Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***

Status
Not open for further replies.
CyFan61 said:
Combined populations of Big 12 states and Florida: 56.5 million

Combined populations of Big 10 states: 69.4 million

Roughly comparable. Let's say it's Florida State and Clemson, which seem to be the two most common schools named - the state of South Carolina would add 4.7 million more people (Big 12 total raised to 61.2 million). We wouldn't get the best deal we could if Texas wasn't included, but the content would still have some value.

These numbers aren't exact, and they don't include the big boost that the Big Ten will get from Maryland and Rutgers, either.
Click to expand...
We need a Cal school to get a bigger eyeball count.
 
I really hope we get a national network, but then if we ate just out for eye balls, then we go grab Cincy unfortunately. State of Ohio is 11+ mil.
 
CyFan61 said:
Combined populations of Big 12 states and Florida: 56.5 million

Combined populations of Big 10 states: 69.4 million

Roughly comparable. Let's say it's Florida State and Clemson, which seem to be the two most common schools named - the state of South Carolina would add 4.7 million more people (Big 12 total raised to 61.2 million). We wouldn't get the best deal we could if Texas wasn't included, but the content would still have some value.

These numbers aren't exact, and they don't include the big boost that the Big Ten will get from Maryland and Rutgers, either.
Click to expand...

Except our biggest asset wants to have their own agenda and their own revenue streams.
 
HFCS said:
With or without the LHN, if the Big 12 gets into Florida in a major way like FSU or FSU/Miami, Big 12 Network needs to happen asap. If you're the main college sports conference in Texas and Florida with a handful of other states, that network is a valuable commodity even if it's all tier 3 or non UT content.

Even with a Big 12 network I think things like cyclones.tv are incredible for athletic depts going forward. It's great that our volleyball, wrestling, etc are available on it all over the world. I doubt BTN or any other conference network will ever give that kind of coverage to any individual team.
Click to expand...

As technology changes and ala carte cable/satellite TV pricing evolves, schools in the SEC and B1G are going to crave the current B12 T3 model instead of their own conference networks.
 
A couple interesting, speculative posts from the WVU board:

OhioStateFan said:
I can assure everyone that the B1G is not concerned with the ACC exit fees. When the B1G is ready to expand, it will. Virginia will be #15 and ND has the option to be #16. If ND wants to wait longer, expect either UNC or GT to be #16. I have been told ND has until sometime in January to decide.
Click to expand...



So the obvious question is why would the SEC allow FSU to fall into the hands of the B1G. I asked and the answer was that the B1G already recruit Florida. The B1G network is carried in Florida and the SEC already recruits against everyone in Florida.

Do they have concern? Yes, but not enough concern to offset the financial implications of duplicating markets they already have.

The same source tells me the SEC is focused on UNC/Duke. I found it hard to believe in the beginning and it was explained to me the SEC would love to have the UNC/Duke rivalry for the upcoming network and the immediate boast to the SEC's basketball product they would add.

The SEC isn't going to move and put the wammy on the ACC. They will wait until the B1G acts and then pick up UNC/Duke in the aftermath.

Is FSU trying to leverage a possible B1G invite to get an SEC invite? Barron would be stupid if he didn't try.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of, and everyone I talk to in the ACC, agrees, is that the ACC will implode.

There will be only 4 and as long as FSU refuses to sign a grant-of-rights the ACC will be the outcast.
Click to expand...
 
cykadelic2 said:
As technology changes and ala carte cable/satellite TV pricing evolves, schools in the SEC and B1G are going to crave the current B12 T3 model instead of their own conference networks.
Click to expand...
Depends on the time frame of those events happening (if ever for ala carte cable). If it is not within 7-10 years, it will not matter due to the head start in wealth and influence they will have. At the time carriage fees are not such a revenue generator, they would just go with the different T3 model, and still make more than the Big 12 (if it is still around) as they would be in the relevant conferences.

You do realize the Big 12 is also susceptible to ala carte cable? Just because we are inefficient in using forced carriage fees to generate revenue, does not mean our revenue is much more resistant. Our TV money is largely tied to ESPN and FOX being able to charge large carriage fees (especially ESPN) due to no ala carte cable.
 
Last edited:
acgclone said:
I guess my fear for the conference, is that you basically have only two marquee football schools (UT and OU) and one marquee basketball powerhouse (KU). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying production on the field or court, as the past couple of seasons have proven for football and last year's tourney did for basketball.

I'm talking about traditional powerhouses. I guess I think that the B1G has tOSU, Mich, Penn State and Nebraska in football. The SEC is obvious.

I think we need some more cache to the conference and FSU and either Miami/Clemson/etc would bring that, and I think that would help solidify the conferences.
Click to expand...

Who says you need more than two "traditional powerhouses" to be a successful, stable conference? The Big Ten flourished for years as OSU, Michigan, and "the little 8". The PAC has only had one powerhouse for their history (USC...sorry, Oregon, you're not they're yet) and they're considered rock solid.

Conversely, the ACC is arguably worse-off in terms of stability after adding traditional powerhouses Florida State, Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech.

I just don't see any evidence to suggest that only having 2 traditional powerhouses out of 10 is a problem, or that adding more of them will somehow lead to greater stability.
 
DistrictCyclone said:
Who says you need more than two "traditional powerhouses" to be a successful, stable conference? The Big Ten flourished for years as OSU, Michigan, and "the little 8". The PAC has only had one powerhouse for their history (USC...sorry, Oregon, you're not they're yet) and they're considered rock solid.

Conversely, the ACC is arguably worse-off in terms of stability after adding traditional powerhouses Florida State, Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech.
Click to expand...
If you are going to give the ACC multiple powerhouses with BC and VT, you will need to re-access the Pac-10 and Big 10.
 
DistrictCyclone said:
Whatever, it doesn't detract from my point.
Click to expand...
I would say not accurately counting the number of "powers" in each conference detracts from a contention about the impact of having multiple powers in a conference.

Nevertheless, it does matter when one considers the difference in revenue models and fundamentals. The other conferences either have, or are looking to have, higher populations in their footprint, with revenue models that capitalize on this. The Big 12's natural audience is rather small, and its revenue more dependent on quality of inventory. In other words, it is (and has been) more important for the Big 12 to have powers than other conferences.
 
DistrictCyclone said:
Whatever, it doesn't detract from my point.
Click to expand...

Big part of your point is that "powerhouse" has more to do with people tuning in to watch rather than how good a team actually is.

The Big 12 has 5-6 teams who have all outperformed Michigan for quite some time, but they're still Michigan.

Florida State and Miami would be teams like that regardless of if they're actually winning. Even with luke warm fan support and not in their glory years, Miami vs. big 12 team with a pulse is a national draw. Obviously FSU is and has more traditional fan support as well. We'd have four of those "names" in addition to all the teams that play just as well as the big names.
 
My point is that there's no evidence suggesting that the ratio of "powerhouse" schools by itself has any effect on the stability of a conference.
 
DistrictCyclone said:
My point is that there's no evidence suggesting that the ratio of "powerhouse" schools by itself has any effect on the stability of a conference.
Click to expand...

If you lose your anchors you're done for. It may take a while for a conference to lose its juice (cf Big East) but you lose your anchors and you're a shell of what you once were even if you continue to exist.

If the PAC loses 3 or 4 of the Cali schools, they rest of the schools scramble.
If the B12 loses TX and OU, the rest scramble.
If the ACC loses FSU and UNC, the rest scramble.
If the B10 loses the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State combo, the rest scramble.
If the SEC loses Florida, Bama, Georgia, and LSU the rest scramble.

You have to keep your anchors in place. Just my opinion though.
 
cyman05 said:
If you lose your anchors you're done for. It may take a while for a conference to lose its juice (cf Big East) but you lose your anchors and you're a shell of what you once were even if you continue to exist.

If the PAC loses 3 or 4 of the Cali schools, they rest of the schools scramble.
If the B12 loses TX and OU, the rest scramble.
If the ACC loses FSU and UNC, the rest scramble.
If the B10 loses the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State combo, the rest scramble.
If the SEC loses Florida, Bama, Georgia, and LSU the rest scramble.

You have to keep your anchors in place. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Sure, but we've seen conferences be successful with many powerhouses (SEC) and with few powerhouses (PAC). I just don't see any reason to fret when we "only" have two historical powerhouses in the conference.
 
Remember The B1G comish is a UNC grad he would love im sure to get his alamater in his conference. If its UVA and UNC that would go to the B1G it would be interesting to see where the SEC goes is it VT and NCST like we had heard earlier because of the agreement between the SEC schools not to go after anyone that is in an SEC state? or do they ammend that agreement and look at FSU or Clemson. I could see the B12 if they wanted to go to 16 and there are no indications they want to go to 12 let alone 16 look at UCONN, Syracuse, Pitt, duke, Clemson and FSU
 
DistrictCyclone said:
Sure, but we've seen conferences be successful with many powerhouses (SEC) and with few powerhouses (PAC). I just don't see any reason to fret when we "only" have two historical powerhouses in the conference.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. But you'd better have at least 1 or 2 historical powerhouses that can draw the big TV ratings whether they're good or bad who also have some good recruiting territory to maintain themselves as a powerhouse. You lose all your traditional anchor schools and you're in trouble.

-USC, Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Florida State, etc.
 
cykadelic2 said:
As technology changes and ala carte cable/satellite TV pricing evolves, schools in the SEC and B1G are going to crave the current B12 T3 model instead of their own conference networks.
Click to expand...

The ala carte cable\satellite thing is a fantasy that some have that is never coming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back