all (while the Big 12's bad games are being rated by virtue of their presence on FS1), the Big 12 still has better per-game viewership on average.  Even with the bad Big 12 inventory included, they're outperforming the ACC's top half games on average.  The R8 should be competitive-ish with the PAC and ACC if they get paid in relation to what the TV numbers say about them.  The TV numbers are competitive.

I agree with you that the ACC's program are better branded than the Big 12's R8.  Same is true with the PAC.  But superior branding doesn't turn on the TV.  Actual viewers turn on the TV.  Media companies factor in actual viewers as well as branding when they decide how much they want to pay someone.  

Edited August 30, 2021 by camel at sea

[kopp0e 1135]

On 8/21/2021 at 1:35 PM, TKthunder2 said:

Meh I think TCU is better for them.  While neither is going to give the PAC a sizable hold in either market, you can argue that tech, Okie state, and TCU can stake a notable claim in DFW.  Houston would be harder for the conference to gain any real traction there.

Same as SEC & ACC have Florida/ Georgia/ South Carolina/ Kentucky vs Florida State/ Georgia Tech/ Clemson/ Louisville, it'd be cool if SEC & PAC do also...

Now you could do it now with non-traditional rivals as Sooners v Ducks/ Longhorns v Trojans, but if PAC (ever) adds a few "Big8" schools, it has rivalry, eh..?

But it'd seem that is a longshot for PAC to do, unless networks ESPN/ FOX or streaming giant Amazon, pays for PAC to hold its nose at adding non-OU/ UT...

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

Regarding the Klatt interview discussed in the Offseason thread, I think Joe is a little too bullish on The Alliance. 

I'm sure Fox and the conferences gave him talking points, and Klatt as an employee of Fox is going to reiterate those talking points. He states the first place PAC 12 team would play 8 conference games, 2 OOC games, and 2 Alliance games against the first place Big Ten Team and the first place ACC team. 

So an 8-4 PAC 12 champ could be rewarded the following season by playing 2 perennial playoff teams. Yay Alliance?! 

Klatt also completely glosses over USC scheduling LSU just days after The Alliance was formally announced. So if USC isn't committed to it, it's already toothless, right? 

Additionally, The Alliance requires 41 schools spread across 3 conferences to all be rowing in the same direction without a written agreement. It's nice idea, but it's nearly impossible that'll work out. 

['stache 21778]

18 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

 

Nobody gives a shit about the Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma. It sucks, because oSu, ISU, and....well those two are cool, but without a bell cow or two, the Big 12 isn't comparable. It's ridiculous to compare the Irate 8 to the ACC with Clemson, FSU, and UNC. You keep saying Pitt and BC like the top tier doesn't exist. The Pac 12 is a better comparison, but SC, UCLA, and Oregon are still light years above anything in the Big 12-2-2.

 

Nobody fucking cares about Midwest and Texas second tier football, and honestly nobody really gives a shit about west coast football either. Nobody is going to pay anything for a Kansas State and Texas Christian match up and nobody is going to put that on any channel worth a damn. Oklahoma State and Iowa State will sneak into a decent time slot on a decent channel when they are ranked, but you aren't getting a contract close to the ACC in hopes of nailing that shit, especially with Oklahoma and Texas out.

OSU was the 19th highest rated team in the country last year, above everyone in the PAC except USC. OSU v. ISU would have been the 3rd highest game in the PAC. The PAC has an interest problem. Their large populations centers have a very low percentage of people who give a shit about college football. The mid-west market teams have lower population but much higher interest percentage. The PAC is in trouble when their current media deal comes up for negotiation. That is my only hope at this point, that they see financial benefit in adding OSU and a few others where interest is higher. And yeah, it helps when we are good, but schools like ISU are pretty steady in viewership from within their fan base when they are bad. I'd like to think OSU would be too and we have sold plenty of tickets even in our "down years" as of late, all of which still ended with winning records and bowl appearances. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by 'stache

[Texas St. Armadillos 1381]

On 8/28/2021 at 1:46 PM, DFW Horn said:

Yes, Hawaii Tech is in the same league as the Texas State Armadillos.

Suck it, SWT Bobcats

Great team, right there.

[TKthunder2 4981]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Regarding the Klatt interview discussed in the Offseason thread, I think Joe is a little too bullish on The Alliance. 

I'm sure Fox and the conferences gave him talking points, and Klatt as an employee of Fox is going to reiterate those talking points. He states the first place PAC 12 team would play 8 conference games, 2 OOC games, and 2 Alliance games against the first place Big Ten Team and the first place ACC team. 

So an 8-4 PAC 12 champ could be rewarded the following season by playing 2 perennial playoff teams. Yay Alliance?! 

Klatt also completely glosses over USC scheduling LSU just days after The Alliance was formally announced. So if USC isn't committed to it, it's already toothless, right? 

Additionally, The Alliance requires 41 schools spread across 3 conferences to all be rowing in the same direction without a written agreement. It's nice idea, but it's nearly impossible that'll work out. 

26:50 - “I can tell you, that networks would probably have paid 95%, 92-95% of the total Big12 television contract just to OU and Texas if they decided to just like to be independents.  Just to give you a sense of like…we’re not paying, we’re not paying to like televise the other teams.”

I think he might be exaggerating a bit lol but goes to the greater point we’ve been making on this thread.

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

16 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

26:50 - “I can tell you, that networks would probably have paid 95%, 92-95% of the total Big12 television contract just to OU and Texas if they decided to just like to be independents.  Just to give you a sense of like…we’re not paying, we’re not paying to like televise the other teams.”

I think he might be exaggerating a bit lol but goes to the greater point we’ve been making on this thread.

This is precisely why Bowlsby needs to be kissing the ESPN ring, and not lashing out in the media. The Irate 8's best hope for 2022 and beyond is for ESPN to get serious about improving ESPN + content and they're willing to pay a premium to keep the Big 12 inventory away from other networks. 

I actually think the AAC teams should stay put. They have a committed television partner in ESPN that owns 100% of their TV rights, and they're almost certainly guaranteed an automatic bid if the CFP expands. There's a slight ESPN hype machine to get Cincy in the playoffs. They've been mentioned in almost every ESPN Season Preview. The money isn't great, but if the Big 12 payout drops to $9 million per school, they're in the same neighborhood. There are too many uncertainties in jumping to the Big 12. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by billfromlaketravis

[BluTechsan 393]

Found this in the Herbstreit is a douche waffle thread.

Patrick asks an interesting question.

Fast forward to 8:00

[Francisco 2.0 32347]

 

 

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

26:50 - “I can tell you, that networks would probably have paid 95%, 92-95% of the total Big12 television contract just to OU and Texas if they decided to just like to be independents.  Just to give you a sense of like…we’re not paying, we’re not paying to like televise the other teams.”

I think he might be exaggerating a bit lol but goes to the greater point we’ve been making on this thread.

Maybe hurtlocker can give some insight, but it isn't clear how much the networks are paying for the blockbuster games relative to routine games.

Is a game with 5 million viewers worth twice as much as one with 2.5 million viewers?  Or is it worth 4 times as much?  I really don't know.

 

[bullet 1596]

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2021/08/30/big-12-expansion-already-has-list-applicants-2016/5647450001/

Trammel talks expansion

 

"The Big 12 is back in the expansion business. The beleaguered conference will not need to draw up a list of potential candidates. 

That list already exists. 

The Big 12’s infamous 2016 expansion process, during which the conference asked for applications from prospective members and interviewed at least 11 schools, gives the league more than a jumpstart....

Trammel thinks BYU, UH, Cincinnati, SMU, UCF, Boise and Memphis are likely to be in the lead.

 

[nineliveslost 2710]

I would go all out if I was the Big 12

 

add 

BYU

Boise

Cincinnati

Memphis

UCF

USF

Tulane

East Carolina

 

Big 16 

[Stella Link 534]

19 minutes ago, bullet said:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2021/08/30/big-12-expansion-already-has-list-applicants-2016/5647450001/

Trammel talks expansion

 

"The Big 12 is back in the expansion business. The beleaguered conference will not need to draw up a list of potential candidates. 

That list already exists. 

The Big 12’s infamous 2016 expansion process, during which the conference asked for applications from prospective members and interviewed at least 11 schools, gives the league more than a jumpstart....

Trammel thinks BYU, UH, Cincinnati, SMU, UCF, Boise and Memphis are likely to be in the lead.

 

Sucked then, sucks even more now....

[TKthunder2 4981]

37 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

I would go all out if I was the Big 12

 

add 

BYU

Boise

Cincinnati

Memphis

UCF

USF

Tulane

East Carolina

 

Big 16 

This isn’t the same realignment game circa 2010-12.  Tulane’s market isn’t going to bring $ in the world of streaming.  East Carolina was the only non ACC FBS school at one point but now they are competing with Appalachian State and Charlotte so that’s not as attractive as it once was. 

If they go to 16 their best bet is to take the top football powers from both the AAC and the MWC to widen the gap between them and their competitors for those last CFP spots.

But leaving room for the leftover PAC/ACC schools is probably wise so I’d stop at 12.

[thunderlounge 7759]

They should get Wichita St to fire their football program back up. With ousux leaving, they need another shady type.

[jinx 2635]

7 hours ago, 'stache said:

OSU was the 19th highest rated team in the country last year, above everyone in the PAC except USC. OSU v. ISU would have been the 3rd highest game in the PAC. The PAC has an interest problem. Their large populations centers have a very low percentage of people who give a shit about college football. The mid-west market teams have lower population but much higher interest percentage. The PAC is in trouble when their current media deal comes up for negotiation. That is my only hope at this point, that they see financial benefit in adding OSU and a few others where interest is higher. And yeah, it helps when we are good, but schools like ISU are pretty steady in viewership from within their fan base when they are bad. I'd like to think OSU would be too and we have sold plenty of tickets even in our "down years" as of late, all of which still ended with winning records and bowl appearances. 

[hornian 5205]

52 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

They should get Wichita St to fire their football program back up. With ousux leaving, they need another shady type.

No Ted Lasso, No Deal. 

[mdmost 42869]

 

[Gaffords 755]

 

4 hours ago, mdmost said:

 

Out of those 36/16 games, how many were bowl games? How many were OOC vs a name brand?   

The only question that really matters is how many conference games a year does each team average that gets broadcast to a national audience even if it is on FS1 or one of the many secondary ESPN channels (outside of the UT or OU games)?   

Quality OOCs and average and quality of bowl appearances are factored in by the number guys, but it really comes down to how much interest did they draw when playing each other outside of the conference anchors, over the span of the ending contract and historically?

This is broke down onna team by team basis.  They factor in things like TCU.  How will they do once their coach leaves (Tech/Pirate)? How much longer will he be there or be competitive if still there (Wizard/Bowden).  What is their historical high/low trend been, and the duration of the cycles over ifetime, 50 yrs, 40 yrs, 30 20, 10?  

Take a cold, hard look at those numbers and  there is the answer to what the TV bucks will look like. And the LHN money/ B12 bailout isn't the measuring standard to go by.  ESPN didn't pay 300 million for something they could've easily gotten for 2/3 less if they had bothered negotiating at all. Nor did they rush to save the big 12 because it was so valuable to them... They had an endgame in mind and the LHN/Big 12 were not it...  That was just part of the cost of doing big business.

[The University 851]

9 hours ago, jinx said:

bruins gonna bruin. ain't no thing.

[Pimphand 5611]

On 8/28/2021 at 5:15 PM, iamjethro said:

UCLA cheerleaders today remind us that they, along with Oregon cheerleaders and USC Song Girls, demand that some aspects of the PAC must survive re-alignment.

Instead we're back to the gomer milkmen...

[6th Street 6357]

Chargers and Rams moving to LA means nobody gives a shit about USC too. No more snoop or will Ferrell. 

[kopp0e 1135]

15 hours ago, nineliveslost said:

I would go all out if I was the Big 12

 

add 

BYU

Boise

Cincinnati

Memphis

UCF

USF

Tulane

East Carolina

 

Big 16 

XII might really be open to grow to 16.?!

 

[pubes 139]

KU playing Fresno st in Fresno. That is one quality fucking product right there from big brain bowlsby. My fucking god. 

[DCLonghorn 244]

Looking at the map, that's a pretty strong conference. That would solidify the Big 12/16 as the clear #5 P5 way ahead of the G5 (until the other Big 3 start trying to expand and steal from this group). That's a lot of schools that in any/every given year make noise to be considered for the playoff, more so when it expands.

['stache 21778]

No one to the west will be added except maybe BYU. Cinci, UCF maybe, Memphis if they can upgrade their stadium a bit. I hate this idea entirely, but if it happens, there better not be a grant of rights. It should be well understood that we'll be begging desperately for a P4 invite (this new conference is not P5 and everyone knows it).

[TKthunder2 4981]

16 minutes ago, 'stache said:

No one to the west will be added except maybe BYU. Cinci, UCF maybe, Memphis if they can upgrade their stadium a bit. I hate this idea entirely, but if it happens, there better not be a grant of rights. It should be well understood that we'll be begging desperately for a P4 invite (this new conference is not P5 and everyone knows it).

If you go to 16 then it should be pods.  Okie St should play their old Big 8 schools and have an annual rivalry with Tech.  That would be the best setup for you guys going forward.  TCU, UCF, WVU, BYU, etc are all interchangeable on your schedule after that.

[TrashMaster G 17395]

14 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

They should get Wichita St to fire their football program back up. With ousux leaving, they need another shady type.

[Zeus 5950]

17 hours ago, nineliveslost said:

I would go all out if I was the Big 12

 

add 

BYU

Boise

Cincinnati

Memphis

UCF

USF

Tulane

East Carolina

 

Big 16 

Why change the name now? They've kept the big12 name with 10 teams for how fucking long?

Change it to the Bowelsby 16

[camel at sea 589]

There's probably a difference between what the Big 12 *should* do and what they actually do.  They probably should make a point of killing the American as a competitor.  But I would not be shocked if they don't.  Going to ten probably squeezes out the most money for current members and BYU is the most valuable addition.  They won't kill the AAC as a competitor by taking BYU + 1.  Stopping at ten leaves more spots open in the event that ACC/PAC schools become available in a post-raid situation.  Stopping at ten also limits the number of schools being "elevated" to compete with current Big 12 members for future open spots in other leagues.  They can elevate BYU without worrying much that the PAC/B1G will someday want BYU.

FWIW, I bet the TV side tells them that the most valuable "+1" is Houston.  UH (due to geography, history, etc.) is the safest bet for fan interest.  Add in that traveling there is cheap and that they add the most in basketball and I think they drag their feet and begrudgingly make that choice.  

One kind of intriguing thing about this scenario is what happens if BYU is football only.  Does the Big 12 play all other sports at 9?  Find an affiliate member for basketball (Wichita St, Creighton, etc.)?  

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

23 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

There's probably a difference between what the Big 12 *should* do and what they actually do.  They probably should make a point of killing the American as a competitor.  But I would not be shocked if they don't.  Going to ten probably squeezes out the most money for current members and BYU is the most valuable addition.  They won't kill the AAC as a competitor by taking BYU + 1.  Stopping at ten leaves more spots open in the event that ACC/PAC schools become available in a post-raid situation.  Stopping at ten also limits the number of schools being "elevated" to compete with current Big 12 members for future open spots in other leagues.  They can elevate BYU without worrying much that the PAC/B1G will someday want BYU.

FWIW, I bet the TV side tells them that the most valuable "+1" is Houston.  UH (due to geography, history, etc.) is the safest bet for fan interest.  Add in that traveling there is cheap and that they add the most in basketball and I think they drag their feet and begrudgingly make that choice.  

One kind of intriguing thing about this scenario is what happens if BYU is football only.  Does the Big 12 play all other sports at 9?  Find an affiliate member for basketball (Wichita St, Creighton, etc.)?  

I think going to 10 is the most likely path for the Irate 8. They'll want to limit the slices of pie. 

Baylor, TCU, and possibly Texas Tech will try to block UH to maintain a perceived recruiting advantage. That's more than enough votes. 

I could see the Irate 8 ducking a fight with ESPN for AAC teams, and instead adding Boise and BYU. 

[camel at sea 589]

6 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I think going to 10 is the most likely path for the Irate 8. They'll want to limit the slices of pie. 

Baylor, TCU, and possibly Texas Tech will try to block UH to maintain a perceived recruiting advantage. That's more than enough votes. 

I could see the Irate 8 ducking a fight with ESPN for AAC teams, and instead adding Boise and BYU. 

I'll be interested to see how the TX Leg plays into the Houston issue.  In addition, TTU might come around to viewing an elevated UH as a better partner for trying to exit the Big 12 than TCU/Baylor.

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

2 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I'll be interested to see how the TX Leg plays into the Houston issue.  In addition, TTU might come around to viewing an elevated UH as a better partner for trying to exit the Big 12 than TCU/Baylor.

Other than Whitmire, who does UH have in the legislature? I believe they'll be a non-factor in realignment. This isn't 1994. 

[6th Street 6357]

Getting UCF seems like a no brainer to get some games played in Florida if nothing else. 

[DCLonghorn 244]

Wow... UCLA game didn't so so well... Alcor State (which had GameDay lead in) did better.

Also interesting to see LLWS games on ESPN did better than UCLA game. But I'm not sure those are apple to apples stay comparisons.

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Other than Whitmire, who does UH have in the legislature? I believe they'll be a non-factor in realignment. This isn't 1994. 

Five years ago, the Texas legislature and Governor Abbott pushed for Houston's inclusion.  Even if the endorsements were not sincere, UT and Tech both publicly endorsed Houston to the Big 12.  

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

18 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Five years ago, the Texas legislature and Governor Abbott pushed for Houston's inclusion.  Even if the endorsements were not sincere, UT and Tech both publicly endorsed Houston to the Big 12.  

To get the research center in Houston on a large tract of land that UT System owned. McRaven despite being a good general, wasn't a good chancellor. 

Link: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/01/opponents-say-ut-system-houston-campus-wont-proceed/

The Legislature doesn't care about football about football anymore. They care about building new campuses/schools. Aggy effectively blocked Tech's large animal veterinarian school for decades. Much to the determent of West Texan ranchers. UT blocked Aggy's Law School for decades as well. Much to the determent of half-assed lawyers. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by billfromlaketravis

[camel at sea 589]

Just now, billfromlaketravis said:

To get the research center in Houston on a large tract of land that UT System owned. McRaven despite being a good general, wasn't a good chancellor. 

Link: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/01/opponents-say-ut-system-houston-campus-wont-proceed/

The Legislature doesn't care about football about football anymore. They care about building new campuses/schools. Aggy effectively blocked Tech's large animal veterinarian school for decades. Much to the determent of West Texan ranchers. UT blocked Aggy's Law School for decades as well. Much to determent of half-assed lawyers. 

The Texas legislature, Governor Abbott, and Texas Tech's President endorsed Houston to the Big 12 five years ago so that UT could get a research campus in Houston?  

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

15 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The Texas legislature, Governor Abbott, and Texas Tech's President endorsed Houston to the Big 12 five years ago so that UT could get a research campus in Houston?  

Sort of. The UT legislators and Abbott attempted a horse trade with the Houston politicians. The research center in exchange for UH in the Big 12. My guess is the Houston politicians didn't think it was enough. Many other neutral legislators opposed it because UT didn't tell them about it first or they thought UT paid too much for the land. McRaven's approach was very ham-fisted. The guy sucks as a politician. Awesome commencement speaker though! 

I have no idea why Tech was in support of UH in the Big 12. Maybe because they were closely aligned with Texas at time, or there was another horse trade out there to get their large animal vet school. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by billfromlaketravis

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

The Texas legislature, Governor Abbott, and Texas Tech's President endorsed Houston to the Big 12 five years ago so that UT could get a research campus in Houston?  

I think the real reason was that Texas wants UH to do well to get some of the pressure off Texas to lower admission standards the way A&M has.  Houston in the Big 12 in 2016 might have helped stem some of the good students going to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama etc.  Houston is a better school than the majority of the SEC in just about any ranking other than USNWR.  Its much tougher to get into.  It ranks higher in the research oriented rankings like ARWU.  Only Florida, Georgia, Vandy and A&M are clearly better.