***Official Big 12 Expansion Thread '16***

[surly]

I only point out that there are many fine schools. AAU membership is certainly nice but not the only criteria for selecting a standard of excellence. Dartmouth, Tulane, West Point are great schools too. TCU is a fine school and has proven it was worthy of an invite to this league and not only in football.

 

[SoapyCy]

I only point out that there are many fine schools. AAU membership is certainly nice but not the only criteria for selecting a standard of excellence. Dartmouth, Tulane, West Point are great schools too. TCU is a fine school and has proven it was worthy of an invite to this league and not only in football.

That's my whole point. Arguing about AAU status, which 90% of people have never heard of, is silly in realignment. You think the SEC holds their academic reputation up for the world world to see? Nope. It's football and football money. Period. AAU status is nice but no one in the history of college sports fandom ever cheered for a team or conference based on AAU status.

 

[cykadelic2]

No it doesn't. Academics is a factor just like football success, fan base, geography, etc. It is not irrelevant as you claim. It is also not the sole determinant.

I think it is silly to say otherwise considering that 10 university presidents are going to be the group that ends up making this decision. Each of them would love to add schools that, all else being equal, were Carnegie I, AAU members, highly ranked by USNWR, etc. The presidents believe that the conference's academic prestige reflects in some way on its own members, including their school.

Completely agree. Those who completely dismiss academics when it comes to realignment are flat out wrong. If a school is not a state flagship university, academics play an even bigger role. Louisville is the only exception I can think of but to their credit, they have taken several steps to try and shed the commuter school label and they are not in a pro sports market like other similar schools such as Cincy and Houston. The ACC made a mistake taking Louisville over UConn but BC (and their buddy ND) lobbied against UConn.

 

[acgclone]

If TCU delivers the Dallas market, why did no major conference other than the Big 12 (besides a desperate Big East that eventually eliminated football as a result of realignment) ever consider bringing them into the conference? In fact, why has no major conference other than the Big 12 ever considered bringing in schools such as SMU, Houston, and Rice? Could it possibly be because they DON'T deliver those TV sets like you claim?

Here are the TV viewers for 2015 common opponents.....

vs Baylor: TCU- 5.108m / ISU- 1.653m
vs WVU: TCU- 916k / ISU- 471k
vs OU: TCU- 3.856m / ISU- 554k
vs KSU: TCU- 2.734m / ISU- 363k
vs Okie St: TCU- 2.376m / ISU- 1.741m
vs Texas: TCU- 2.768m / ISU- 742k

Could not find numbers for ISU vs KU and Tech for some reason, but TCU had 398k and 2.770m respectively.

The average for the 6 common opponents (where both TCU and ISU have data) is 2.960m viewers/game for TCU vs 921k for ISU.

Last year, TCU averaged over 3x as many viewers against the same teams as ISU.

I realize that TCU was really good last year and we were abysmal, but TCU has an easier path to continuing their success in the future than ISU does of climbing the W/L ladder and becoming a brand that people care about.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Here are the TV viewers for 2015 common opponents.....

vs Baylor: TCU- 5.108m / ISU- 1.653m
vs WVU: TCU- 916k / ISU- 471k
vs OU: TCU- 3.856m / ISU- 554k
vs KSU: TCU- 2.734m / ISU- 363k
vs Okie St: TCU- 2.376m / ISU- 1.741m
vs Texas: TCU- 2.768m / ISU- 742k

Could not find numbers for ISU vs KU and Tech for some reason, but TCU had 398k and 2.770m respectively.

The average for the 6 common opponents (where both TCU and ISU have data) is 2.960m viewers/game for TCU vs 921k for ISU.

Last year, TCU averaged over 3x as many viewers against the same teams as ISU.

I realize that TCU was really good last year and we were abysmal, but TCU has an easier path to continuing their success in the future than ISU does of climbing the W/L ladder and becoming a brand that people care about.

This is one of the most apples-to-oranges comparisons I have seen.

TCU played:
Oklahoma in an ABC Saturday night game
Baylor in an ESPN Saturday night game
K-State in a FOX Saturday night game
Texas on ABC
Oklahoma State on FOX
Texas Tech on FOX

So of course they had many, many more viewers than Iowa State vs. all of those schools.

 

[acgclone]

This is one of the most apples-to-oranges comparisons I have seen.

TCU played:
Oklahoma in an ABC Saturday night game
Baylor in an ESPN Saturday night game
K-State in a FOX Saturday night game
Texas on ABC
Oklahoma State on FOX
Texas Tech on FOX

So of course they had many, many more viewers than Iowa State vs. all of those schools.

It's not apples to oranges. It's common opponents. You really can't get more apples to apples than that.

Your argument is actually proving the point that TCU is a more attractive TV option.

I would love to see data otherwise.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

It's not apples to oranges. It's common opponents. You really can't get more apples to apples than that.

Your argument is actually proving the point that TCU is a more attractive TV option.

I would love to see data otherwise.

You can't compare a game on ABC to one on FS1 and then use the viewership numbers to say "[Team on ABC] draws more viewers than [Team on FS1]."

 

[Beyerball]

If the Big 12 does fold, this expansion talk is code for schools working out deals to move to other conferences.

Texas, Kansas, and ISU to the Big 10
Tech, WVU to the ACC
OU, OSU to the SEC
TCU, Baylor to the PAC 10
KSU to whoever will take them.

Nevery happen..TCU and Baylor will never ever be invited to the PAC..ever. Why do you think BYU hasn't been? BYU is a perfect fit for the PAC. Because the PAC will never ever invite a religious institution..ever. TCU and Baylor would not receive a single vote from one PAC president. The only schools the BIG and PAC are going to consider from the Big 12 are: KU, TX, OU, ISU...That's it. Tech, WV, Kstate and Okie st are just too awful academically to get any votes from Presidents of the BIG and PAC.

Also..Delaney will be gone from the BIG next expansion round if there is one..so he won't be around bullying Presidents. Several BIG Presidents have publicly made comments that they are not pleased with Nebraska lack of academic prowess.

 

[Beyerball]

That's my whole point. Arguing about AAU status, which 90% of people have never heard of, is silly in realignment. You think the SEC holds their academic reputation up for the world world to see? Nope. It's football and football money. Period. AAU status is nice but no one in the history of college sports fandom ever cheered for a team or conference based on AAU status.

Well that's because the SEC could care less about academics...And academics do matter..conference schools collaborate in many academic situations..Academic $$ Trump football any day of the week to Presidents..These schools are billion and some multi billion dollar endowments..Kinda makes getting $45mil a year from TV deals look like nothing.

5-6 years ago Iowa State was making $8 mil a year from TV revenue...$8 million. The University endowment is what $800 million? ISU as an institution was doing just fine.

What ISU needs to make sure doesn't happen is losing AAU status in the next 5-6 years..nothing could more critical IMO in keeping ISU sports relevant for the future. AAU status might just save ISU come another big realignment.

 

[acgclone]

You can't compare a game on ABC to one on FS1 and then use the viewership numbers to say "[Team on ABC] draws more viewers than [Team on FS1]."

But that backs up my point. We are relegated to the worst channels and time slots because we bring very few viewers. TCU gets prime spots because far more people watch their games.

I realize that's not because they have a huge alumni base, etc. But they win and people love watching teams that win.

They are also in Dallas/FW which has over twice as many people as the state of Iowa.

Maybe in a couple years Campell will have us winning 11-12 games regularly. That is the only way to get more apples to apples.

 

[colbycheese]

West Virginia proves that's not true.

WVU was chosen over Louisville because it is a land grant institution. The Big 12 had just lost three land grants and were looking to add two non-land grant institutions (TCU & Louisville) as replacements. ISU, KSU, and OSU basically would not allow a vote on anybody unless one of the two schools was a land grant. Thus WVU got in. The presidents are on record saying as much.

This is why I would not be surprised if UCONN and/or Colorado State end up on the short list.

 

[everyyard]

WVU was chosen over Louisville because it is a land grant institution. The Big 12 had just lost three land grants and were looking to add two non-land grant institutions (TCU & Louisville) as replacements. ISU, KSU, and OSU basically would not allow a vote on anybody unless one of the two schools was a land grant. Thus WVU got in. The presidents are on record saying as much.

This is why I would not be surprised if UCONN and/or Colorado State end up on the short list.

Link? WVU got in because they were best football State university available.

 

[cynuck]

Well that's because the SEC could care less about academics...And academics do matter..conference schools collaborate in many academic situations..Academic $$ Trump football any day of the week to Presidents..These schools are billion and some multi billion dollar endowments..Kinda makes getting $45mil a year from TV deals look like nothing.

5-6 years ago Iowa State was making $8 mil a year from TV revenue...$8 million. The University endowment is what $800 million? ISU as an institution was doing just fine.

What ISU needs to make sure doesn't happen is losing AAU status in the next 5-6 years..nothing could more critical IMO in keeping ISU sports relevant for the future. AAU status might just save ISU come another big realignment.

I believe ISU has had AAU status since 1958. Is there any reason to believe it will be lost in the next 5-6 years?

 

[jdoggivjc]

Here are the TV viewers for 2015 common opponents.....

vs Baylor: TCU- 5.108m / ISU- 1.653m
vs WVU: TCU- 916k / ISU- 471k
vs OU: TCU- 3.856m / ISU- 554k
vs KSU: TCU- 2.734m / ISU- 363k
vs Okie St: TCU- 2.376m / ISU- 1.741m
vs Texas: TCU- 2.768m / ISU- 742k

Could not find numbers for ISU vs KU and Tech for some reason, but TCU had 398k and 2.770m respectively.

The average for the 6 common opponents (where both TCU and ISU have data) is 2.960m viewers/game for TCU vs 921k for ISU.

Last year, TCU averaged over 3x as many viewers against the same teams as ISU.

I realize that TCU was really good last year and we were abysmal, but TCU has an easier path to continuing their success in the future than ISU does of climbing the W/L ladder and becoming a brand that people care about.

All those numbers, and yet you never addressed my question - if TCU, Houston, SMU, and Rice offered potential TV markets to the ACC or any other conference, why is it the Big 12 - who already has those TV markets locked up - is the only conference that has added them or is considering adding them?

Answer? Because they DON'T deliver those TV markets.

 

[jdoggivjc]

But that backs up my point. We are relegated to the worst channels and time slots because we bring very few viewers. TCU gets prime spots because far more people watch their games.

No, TCU got more ABC/prime TV slot games because they finished 11 and freaking 2 last year while ISU finished 5-7. You honestly think that, besides Texas, networks are going to put a lousy football team on prominent airtime? That would be insane. In years when ISU actually had somewhat decent football ISU had more prominent airtime.

Someone earlier said you're comparing apples and oranges - they were wrong. You are comparing apples and concrete blocks.

 

[Judoka]

I wish ISU had finished 5-7.

 

[jbhtexas]

I wish ISU had finished 5-7.

Me too. If that really did happen, apparently I was off in another time continuum during that period...

 

[CyCrazy]

I believe ISU has had AAU status since 1958. Is there any reason to believe it will be lost in the next 5-6 years?

No.

 

[isu83]

didn't stop Louisville from joining. Don't think they'd add a UCONN over WVU. ISU would get in due to academics and getting somewhat of a foothold into the midwest markets (not saying ISU is a big market but it would help expand their footprint into that area). Plus the ACC is a big basketball conference and ISU has a decent basketball reputation now.

I'm curious if Pitt would try blocking WVU out. Not sure how that relationship is between the 2 schools.

My Pac-12 picks I'm not confident on but I can't see them adding a BYU, Boise St. or UNLV. They might add Colorado St. before Kansas St. but not sure Colorado would like that.

Actually I agree. I was poking fun. Lol.

 

[isucy86]

It's not apples to oranges. It's common opponents. You really can't get more apples to apples than that.

Your argument is actually proving the point that TCU is a more attractive TV option.

I would love to see data otherwise.

I would agree with your point that TCU is a much better option than ISU when it comes to conference realignment. Dalls is a better TV market and Texans love their FB. Adding a north Texas team to the ACC, Big10 or SEC would assist in recruiting. Plus, I am very confident Jamie Dixon will have TCU hoops a top 25 program within 3 years.

That said, you cannot compare TV ratings by opponent and say that is an apples-to-apples comparision. Ther are two VERY significant variables that impact viewership. As the earlier poster mentioned distribution network, plus I'll add time slot (11am/ 2:30pm / 7pm). Just look at the ratings, there are roughly 4 distribution channel tiers:

Best - Network: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX
Good - ESPN, ESPN2, FS1
Bad - ESPN3, ESPNU, BTN, SEC
Worst - Pac12, FOX Regional, NBCS, CBSS