Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BroncoOrange

More Big 12 expansion rumors

Recommended Posts

Exactly. 

The'll expand, but not until the new TV contract is up for renewal. Which is in 2025. That means talks will begin as soon as 2023?? I could also see OU leaving, not because of lack of CCG. But because of the LHN. As time goes on, the Big12 will continue to lose about $20+MM a year for lack of a CCG. While UT's revenue from the LHN will increase incrementally. Topping out at 70% of gross revenue per year once ESPN makes their money back. 

No way will the LHN fold, but it could very well push OU away even with 12 teams. 

Oh, there's a very real chance they can expand before 2025...  I'm saying that nobody is going to poach a team from the BigXII before that timeframe.  I think TV contract renewal has little to do with BigXII expansion now that Boren aired the news of the pro-rata increase in TV $$$ for any additional members.  There may be other factors that impact the bottom line of the existing BigXII member distributions given expansion but TV money isn't one of them.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel like Texas (and Oklahoma) ----> SEC is a perfect match waiting to happen, and will happen sooner than later.  

I can see the academic attraction to the Big 10, but culturally and geographically the SEC makes so much more sense.  

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest (and a greedy Longhorn), I'd rather not compromise on the LHN with the Big 12. I don't see the benefits to take less money, less control (of our media), and subsidize our conference mates. I understand that (nowadays) the idea of a conference is a communal asset where you work together to negotiate and also help each other out to build stronger overall athletic programs for each school and as a result, a stronger conference. I just don't feel that long term the conference is the solution. You have 8 schools in 3 states, schools in less populated states and multiple 2nd/3rd choice programs building the conference. It just doesn't compete with schools that make up the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12, which has top tier schools, vast media reach and historical programs. In the end, I just don't think the Big 12 can keep up financially.

If Texas were to give up the LHN, I'd much rather do it to join a conference with more potential going forward. In fact, I'd give it up in a heartbeat to join the SEC and probably Big Ten too. They are both more representative of what Texas is and should be athletically. The SEC has multiple historical powers, media reach, Texas does identify Southern more than Western or Plains, Arkansas and A&M are historical rivals (if OU went), LSU is a rival waiting to happen, the travel is easy and SEC is growing their other sports while already having strong Football and Baseball which is important to UT. The Big Ten is much the same without the rivals, though Nebraska was waiting to happen and the Big Ten baseball is weaker, but basketball stronger. Oh, and the CIC. The Pac-12 just doesn't draw as much interest to the average fans. Texas (people) aren't as interested in Pac-12 schools outside of USC, rivals would be much fewer and farther between other than those that come with us, travel for athletes is terrible, the game times would be late, and travel to game for fans would be bad. On the other hand, athletics is great, academics is great, the brand is huge west of Texas and it provides growth opportunity with new people being exposed to Texas. 

Like has been stated already Texas greed has already done a lot of harm to a once great conference.  Terms like "subsidize our conference mates" reeks of all things wrong with the Big 12 currently.  The LHN will average paying Texas $15 million a year, but has yet to even come close to paying for it's self.  How long will ESPN happily pay Texas for a dog that won't bark?   Inventory is one of the LHN biggest problems and currently why should the other Big 12 schools subsidize the LHN with conference inventory?  And it's not like Kansas and Oklahoma don't have pretty good 3rd tier rights contracts currently, that aren't losing their network partners money.

Look at the Big 10 model, you don't think Michigan, Ohio St, and Penn St aren't subsidizing some of their conference members (like Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, and ect...).   But by everyone pulling together everyone wins...  Same could be said for the SEC, they are using the same type model as used by the Big 10, with their heavyweights in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Tennessee.  Pac 12 is doing the same thing kind of, but choice to control all the rights themselves and it has been a tough going so far (only made around $1 million per this year).  The point is the conferences you listed are way better off than the Big 12, but the reason why the conference heavyweights don't mind subsidizing a little for the good of the conference as a whole...

 

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel like Texas (and Oklahoma) ----> SEC is a perfect match waiting to happen, and will happen sooner than later.  

I can see the academic attraction to the Big 10, but culturally and geographically the SEC makes so much more sense.  

From the Texas fans I have gathered that Texas wants not part of the SEC and a major reason is because of academics...  Then A&M is over there, check to see how many times Texas and A&M have played in anything since A&M made the move...

 

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  1 hour ago,  e-zone99 said:

Like has been stated already Texas greed has already done a lot of harm to a once great conference.  Terms like "subsidize our conference mates" reeks of all things wrong with the Big 12 currently.  The LHN will average paying Texas $15 million a year, but has yet to even come close to paying for it's self.  How long will ESPN happily pay Texas for a dog that won't bark?   Inventory is one of the LHN biggest problems and currently why should the other Big 12 schools subsidize the LHN with conference inventory?  And it's not like Kansas and Oklahoma don't have pretty good 3rd tier rights contracts currently, that aren't losing their network partners money.

Look at the Big 10 model, you don't think Michigan, Ohio St, and Penn St aren't subsidizing some of their conference members (like Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, and ect...).   But by everyone pulling together everyone wins...  Same could be said for the SEC, they are using the same type model as used by the Big 10, with their heavyweights in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Tennessee.  Pac 12 is doing the same thing kind of, but choice to control all the rights themselves and it has been a tough going so far (only made around $1 million per this year).  The point is the conferences you listed are way better off than the Big 12, but the reason why the conference heavyweights don't mind subsidizing a little for the good of the conference as a whole...

 

B)

 

We can go ad naseum at how Nebraska was ahead of Texas in forming their own network or how A&M was invited to join UT in making a Lone Star Network or how Nebraska was never going to turn down CIC membership regardless of how the Big 12 was or how the Big 8 members stuck it to Nebraska by voting with UT because of how Nebraska treated them in the Big 8 or how Oklahoma didn't want to play Nebraska every year because it would give UT an easier route to the division title since there is no Nebraska equivalent for UT to play or how A&M, Nebraska and OU voted with UT to do the unequal revenue sharing or that Missouri, Nebraksa and Kansas for 30, 40, 60 years have been begging for a Big Ten invite. Texas is the bad guy here, it's been established. Texas definitely took advantage of the situation which I honestly think was a bad decision long term as I don't think being the biggest fish in a small pond works. I'd rather go SEC or Big Ten and be one of 3 or 4 big fish.

But anyways, I hold the belief that the Big 12 was disadvantaged BEFORE being gutted. It had a small distribution base (population and statewide), it never had cohesive direction or goals, had too much deadweight (athletic/fan base) and was very imbalanced athletically. The SEC/Big Ten had the population/fan bases/clear direction and wasn't a conglomerate forced on each other.  But anyways you point to the SEC and Big Ten and point out how they pull together and support their lesser programs, but the difference is that ever their lesser programs bring in value. Minnesota still bring in the state of Minnesota as it's the state school, Indiana too, Iowa, Wisconsin, and so on. It's the same thing with the SEC. With the Big 12, Texas Tech, Baylor, K-State, even Okie State are redundant markets, redundant eyeballs. Iowa State is an afterthought in Iowa. That's almost half the conference that fails to bring in revenue to the conference where in the SEC, you could say Vandy, one of the Alabama schools and one of the Miss schools are redundant. in the Big Ten, Purdue, Michigan St, and Northwestern, but then again the population is higher in conference and allows revenue to be generated by many different schools. I would give the LHN up in a heartbeat to be in a conference(SEC or Big Ten) that we didn't have to carry on our shoulders. 

Now, I understand that the LHN distribution is low hanging fruit due to its slow rollout, but that's been corrected and the LHN is in more houses than the Pac-12 network (12 to 11). But honestly, the LHN is more than likely losing money as beside payouts to UT, ESPN is on the hook for all of the costs or production and negotiating distribution deals. However, it's not as bad as advertised. Anyways, I'd give up the LHN or hope it dies but only if we leave the big 12 and not to the PAC-12 or ACC. 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I doubt they wait that long, if they wait until 2023.   You don't publicly form an expansion committee, just to wait around another 8 years.  IMO, Texas is going to be pressured from Big 12 members and ESPN to roll the LHN into the newly named Big 12 Network.   And Texas will receive praises about being a team player and doing the leg work to starting the Big 12 Network.

But you could be right, because lately the Big 12 leadership has not done a whole lot of smart things (they have been pretty lacking to put it nicely)...    Smart moves have not been their strong point and that's they had 4 schools bolt and at least that many more look for a new home just in the last 5 years...

 

:blink:

Good point. My answer to that is - this "committee" is only to survey the current landscape of potential candidates. That is all. This does not mean they are officially going to expand. Right now, the last thing the Big12 wants is to expand all the way to Fla or expand to "bridge" WVA to the rest of the league. 

roflbot.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prediction B12 will expand by end of April of 2016.  Boise will not be invited BYU may or may not be invited. One or two eastern teams will be invited. I know not which.

This information comes directly from God. It is also contra-Blast and therefore must be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American_Athletic_Conference_Member_LocaMy money would be on Cincy and Houston. Those two will have updated facilities and certainly fall within the geographic footprint. 

 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We can go ad naseum at how Nebraska was ahead of Texas in forming their own network or how A&M was invited to join UT in making a Lone Star Network or how Nebraska was never going to turn down CIC membership regardless of how the Big 12 was or how the Big 8 members stuck it to Nebraska by voting with UT because of how Nebraska treated them in the Big 8 or how Oklahoma didn't want to play Nebraska every year because it would give UT an easier route to the division title since there is no Nebraska equivalent for UT to play or how A&M, Nebraska and OU voted with UT to do the unequal revenue sharing or that Missouri, Nebraksa and Kansas for 30, 40, 60 years have been begging for a Big Ten invite. Texas is the bad guy here, it's been established. Texas definitely took advantage of the situation which I honestly think was a bad decision long term as I don't think being the biggest fish in a small pond works. I'd rather go SEC or Big Ten and be one of 3 or 4 big fish.

 

Yeah Texas is the devil these days to a lot of people, but Nebraska was AWFUL during the majority of the Big 8 days, especially towards the end.

I was thrilled to see Texas help take away Nebraska's special privileges and give OU a partner to stand up to the Cornhuskers.

When James Brown beat them that year in the Big 12 CCG I was jumping up and down. 

lamb-with-human-face-150331-670.jpg?itok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston to the Big-12 just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and never really has because they don't add anything that the Big-12 doesn't already have. Sure they're a large TV market, but the Big-12 probably already owns most of that market due to their other Texas teams. Nor do they add any recruiting benefit since the Big-12 already has a huge presence in Texas. They don't fix the problem of WV being out on an island. Etc. etc.

The combo of Cinci and BYU makes a lot of sense to me....if the Big-12 really is interested in keeping WV happy. If they think that WV will eventually leave for the ACC or Big-10, and don't really care that much about keeping them happy as a result, then scrap Cinci and BYU/BSU starts making sense. If they decide that they just don't want BYU bad enough to put up with stuff like no Sunday play, then a combo of UCF/USF makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston to the Big-12 just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and never really has because they don't add anything that the Big-12 doesn't already have. Sure they're a large TV market, but the Big-12 probably already owns most of that market due to their other Texas teams. Nor do they add any recruiting benefit since the Big-12 already has a huge presence in Texas. They don't fix the problem of WV being out on an island. Etc. etc.

The combo of Cinci and BYU makes a lot of sense to me....if the Big-12 really is interested in keeping WV happy. If they think that WV will eventually leave for the ACC or Big-10, and don't really care that much about keeping them happy as a result, then scrap Cinci and BYU/BSU starts making sense. If they decide that they just don't want BYU bad enough to put up with stuff like no Sunday play, then a combo of UCF/USF makes a lot of sense.

I can't see how USF ever makes sense. No real football, less basketball, simply duplicates UCF in recruiting and market. UCF I understand. UCF and Cincy I understand, UCF and ECU I understand, UCF and Memphis is good if no one else is interested but USF and UCF is like taking the ugly fat sister to go along with the beautiful statuesque sister. They both live in the same house, they both know the same people, they both play the "clarinet" reasonably well but one is a home run and the other is a ground out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Five years ago USF was the top non power Florida school, and UCF was seen as the little sister. Everything is cyclical.

Expansion is based on long term fits, not short term success. That said, I don't think either Florida school makes sense for the Big 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing that Texas, OU, OSU, etc is going to want to be associated with a team that plays on a blue field. 

If Boise is getting an invite, that means those mentioned teams are leaving.  And I'm a homer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Five years ago USF was the top non power Florida school, and UCF was seen as the little sister. Everything is cyclical.

Expansion is based on long term fits, not short term success. That said, I don't think either Florida school makes sense for the Big 12.

Here is the FSU football record for the last five years

2010 8-5

2011 5-7

2012 3-9

2013 2--10

2014 4-8

Since their football program began in 1997 their overall winning record is 54% however the first 5 years of that was as a 1-AA school. Like all schools they have had the occasional 8-5 or 9-4 season but overall they are exceedingly poor.

I do however agree that except for recruiting and market there are serious flaws in bringing either Florida school into the B12 however that is true of almost all the schools except BYU (who has many other faults.)  In a sports world driven by TV ratings any school with 61,000 students and almost 300,000 living alumni in a very large TV market must make some sense.

One of the reasons nobody is seriously mentioning Boise, despite their excellent football record, is their lack of a market and relatively small number of living alumni.

Of course my choice for the B12 would be SDSU a relatively large school in an extremely large destination city within a large DMA. However because of geography that will not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blue field has zero to do with it.  Only some here are petty about it, the rest of college football sees it's value. 

Geography and an educational ranking below others will be the boat anchor.  Once Carnegie RU or whatever the first level status is attained it will be mainly geography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Boise is getting an invite, that means those mentioned teams are leaving.  And I'm a homer.

Exactly...nobody here or hereabouts is ever likely to compete in a Big 12 with a Texas, OU, etc.  

I remain firmly of the opinion that any western adds (particularly any MWC schools) will only come as a result of something fairly catastrophic occurring to the Big 12...not a missed playoff or two.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons nobody is seriously mentioning Boise, despite their excellent football record, is their lack of a market and relatively small number of living alumni.

A lot of people are seriously mentioning Boise State.

The problem is that no one whose opinion actually matters is mentioning Boise State, or anyone else for that matter.

Let's not act like the Big 12 officials are talking openly about Cincy/BYU and the Florida also-rans but leaving Boise State out of the conversations.  

lamb-with-human-face-150331-670.jpg?itok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boise market isn't even an issue anymore.  In the MWC we have some really large markets nearby member schools but Espin only wanted to pay Boise. 

If the dinosaur execs can figure out somehow that eyes are watching it won't matter if those eyes within 20 miles of campus or not.  And they figured out that Byu, in spite of Provo, and Boise State in spite of Boise have tv value.   Good for them.  They grew past DMA's for once.  

The issue will be geography mainly and it will be a deal killer IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they wait that long, if they wait until 2023.   You don't publicly form an expansion committee, just to wait around another 8 years.  IMO, Texas is going to be pressured from Big 12 members and ESPN to roll the LHN into the newly named Big 12 Network.   And Texas will receive praises about being a team player and doing the leg work to starting the Big 12 Network.

This. Maybe nobody leaves until 2025 but that doesn't mean they won't already have accepted an offer to join another conference before then. 2023 sounds about right to me too and what Chip Brown speculates is what many of us have thought ever since hearing from Boren: Okies to the SEC.

You're prolly also gonna be right about the LHN being the basis of a B12 network.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American_Athletic_Conference_Member_LocaMy money would be on Cincy and Houston. Those two will have updated facilities and certainly fall within the geographic footprint. 

 

Chances of Tulsa being added to the B12: Absolute zero. UConn's, Temple's and Navy's chances are slightly better: Regular zero.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...