Realignment talk not going away

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

When Houston is good, they have really good TV numbers in Houston.  Back in 2007-2009 the Chronicle used to have the local TV ratings.  At that time Texas was through the roof, but Houston, even in CUSA, was competitive for 2nd with A&M.  Go to the local sporting goods stores.  Texas and Texas A&M have the largest sections, but Houston is 3rd and nobody else is even close.  Its really hard to find TCU or Texas Tech merchandise.  You do see some Baylor along with LSU and Rice.

UH has a lot of fair weather fans, much like Miami and UCLA.  When they are good, they are very visible.  Local media covers them.  TCU, Tech and Baylor might as well be Kansas St. or Illinois for the coverage they get.  If you haven't lived in Houston, you wouldn't understand that, as UH is pretty invisible in Austin and Dallas.

Yeah. The 2016 TV numbers for UH were really good.    https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings-archived/

The year before they hadn't had a chance to get their bandwagon going yet and still had good numbers locally - despite playing AAC teams.  https://twitter.com/UHpres/status/675032058650099712/photo/1

 

It will be interesting to see how the fanbase and the city react to Big 12 teams on the other sideline every week.  

['stache 21778]

I'm not too concerned with UH. I think it's well understood and accepted that the new Big XII isn't going to be anywhere close to the media draw of the SEC, Big, and ACC to a lesser extent. They'll have success and draw enough eyeballs to be relevant. I'm more worried about UCF. I don't see them having much success, especially when FSU, UF, and Miami stop fucking around. The geography is going to be a problem for them too. And they add nothing for basketball. At least UH and Cincy, and to some extent BYU guarantee that we'll still be a badass basketball conference.

[Texas Wahoo 3383]

Is this an actual update or nothing?

 

 

[TKthunder2 4981]

On 1/28/2022 at 9:46 PM, bullet said:

The Sun Belt had become better in football.  They were still no match for CUSA other than football.  They have better coverage than CUSA, but money was basically even.  Sun Belt does have a contract just signed, but nobody knows what it is.  Fanboys say its almost as big as AAC, but nobody knowledgeable believes that as there is absolutely no evidence.  Mostly likely its merely at the MAC level.

But with CUSA defections, that changed the calculus.

Before CUSA was raided they attempted to have the AAC and Sun Belt join them in a merger.  Both conferences said no.  CUSA had the weakest hand, in the last realignment cycle they added a bunch of market team that didn’t have much athletic success.

https://thespun.com/college-football/college-football-realignment-expansion-conference-usa-proposal-regional-aac-sun-belt

CUSA had their games on CBSSN and Facebook while the Sun Belt had a deal in ESPN.  Appalachian St, Coastal Carolina, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Louisiana, Troy, and ULM have all had memorable upsets over the last few years.  Here’s an article that pretty clearly lays out all the problems with CUSA and was obvious to anyone who watches that level of football regularly.

https://www.underdogdynasty.com/conference-usa/2020/12/31/22206936/conference-usa-hit-rock-bottom-in-2020-cusa-sun-belt-coaching-hires-realignment-tv-contract

The Sun Belt has been better than CUSA for a while now.  People just stuck with their vision of the old hierarchy of realignment have been unable to recognize it.

['stache 21778]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:52 PM, TKthunder2 said:

 

Both of you are incorrect.  I follow this very closely.  Previously CUSA was better than the Sun Belt but over the last few years with their new ESPN contract the Sun Belt became far more desirable.  I stated this on this very thread BEFORE anything happened with CUSA but they had been surpassed and it was very obvious.  The Sun Belt made more money and was a better athletic conference in every metric despite CUSA having more big markets.  Again the Sun Belt had been talking with Southern Miss BEFORE Texas/OU made their move.

The AAC took 6 CUSA programs and zero Sunbelt programs. CUSA was superior before the raid. They were  far inferior after the raid. Pretty cut and dry.

[LTbear 4161]

18 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I'll try to be nice here. My Houston bona-fides are pretty well established. I've lived here a long time. 

U of H just doesn't matter. It's a pro sports town with a lot of UT and Aggy fans. 

I think Houston is "fine." I feel they were obviously choice #4, and of the available options for choice #4, maybe I would have gone with Memphis or Boise, but UH is fine. All teams probably like more games in Texas, and UH vs Baylor/ Tech/ TCU will be fun for those of us who remember the SWC.

[bullet 1596]

19 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I'll try to be nice here. My Houston bona-fides are pretty well established. I've lived here a long time. 

U of H just doesn't matter. It's a pro sports town with a lot of UT and Aggy fans. 

You're right about it being a pro sports town, but there are a lot of U of H fans as well.

Again, look at TV numbers.  Look at the sporting goods stores.  There are a lot of U of H grads in town and I don't know any who are predominately fans of UT or A&M.

[bullet 1596]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

I'm not too concerned with UH. I think it's well understood and accepted that the new Big XII isn't going to be anywhere close to the media draw of the SEC, Big, and ACC to a lesser extent. They'll have success and draw enough eyeballs to be relevant. I'm more worried about UCF. I don't see them having much success, especially when FSU, UF, and Miami stop fucking around. The geography is going to be a problem for them too. And they add nothing for basketball. At least UH and Cincy, and to some extent BYU guarantee that we'll still be a badass basketball conference.

I think UCF was the risk of the 4.  They are on an island in an SEC/ACC area that typically pays no attention to anything west of the Mississippi.  Its a roll of the dice.  They could shine.  Or sink.

[TKthunder2 4981]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

The AAC took 6 CUSA programs and zero Sunbelt programs. CUSA was superior before the raid. They were  far inferior after the raid. Pretty cut and dry.

That doesn’t prove anything.  Read the 2nd link I posted which lays out that CUSA before losing any members was clearly behind the Sun Belt with evidence to support that assertion.

In addition, isn’t this the same logic you reject when concerning the PAC12/Big12?  The PAC took Colorado from the Big 12 therefore the PAC12 > Big12(that still includes UT/OU) DESPITE having less in TV money/exposure and recent athletic success?

Finally, if CUSA was SO powerful and knew that it’s programs were being targeted by the AAC, why wouldn’t they have expanded ahead of time?  Take the best 2 Sun Belt teams and go to 16 then when you get raided you can always go back for seconds.  The answer is the the Sun Belt teams were not interested.  Why do you think CUSA wanted to merge with the Sun Belt?

Quote

A proposal to regionalize three Group of Five conferences will be presented to Conference USA presidents Monday. The concept calls for C-USA, the American and the Sun Belt to realign based on the states and regions of teams in an effort to halt ongoing realignment and stabilize budgets at the Group of Five level.….

The concept will be presented by former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg. C-USA hired Delany as an advisor during realignment.

Quote

When asked about the C-USA concept, an AAC spokesman told CBS Sports, "We have zero interest in that. That's not in our plan."

Sun Belt commissioner Keith Gill took a similar stance: "We're really not interested in a merger. We feel really good about where we are."

Why do you think CUSA made this proposal and the Sun Belt who had the most to lose said thanks but no thanks.  The answer is obvious.

[Guest Lobo]

I think with A&M and Texas both gone to the SEC in a year or two...another domino to fall will be the consolidation of higher education systems in the State of Texas.  

Athletics programs like UNT, Texas State, and UofH could benefit from being part of larger, more prominent university systems...financially, tv markets, academically, etc.

[Gidnik 3251]

9 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Is this an actual update or nothing?

 

 

basically a nothing burger. he thinks its 2024 because of something in the houston agreement to join the big 12.  basically they will not receive any money the first year lol

hes saying 2024 

[Thiefery 4971]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

basically a nothing burger. he thinks its 2024 because of something in the houston agreement to join the big 12.  basically they will not receive any money the first year lol

hes saying 2024 

[Texzilla58 4718]

I had always heard it as Royal and Broyles were keen on the move and A&M was ready to go also.  The SWC was fading in power and viability. The SEC would also look to the east.  But, due to the issues that came up with the Texas schools getting free and FSU wanting no part of the SEC schedule, independent South Carolina was eager to take the 12th slot making the SEC eligible for a championship game.

Frank and Darrell had talked about it for years playing golf. The SWC 50/50 gate split was the issue that finally pushed them to plan on a divorce. When the small schools refused to negotiate a new plan they started to take action. The big schools had to share half the gate with the visitors (say 65k in Austin) and get half the gate at Rice or Houston (maybe 7k at uh). It was so bad smu wanted to quit their home and home with UT, Arkansas, and A&M for permanent games at the big schools. Had Ann Richards and Bob Bullock kept their noses out it would have gone down. I believe Texas and OU coming to the SEC will be great for the conference and for both schools, though get ready for a buzzsaw in the sec west. It is a better world when Texas-A&M or Texas-Arkansas games have significance.

[Gaffords 755]

On 1/30/2022 at 6:25 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

 I like ya bullet, but this simply isn't true. U of H is invisible in SE Texas. Check out those attendance and TV numbers. 

The Big 12 added U of H because they needed a respectable P5 warm body that's a geographic fit. 

The OSU/BU CCG did decent, but only because OSU was in the playoff conversation.  When any school is around the 10 win mark, they typically get some attention. 

But TV contracts aren't based on wishes and dreams.  They tend to be based on historical averages unless they have an aggy like fan base that is faithful to the "won halftime", "quality loss" and "next year" pipedreams. Because most bottom and mid pack schools tend to have a decent season every 7 or so years and then right back to their average. Teams that are around .500-.550-.600 historically, says safe bet is they end up right there again. When BU, TCU, OSU, etc are only a game or two over .500, they don't get Big 10 or SEC or ACC fans attention unless playing some big brand. There is a reason conferences are anchored by Blue Bloods, Not that long ago, there was a reason smaller schools were perfectly fine with unequal revenue sharing because 25% less was better than just 25% of what they were currently making. They satisfied with the Blue Blood fan base and National appeal being the ones footing their expenses.

Things haven't changed that much as to where the money comes from. It still comes from the fans.  Texas went 5-7 that featured a never ending loosing streak to cherry- top it. But all things considering, there were fans in the stadium. There were a few fans making the road trips...  There were still some national eyes watching the games.  What it that had been any other B12 team outside of UT or OU? Especially if they were in the slump we've been in for however many years now?  It was be real interesting to see contract negotiations without UT/ OU.  I've seen several project somewhat respectable numbers.  I'm not sure where they figure them from.  Especially when you look at the teams they've added.

Let's look at the Mormons.  The Mormons aren't dumb when it comes to financials. If they were bringing in fists full of dollars, they would be making fists full now from their ESPN contract...  UH would've been in the Big 12 instead it TCU, or WVU, or BU, or TT.  UH fans only appear when they are at the top which historically doesn't happen all that often. The same applies to Cincy (to a slightly lesser extent). UFC?  The same...

Yes UFC and Cincy have been on a roll for years now, but so was UofL. So was TCU ( did okay at first, but has faded for the last several years as has their fans. Probably would've happened faster if Patterson had taken the money and ran years back. WVU hasn't done much since joining.  So I'll assume the contract bidders will be looking at how much harder competition will be for the incoming teams at this level week in and week out like it has been for all the others who've made the jump, and not at the "just maybe" side of things.

A conference full of teams with no real fan appeal outside of their sandbox doesn't bode well in the Big money playpen.  Yes it will be competitive, but non team specific, non B12 fans don't give a shit about watching two 4-2 no names slug it out.  And yes, someone will rise to the top and fill the UT/OU void... Eventually.... But it will take years before their National value will carry over when they have their multiple year slumps...  But that doesn't help the $$$s for the conference as a whole anytime soon.  

I'm not even sure what the fan interest within the B12 footprint itself is going to look like with the loss of the UT-OU fan base.  Face it, in Texas you have UT then aggy then OU ....and then...  Way "and then", you have the rest. And their fan base is very localized with some alumni/fan support scattered amongst the bigger Texas cities. But not in the numbers to carry those cities.  

Looking at the Big 12 gains and losses, the numbers look bleak.  The Big 12 gains the Mormon fans, but according to their solo contract with ESPN, it isn't a game changer.  The Big 12 will gain the St. George market, but Salt Lake will remain a Utah first market. Cincy? Only if Ohio St is out.and Cincy is in, but unless Cincy goes on a terror a la 'Bama 2.0 and tOSU becomes us, all Ohio major markets remain firmly Big 10 territory.  UFC really doesn't deliver anything Florida market wise worth mentioning. That's UF FSU and Miami hard core no matter how bad/good things are going.  It would take several NCs for that to change slightly.  UH doesn't deliver Houston.  In fact, they actually become even more insignificant than they are now... I'll get to that.

Now what the Big 12 losses marketwise. Texas... All of it outside of Lubbock, Amarillo and Midland/Odessa.  (They probably lose the last three to the SEC with UT, OU, and aggy all back together.)  OKC (all of Oklahoma). Depending on how the SEC does it's divisions (pods), KC (if OU- missou start playing regularly again. Houston market falls firmly into the SEC stable. It is already UT/aggy/LSU territory. All three in the same conference slams the door on the Big 12 competing for viewers. But the biggest loss is going to be the UT/OU fan base.  The more time removed from the Big 12, the more will start running into the other SEC games and not the other Big 12 matchups. That one will really take it's toll on Big 12 viewership in the long run. 

Yeah, I'm struggling to see where the Big 12 stays within the same universe with the other P5s.  Common sense says the projected money rift has to be pretty substantial for UT and OU to give up a much easier path into the playoffs (especially what was assumed to be an expanded one that could see them both in often enough). It would've been worth giving up several million to the others just for consistent trips to the playoffs and what it would've done for recruiting alone. Especially Texas. It isn't like UT doesn't pull millions more than practically everyone else.

Speaking of recruiting. That's another area that is going to kill the Big 12.  Many talented recruits chose other schools over UT and OU, but they knew they would get to play (hopefully showcase) against them.  The loss of those two games is the loss of two practically guaranteed national exposure games and how that could affect their shot at the next level.

How many times (lets say BCS on) has a left behind team made it to a major bowl game?  And no, G5s prior to stepping up to a full P5 schedule don't count.  I'm not seeing good money coming the big 12s way.  It's not there

Maybe the Big 12 knows the money is not coming and insist on full exit fees if we leave early. On last big payday from the only two that's got them paid this entire time. One last hurrah as they make their final coattail ride into the sunset before the New Big 12 falls from the P5s.

 

['stache 21778]

13 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

That doesn’t prove anything.  Read the 2nd link I posted which lays out that CUSA before losing any members was clearly behind the Sun Belt with evidence to support that assertion.

In addition, isn’t this the same logic you reject when concerning the PAC12/Big12?  The PAC took Colorado from the Big 12 therefore the PAC12 > Big12(that still includes UT/OU) DESPITE having less in TV money/exposure and recent athletic success?

Finally, if CUSA was SO powerful and knew that it’s programs were being targeted by the AAC, why wouldn’t they have expanded ahead of time?  Take the best 2 Sun Belt teams and go to 16 then when you get raided you can always go back for seconds.  The answer is the the Sun Belt teams were not interested.  Why do you think CUSA wanted to merge with the Sun Belt?

Why do you think CUSA made this proposal and the Sun Belt who had the most to lose said thanks but no thanks.  The answer is obvious.

They were trying to avoid an AAC raid, or have an easy merger if it happened. How is a conference with the six most attractive targets weaker than the conference with zero targets? SBC turned it down because they knew they’d overtake cusa when it was raided, and that’s exactly what happened.

Edited February 1, 2022 by 'stache

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

On 1/30/2022 at 6:27 PM, bullet said:

You're confusing 1994 with 1990 (and I said 1989 when it was 1990).  And Ann Richards had nothing to do with it.  It was Bullock and other Tech/Baylor people in the legislature.  Dodds was AD by then and DKR had no influence on those decisions.

To quote Bill Cunningham, president at the time, in his book ("The Texas Way"), "Dodds and I briefed the UT System regents at a board meeting in August 1990 in Odessa, and they gave me an informal nod to proceed with the Pac 10."  Texas, A&M and Arkansas were all planning moves.  Arkansas officially accepted the SEC invitation on 8/1/1990, so it was before Texas changed their mind, but after Texas was planning to leave as well.

The UGA president did approach Cunningham about the SEC in the summer of 1989.  That was when Texas started looking at its other options and Cunningham said he really had no interest in the SEC, but they certainly talked about it.

The Ann Richards thing is one of the most frequently repeated misinformation in Texas college sports. Yes, it was political, but it was not Ann Richards. As noted, on the Baylor side it was Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and Sen. David Sibley (R-Waco), who was a very powerful senator at the time. On the Tech side, it was House Speaker Pete Laney (D-some little town near Lubbock) and Sen. Rob Junell (D-Lubbock), like Sibley a very powerful senator.

[Texzilla58 4718]

Your recollection is different than mine, and I’m too lazy to go look for documentation. Bullock went to Tech for undergrad, Baylor for law. Ann Richards went to Baylor undergrad then UT law. If Ann wasn’t deep in the political part she at least was vocal about it. I also recall the PAC had almost zero interest in taking Texas.

[LTbear 4161]

31 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Your recollection is different than mine, and I’m too lazy to go look for documentation. Bullock went to Tech for undergrad, Baylor for law. Ann Richards went to Baylor undergrad then UT law. If Ann wasn’t deep in the political part she at least was vocal about it. I also recall the PAC had almost zero interest in taking Texas.

Bullock was in it for both Baylor and Tech. Ann gave no fucks and has said so more than once. 

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

On 1/29/2022 at 4:21 PM, trza-hawk said:

Any update from TheDudeWV or any of the other guys who have been discussing realignment for ten years now?

Yeah.  They're still completely full of shit.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

On 1/30/2022 at 6:27 PM, bullet said:

You're confusing 1994 with 1990 (and I said 1989 when it was 1990).  And Ann Richards had nothing to do with it.  It was Bullock and other Tech/Baylor people in the legislature.  Dodds was AD by then and DKR had no influence on those decisions.

To quote Bill Cunningham, president at the time, in his book ("The Texas Way"), "Dodds and I briefed the UT System regents at a board meeting in August 1990 in Odessa, and they gave me an informal nod to proceed with the Pac 10."  Texas, A&M and Arkansas were all planning moves.  Arkansas officially accepted the SEC invitation on 8/1/1990, so it was before Texas changed their mind, but after Texas was planning to leave as well.

The UGA president did approach Cunningham about the SEC in the summer of 1989.  That was when Texas started looking at its other options and Cunningham said he really had no interest in the SEC, but they certainly talked about it.

 

This is really interesting. I had never heard the Stanford story before. I do recall the stories around the early 90s about Texas to PAC and aggy to secsecsec, but I did not realize Stanford had vetoed.

['stache 21778]

On 1/29/2022 at 4:21 PM, trza-hawk said:

Any update from TheDudeWV or any of the other guys who have been discussing realignment for ten years now?

It's Tuesday. Any minute now.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

1 hour ago, Texzilla58 said:

Your recollection is different than mine, and I’m too lazy to go look for documentation. Bullock went to Tech for undergrad, Baylor for law. Ann Richards went to Baylor undergrad then UT law. If Ann wasn’t deep in the political part she at least was vocal about it. I also recall the PAC had almost zero interest in taking Texas.

If you want to wasted 10 minutes, here is a good interview with some of the key players: https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/big-12-expansion-oral-history-big-8-swc-merger

CSB warning:

Spoiler

I worked in at the Capitol in 1995 for a committee connected to Junell so heard a little oral history at (the actual) Cloak Room.

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Harrison Bergeron

[camel at sea 589]

10 hours ago, Gaffords said:

A conference full of teams with no real fan appeal outside of their sandbox doesn't bode well in the Big money playpen.  Yes it will be competitive, but non team specific, non B12 fans don't give a shit about watching two 4-2 no names slug it out.  And yes, someone will rise to the top and fill the UT/OU void... Eventually.... But it will take years before their National value will carry over when they have their multiple year slumps...  But that doesn't help the $$$s for the conference as a whole anytime soon.  

I'm not even sure what the fan interest within the B12 footprint itself is going to look like with the loss of the UT-OU fan base.  Face it, in Texas you have UT then aggy then OU ....and then...  Way "and then", you have the rest. And their fan base is very localized with some alumni/fan support scattered amongst the bigger Texas cities. But not in the numbers to carry those cities.  

Now what the Big 12 losses marketwise. Texas... All of it outside of Lubbock, Amarillo and Midland/Odessa.  (They probably lose the last three to the SEC with UT, OU, and aggy all back together.)  OKC (all of Oklahoma). 

Yeah, I'm struggling to see where the Big 12 stays within the same universe with the other P5s.  Common sense says the projected money rift has to be pretty substantial for UT and OU to give up a much easier path into the playoffs (especially what was assumed to be an expanded one that could see them both in often enough). It would've been worth giving up several million to the others just for consistent trips to the playoffs and what it would've done for recruiting alone. Especially Texas. It isn't like UT doesn't pull millions more than practically everyone else.

Speaking of recruiting. That's another area that is going to kill the Big 12.  Many talented recruits chose other schools over UT and OU, but they knew they would get to play (hopefully showcase) against them.  The loss of those two games is the loss of two practically guaranteed national exposure games and how that could affect their shot at the next level.

 

Eh, BYU, OSU, and WVU have had consistently good (though not great) TV numbers for a long time whether winning 10+ games or not.  Whichever of the Texas schools are good in a given year will do well on TV, too.  The Big 12 doesn't have a big brand but I'd imagine the TV numbers will compete well with the PAC and ACC from top to bottom as long as the quality of football in the league remains good.  I think the quality of the football will remain good b/c the donors are going to continue to care at those places.  There aren't huge brands but there also isn't a lot of completely dead weight fanbases even after expansion.  The high amount of local football interest will carry the Big 12's TV ratings until one of the left behind programs emerges as a new money brand. 

A lot of Okies who are primarily OU fans are going to watch OSU games, too.  A lot of Texans who are primarily UT fans will watch UH, TCU, Baylor, etc., if they're ranked.  

And I think the Big 12 will adapt on the recruiting trail.  Is it going to be hard, all of a sudden, for Gundy to sign a bunch of high 3 star players to develop?  No.  Same thing with Aranda at Baylor, Dana at UH, Dykes at TCU, etc.  None of those places have ever been good b/c of highly touted recruits.  They're good b/c they've always done a good job developing the guys who are not blue chips.  I don't see any change to the recruiting status quo.  If anything, conference championships are going to help Big 12 schools compete on the recruiting trail against the SEC schools that win less after OU and UT move.  

[statsman 5428]

What’s going to change is that the three stars scouted and developed by Campbell, Arande and Gundy are now going to be transferring to big name programs with six and seven figure NIL deals for them. 

[bullet 1596]

4 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

Your recollection is different than mine, and I’m too lazy to go look for documentation. Bullock went to Tech for undergrad, Baylor for law. Ann Richards went to Baylor undergrad then UT law. If Ann wasn’t deep in the political part she at least was vocal about it. I also recall the PAC had almost zero interest in taking Texas.

The Pac 12 was very interested in Texas----with Colorado.  But they had zero interest in Texas Tech and Texas knew they had to find a home for Tech.  So the Big 12 was the only option that could be sold politically.  aggy was ignorant politically and had to be taken to the woodshed to get them to understand the SEC was not an option for them in 1994.

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

This is really interesting. I had never heard the Stanford story before. I do recall the stories around the early 90s about Texas to PAC and aggy to secsecsec, but I did not realize Stanford had vetoed.

I had heard rumors, but didn't believe it until Cunningham put it in his book.  Big 10 had said they weren't interested, but Texas had an informal deal with the Pac, but Stanford said no.  Stanford then changed their mind, but Cunningham had already gone back to the regents to say they weren't going, and with A&M, publicly recommitted to the SWC.  (talking about summer of 1990)

I like this section in Cunningham's book: "Next, I went over and met with Gib Lewis and Mike Millsap ((Lewis's chief of staff at the time) and explained to them that we had decided to remain in the SWC and were committed to making it viable.  That was certainly accurate, because we had no other conferences to move to.  Following in the tradition of most successful politicians when they don't get what they want, we declared victory."  It was about 2 weeks after this that Stanford's president called to say he had changed his mind.

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Eh, BYU, OSU, and WVU have had consistently good (though not great) TV numbers for a long time whether winning 10+ games or not.  Whichever of the Texas schools are good in a given year will do well on TV, too.  The Big 12 doesn't have a big brand but I'd imagine the TV numbers will compete well with the PAC and ACC from top to bottom as long as the quality of football in the league remains good.  I think the quality of the football will remain good b/c the donors are going to continue to care at those places.  There aren't huge brands but there also isn't a lot of completely dead weight fanbases even after expansion.  The high amount of local football interest will carry the Big 12's TV ratings until one of the left behind programs emerges as a new money brand. 

A lot of Okies who are primarily OU fans are going to watch OSU games, too.  A lot of Texans who are primarily UT fans will watch UH, TCU, Baylor, etc., if they're ranked.  

And I think the Big 12 will adapt on the recruiting trail.  Is it going to be hard, all of a sudden, for Gundy to sign a bunch of high 3 star players to develop?  No.  Same thing with Aranda at Baylor, Dana at UH, Dykes at TCU, etc.  None of those places have ever been good b/c of highly touted recruits.  They're good b/c they've always done a good job developing the guys who are not blue chips.  I don't see any change to the recruiting status quo.  If anything, conference championships are going to help Big 12 schools compete on the recruiting trail against the SEC schools that win less after OU and UT move.  

Those schools have not gotten many players that Texas, OU or A&M wanted in the last quarter century.  The risk to their recruiting is that Mississippi, Auburn, Tennessee, etc. start getting those players.  I doubt that happens.  Those schools focus most of their recruiting elsewhere and they will have a harder time winning in the expanded SEC.

[bullet 1596]

54 minutes ago, statsman said:

What’s going to change is that the three stars scouted and developed by Campbell, Arande and Gundy are now going to be transferring to big name programs with six and seven figure NIL deals for them. 

On the other hand, maybe they get some 4 star players from Alabama who weren't getting enough playing time.

Really hard to tell how the free agent transfer portal will play out.  With quarterbacks, I think it benefits the less powerful programs.  QBs want to play.  Your 2nd string LB gets a lot more snaps than the 2nd string QB.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

What’s going to change is that the three stars scouted and developed by Campbell, Arande and Gundy are now going to be transferring to big name programs with six and seven figure NIL deals for them. 

It's probably too early to say how the portal stuff will play out bc there seems to be quite a bit of agreement that this is not working out as well for players as everyone thought it would.  There are a ton of guys who enter the portal and don't land anywhere.  I'd expect further rules changes at some point.  That said...

Oklahoma State had a bunch of guys enter the portal after their bowl game.  The entire SEC is bleeding highly recruited back-ups to the portal.  Schools like Oklahoma State are going to lose 3rd year development projects here and there and they'll get back 1st year guys who were blue chippers that didn't want to wait 3 years as back-ups at Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc.

If you go down a level, SMU is about to add a couple of former Top 100 recruits in this transfer cycle.  The Big 12 will be getting those type of transfers, too.  

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

36 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's probably too early to say how the portal stuff will play out bc there seems to be quite a bit of agreement that this is not working out as well for players as everyone thought it would.  There are a ton of guys who enter the portal and don't land anywhere.  I'd expect further rules changes at some point.  That said...

Oklahoma State had a bunch of guys enter the portal after their bowl game.  The entire SEC is bleeding highly recruited back-ups to the portal.  Schools like Oklahoma State are going to lose 3rd year development projects here and there and they'll get back 1st year guys who were blue chippers that didn't want to wait 3 years as back-ups at Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc.

If you go down a level, SMU is about to add a couple of former Top 100 recruits in this transfer cycle.  The Big 12 will be getting those type of transfers, too.  

I think the argument can be made that high school recruiting is barely relevant these days. Why spend a bunch of time and energy on a 17/18-year-old, unproven kid when you can get a freshmen or sophomore with a couple years experience, in the weight room, maturity, etc. That's what's so funny about aggy acting like it won the NC and printing recruiting shirts ... odds are 50% of that class is gone before they hit the field.

[statsman 5428]

Yep. Whatevery school needs to realize is that all of their players are at will employees, and there is a school in Austin paying $100k plus for anyone that can make their roster. That three star guard in Srtillwater, recruited from Duncanville, who made seconds team all conference his sophomore year? Why would he stay at OSU for $30k when he can get $150k in Austin?

[Gaffords 755]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:10 PM, bullet said:

The Pac 12 was very interested in Texas----with Colorado.  But they had zero interest in Texas Tech and Texas knew they had to find a home for Tech.  So the Big 12 was the only option that could be sold politically.  aggy was ignorant politically and had to be taken to the woodshed to get them to understand the SEC was not an option for them in 1994.

This is correct. According to Slocum, aggy continued to stay in close contact with the SEC until they were slapped upside the head by some high ranking political heads to stop the bullshit...  Which they did stop... For a little while... -according to Slocum.  )

[TKthunder2 4981]

Quote

How the SEC tried to add Texas Longhorns more than 30 years ago under Harvey Schiller
 

When Harvey Schiller crossed paths with DeLoss Dodds in the days after Schiller left his post as SEC commissioner, he’d share a smile with the then-Texas athletics director.

Perhaps living behind those smiles was the thought of what could have been.

In July, Texas accepted an invitation to join the SEC in 2025, but the move could happen sooner.

If Schiller got his wish, it would have happened much, much sooner.

Texas was the apple of Schiller’s eye during his time as SEC commissioner from 1986-89.

And the interest was mutual from the Longhorns, Schiller said, although they stayed in the Southwest Conference until later leaving for the Big 12.

The SEC will grow to 16 teams after Texas and Oklahoma join. The conference had 10 teams while Schiller was commissioner. He desired more, and the SEC began exploring expansion.

“We focused on Arkansas and South Carolina, and really wanted Texas,” Schiller told me earlier this month. “So, something interesting happened: The (Texas) state legislature came back to me and said, ‘If you take Texas, you have to take Texas A&M.’ The funny part about it is that A&M was sort of lukewarm at the time about coming in.”

And the SEC wasn’t enthralled with the Aggies back then, Schiller said.

Dodds, in 1990, told the Associated Press that however the dust settled on conference realignment, the Longhorns and Aggies “will be together” in a conference.

Texas and Texas A&M remained in the Southwest Conference before joining Baylor, Texas Tech and the members of the Big Eight to found the Big 12. 

The Big 12 began competition in 1996, and the SWC folded.

Ironically, the SEC’s interest toward Texas A&M would change years down the road.

 

[bullet 1596]

I'll go with the horses mouth from what Texas and aggy thought at the time.

Again from Cunningham's discussion of realignment in 1989 and 1990 in Chapter 16 of "The Texas Way,"  "He <UGA president on June 30, 1989> said the SEC wanted UT Austin, and he wanted to know if I would be willing to consider it.  I told him we were honored to be asked to consider such a move, but that I couldn't say one way or another whether we would be interested.  I could only assure him that we would give it serious consideration....<several paragraphs later> Very candidly, I thought Texas would have a better chance of competing on a level playing field with Big 10 or PAC 10 opponents and, as a result, I was never very interested in the SEC."

As for A&M:  "My continuing discussions with Mobley <aggy president>, however, revealed that Texas A&M had no interest in the PAC 10 and would prefer the SEC.  I am not sure if the SEC was Mobley's personal preference or the consensus of his regents, but the result was that for a while we agreed to keep two sets of discussions going--UT with the PAC 10 and A&M with the SEC....and both conferences had accepted an arrangement for UT and A&M to continue playing each other on Thanksgiving Day...."

 

One thing consistent with the preceding article is that Cunningham knew politically, any move at the time required A&M to be satisfied with the result, so he talked to President Mobley early on.

 

 

[bullet 1596]

https://www.al.com/sports/2022/02/southern-miss-marshall-old-dominion-set-to-leave-conference-usa-after-june.html

Southern Miss, Marshall and ODU in lawyer speak claim CUSA won't negotiate an early exit and basically give CUSA the middle finger and say "Sue me!  We gone 6/30/22!"

CUSA basically said they aren't going to make public statements about it.  There is a 14 month CUSA early exit fee with no definition of the penalty for going before the 14 months.

[closetohumping 17408]

7 hours ago, bullet said:

https://www.al.com/sports/2022/02/southern-miss-marshall-old-dominion-set-to-leave-conference-usa-after-june.html

Southern Miss, Marshall and ODU in lawyer speak claim CUSA won't negotiate an early exit and basically give CUSA the middle finger and say "Sue me!  We gone 6/30/22!"

CUSA basically said they aren't going to make public statements about it.  There is a 14 month CUSA early exit fee with no definition of the penalty for going before the 14 months.

Interesting that they’ll do that but we are willing to stay to 2025

[mdmost 42876]

Lolz. That was fast.

 

[4th&Five 41462]

[mdmost 42876]

 

[TKthunder2 4981]

The Alliance

Cant vote together due to anti trust.

Wont unite/sponsor on a single post season plan.

Wont share TV revenue or jointly bid out rights.

and now won’t even commit to permanently schedule each other outside of how they’ve always done OOC scheduling.

So basically is just a friendship pact where they all expressed their anger at the SEC/Texas/OU and want to make it clear that the Big12 is not in their club.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

The only thing surprising about any of this is Gene Smith not being in favor of outdoor northern games.

[Gidnik 3251]

RIP Alliance late 2021 to early 2022. 

[camel at sea 589]

11 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The Alliance

Cant vote together due to anti trust.

Wont unite/sponsor on a single post season plan.

Wont share TV revenue or jointly bid out rights.

and now won’t even commit to permanently schedule each other outside of how they’ve always done OOC scheduling.

So basically is just a friendship pact where they all expressed their anger at the SEC/Texas/OU and want to make it clear that the Big12 is not in their club.

I'll be interested to see if the Big 12 eventually ends up a reluctant "friend" of the SEC.  From a sports culture standpoint, those two conferences will still be closely aligned on most issues even after Texas and OU move.  Getting the Big 12 to vote in lockstep would force the ACC into the tie-breaker role and I strongly guess they don't want to be in a position where they might have to vote against the best interest of their own football schools.  

It wouldn't be all that hard for the SEC to provide the Big 12 some carrots.  They could keep bowl tie-ins in place (to the extent that matters in an expanded CFP) and they could probably also keep the Big 12 - SEC challenge going in men's hoops.  I don't know if it would be necessary to facilitate some kind of rivalry series between the two leagues in football but the geography largely works for that, too, and once the CFP expands then playing more P5 teams throughout the season matters a lot less.

SEC schools playing historical little brothers OOC is good press / state politics for the SEC side and it's better money / access to relevance for the little brothers.   

[mdmost 42876]

Big 10 realized it didn't need the Pac 12 or ACC to move the needle and it's better to have Ohio State and Michigan play SEC and future SEC teams. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

State of Texas making a hard push today to be more like SEC in prohibiting faculty recruiting/retainment.  We should be as stupid as A&M, Oklahoma, and Mississippi State by 2023.  

[notre dame joe 173]

On 2/16/2022 at 1:46 PM, Gidnik said:

RIP Alliance late 2021 to early 2022. 

Oh that old thing?  If an allied tree falls in the forest...

 

NBC having some more real sports is about 20 years overdue.  As long as they understand there will be no consolidation.

[n64ra 1078]

tOSU and UM to the SEC by 2055.

[closetohumping 17408]

Excerpt from Chip, TLDR, we will have to pay 80M regardless of when we leave, ou not financially flexible, ESPN owes us 150M for LHN:

 

Spoiler

Right now, Texas and Oklahoma are on the record saying they plan to join the SEC when the Big 12’s current television rights agreement expires in July 2025.

But Texas and OU don’t get out of paying the roughly $80 million in exit fees by waiting until the Big 12 media rights agreement expires in July 2025.

Because Texas and OU agreed to a “99-year” granting of their media rights to the Big 12 Conference beginning July 1, 2012, Texas and OU have to pay the roughly $80 million in exit fees no matter when they decide to leave the Big 12 — whether it’s before or after 2025.

As far as any reduced exit-fee settlement being reached, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby has repeatedly said it’s the remaining league members’ intent to hold Texas and Oklahoma to paying every penny of those exit fees - and not accepting a discounted settlement to simply move on from each other.

“Most of the time, you don’t want a divorced couple continuing to live in the same house,” a Big 12 official told Horns247. “Not in this case. We can continue to live in the same house.”

Multiple sources told Horns247 this week, as of right now, Oklahoma isn’t as financially flexible as Texas is when it comes to having to pay the roughly $80 million in exit fees.

 

[TrashMaster G 17397]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Excerpt from Chip, TLDR, we will have to pay 80M regardless of when we leave, ou not financially flexible, ESPN owes us 150M for LHN:

 

  Hide contents

Right now, Texas and Oklahoma are on the record saying they plan to join the SEC when the Big 12’s current television rights agreement expires in July 2025.

But Texas and OU don’t get out of paying the roughly $80 million in exit fees by waiting until the Big 12 media rights agreement expires in July 2025.

Because Texas and OU agreed to a “99-year” granting of their media rights to the Big 12 Conference beginning July 1, 2012, Texas and OU have to pay the roughly $80 million in exit fees no matter when they decide to leave the Big 12 — whether it’s before or after 2025.

As far as any reduced exit-fee settlement being reached, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby has repeatedly said it’s the remaining league members’ intent to hold Texas and Oklahoma to paying every penny of those exit fees - and not accepting a discounted settlement to simply move on from each other.

“Most of the time, you don’t want a divorced couple continuing to live in the same house,” a Big 12 official told Horns247. “Not in this case. We can continue to live in the same house.”

Multiple sources told Horns247 this week, as of right now, Oklahoma isn’t as financially flexible as Texas is when it comes to having to pay the roughly $80 million in exit fees.

 

So, we've attached ourselves to an anchor?

[David Dennison 18694]

What an embarrassing clusterfuck.