Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
swarthmoreCY said:
Which apparently is long-term planning to Al. The old Big 12 thought its long-term plan of not having revenue sharing and a GoR to keep NU and UT happy was okay back in 2000.
Unless a la carte cable occurs in the next 10 years, the Big 12 staying at 10 is nothing but a short-term plan.
Click to expand...

First, the B12 didn't think anything. The member schools (including Nebraska) were the old B12 and they decided things. I would imagine that when the conference looks to renew TV contracts in 11-12 years, the GOR will be renewed too. It would be dumb to sign a GOR that outlives the TV contracts. And it would be dumb to sign a TV contract longer than what we did. So how could they plan any longer term than what they did?
 
Die4Cy said:
Is the Big 12 the conference who have read the tea leaves correctly and are set up for the best long term success? The Ubben article reads that way.

It seems the argument goes like this: the new college football playoff will choose participants based upon quality wins and strength of schedule. Since the Big 12 routinely plays the toughest schedules top to bottom, they are uniquely qualified to benefit from the new playoff format. Other leagues that weaken their conferences by adding "markets" also undercut their playoff potential.

But do we know for certain that the 8 team playoff will choose primarily based upon quality wins and strength of schedule? Does one really think a SEC or B1G team that is 11-1 with a SOS of around 40 gets dumped in favor of a 10-2 or 9-3 team from the Big XII with a SOS of 6 or above? I think the selection committee will be under huge pressure to include the B1G and SEC team in that scenario. As long as there is a human component, as we have seen with the BCS polls, we can expect some favoritism to be played.

I think the Big XII is gambling that the playoff will reward them exclusively for playing their tough round robin, and once we shift to that dynamic the mega-SEC/B1G will be exposed and fall apart. I am not convinced.
Click to expand...
The other reason is due to money. I'm sure that if we could get a team that would add value to the amount that each school was getting we would. The thing is the big ten and big 12 are operating under different models. The big 10 doesn't care about quality, only quantity when adding members. The big 12 cares about quality because we are signing agreements with tv companies to carry our games. The big 12 argues that the best way to do well as a conference is to get schools the most money to help them compete and win championships and I agree with them.
 
While I'm indifferent towards the addition of Louisville to the Big 12 (while I'm not opposed to their inclusion, I would hate to think that their inclusion was the center of our expansion), just keep one thing in mind - TCU was once a member of the Big East. They played a grand total of ZERO Big East games before they joined the Big 12.

I'm not convinced adding Louisville stabilizes the ACC in any way. They're just another basketball school being added to a conference choosing to be a "basketball first" conference, upsetting the "football first" members of the conference even more in the process (Yeah, FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, and VT may have been part of the unanimous vote, but it doesn't mean they're happy about it). The addition of Louisville doesn't stop UNC, Virginia, VT, NCST, Clemson, GT, FSU, and Miami from bolting to the Big 12, Big 10, or SEC. Hell, in such a scenario, they may not even be able to hold onto Louisville or even Pittsburgh. ESPECIALLY if the ACC can't enforce the $50 million buyout from Maryland. If the judge rules against the ACC, it's just a matter of time before the ACC is relegated to something worse than the Big East from which they were poaching.

As far as Kansas "leaving" for the Big East, let me break out my Joker impression and say I am not worried about that whatsoever - Not. One. Bit. While I can understand Jayhawk fan drooling over the prospect of playing a Big 10 schedule, I can't imagine their AD liking the prospect of paying the Big 12 their Big 10 TV money for the next 13 years. And I'm sorry, I just don't see them weaseling out of the GoR.
 
Look, I'm not saying staying at 10 is long term planning.

What I'm saying is that adding teams just because everyone else is doing it, and getting caught up in mass hysteria is foolish, unless the right teams are available. We know what the right teams are, and at this point in time, they aren't available.

The Big 12 does more damage to itself by watering down its product and lowering the amount of money each school receives. That's what a Louisville/Cincy type add does. We are better in the long term at 10 than we are at 12 with those two. Adding Louisville would not have prevented the ACC from filling its divot. What it would have done was add a school to the Big 12 that didn't add any revenue for existing members, and took a spot from a potential FSU/Clemson/GA Tech/Miami.

If you can't see this, you're an idiot. And most of the people who are advocating immediate expansion for expansion's sake have proven their mental competence long ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: im4cyclones
Whether or not the GOR is rock solid doesn't matter. What matters is that no school is going to be willing to challenge that in court. Even if you think there is a 75% chance you can win that, you have to declare your intention to leave before you can challenge it. How many schools will put themselves in what situation? If you lose, you aren't coming back to the Big12 and no conference will want you without a TV package. You've basically killed your athletics program for years.
 
im4cyclones said:
First, the B12 didn't think anything. The member schools (including Nebraska) were the old B12 and they decided things. I would imagine that when the conference looks to renew TV contracts in 11-12 years, the GOR will be renewed too. It would be dumb to sign a GOR that outlives the TV contracts. And it would be dumb to sign a TV contract longer than what we did. So how could they plan any longer term than what they did?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a short-term plan is all they can do (they failed at expanding and going to a conference network), but that would not mean it is a long term plan, nor that anyone calling for expanding and having a true Big 12 network is short-sighted.

You say "the Big 12 didn't think anything", yet you are confident they are thinking correctly now? Not thinking is a kind way of saying they were thinking poorly. The Big 12 (NU and UT) was behind the times by "not thinking" then, and are behind the times by not using cable and expansion as a way to generate revenue and influence that competes with the SEC and Big 10.

For the reason you say it would be dumb to sign a GoR that outlives TV contracts is why staying at 10 is not a long-term plan- the "haves" do not want to be locked into a bad deal when things change. When the GoR is near completion, some of the Big 12 teams will have no issue going elsewhere. Unfortunately, they are the ones likely to not be for expansion and changing the T3 rights.

I have not read every post, but few are calling for expansion just for the sake of change. There are several configurations of additions that would be worth adding if the Big 12 was willing to handle T3 differently.
 
Last edited:
swarthmoreCY said:
Perhaps a short-term plan is all they can do (they failed at expanding and going to a conference network), but that would not mean it is a long term plan, nor that anyone calling for expanding and having a true Big 12 network is short-sighted.

You say "the Big 12 didn't think anything", yet you are confident they are thinking correctly now? Not thinking is a kind way of saying they were thinking poorly. The Big 12 (NU and UT) was behind the times by "not thinking" then, and are behind the times by not using cable and expansion as a way to generate revenue and influence that competes with the SEC and Big 10.

For the reason you say it would be dumb to sign a GoR outlives TV contracts is why staying at 10 is not a long-term plan- the "haves" do not want to be locked into a bad deal when things change. When the GoR is near completion, some of the Big 12 teams will have no issue going elsewhere. Unfortunately, they are the ones likely to not be for expansion and changing the T3 rights.
Click to expand...

Who said they failed at expanding and having a conference TV network? Since you aren't a porn star, married to a super model, then I can say you failed? You don't want those or didn't try? Doesn't matter, you failed because you don't have them. Same logic. You say the conference failed because they didn't expand and don't have a network. Who did they invite to join that turned us down? And where did you see that we had the opportunity to have a network and turned it down? If we didn't, you can't say we failed.

Plus when UT is the only school to have their own network, can they really be behind the times? Granted, it hasn't worked how they thought. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
 
Al_4_State said:
Look, I'm not saying staying at 10 is long term planning.

What I'm saying is that adding teams just because everyone else is doing it, and getting caught up in mass hysteria is foolish, unless the right teams are available. We know what the right teams are, and at this point in time, they aren't available.

The Big 12 does more damage to itself by watering down its product and lowering the amount of money each school receives. That's what a Louisville/Cincy type add does. We are better in the long term at 10 than we are at 12 with those two. Adding Louisville would not have prevented the ACC from filling its divot. What it would have done was add a school to the Big 12 that didn't add any revenue for existing members, and took a spot from a potential FSU/Clemson/GA Tech/Miami.

If you can't see this, you're an idiot. And most of the people who are advocating immediate expansion for expansion's sake have proven their mental competence long ago.
Click to expand...

Amen brotha!!! We are fine right were we stand. All the idiots who are wringing their hands about expansion need to shut up.
 
im4cyclones said:
Who said they failed at expanding and having a conference TV network? Since you aren't a porn star, married to a super model, then I can say you failed? You don't want those or didn't try? Doesn't matter, you failed because you don't have them. Same logic. You say the conference failed because they didn't expand and don't have a network. Who did they invite to join that turned us down? And where did you see that we had the opportunity to have a network and turned it down? If we didn't, you can't say we failed.

Plus when UT is the only school to have their own network, can they really be behind the times? Granted, it hasn't worked how they thought. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

"Perhaps a short-term plan is all they can do (they failed at expanding and going to a conference network), but that would not mean it is a long term plan"

No one said they did.

In response to your question "how could they plan any longer term than what they did", would have been to couple changing the T3 revenue model with expansion... Our current plan is a short-term one, and perhaps that is by choice (they do not want to expand and have a different T3 model), or perhaps it is not by choice (they failed at the expanding with the desired universities and going to a conference network).
 
If Kansas were to flirt with the B1G, Mr. Bowlsby should tell the Kansas legislature that Kansas State will be relieved of their duties and free to pursue other opportunities as well.
 
Looking like thread two is growing like the original beast thread. Almost at a thousand.
 
Al_4_State said:
Look, I'm not saying staying at 10 is long term planning.

What I'm saying is that adding teams just because everyone else is doing it, and getting caught up in mass hysteria is foolish, unless the right teams are available. We know what the right teams are, and at this point in time, they aren't available.

The Big 12 does more damage to itself by watering down its product and lowering the amount of money each school receives. That's what a Louisville/Cincy type add does. We are better in the long term at 10 than we are at 12 with those two. Adding Louisville would not have prevented the ACC from filling its divot. What it would have done was add a school to the Big 12 that didn't add any revenue for existing members, and took a spot from a potential FSU/Clemson/GA Tech/Miami.

If you can't see this, you're an idiot. And most of the people who are advocating immediate expansion for expansion's sake have proven their mental competence long ago.
Click to expand...



I agree with this, my only reason for adding Louisville was to get FSU. If we can get them without Louisville even better.

Still, I long for conference structure circa 1990.
 
Wesley said:
Looking like thread two is growing like the original beast thread. Almost at a thousand.
Click to expand...

And in the grand Megathread tradition, may 20% of the posts be about posting and post counts. Metaposts abound! Of course this is a post about posting about posting, so now it's up to someone else to post about posting about posting about posting.
 
snowcraig2.0 said:
I agree with this, my only reason for adding Louisville was to get FSU. If we can get them without Louisville even better.

Still, I long for conference structure circa 1990.
Click to expand...

I just don't see how adding Louisville would aid in getting FSU. I'm sure FSU preferred them of the Big East leftovers, but I can't imagine FSU was like "if you take Cincy or UConn, we bolt. If you take Louisville, we stay". Just don't see how Louisville is the straw breaking that camel's back.

If we took Louisville, and the ACC took Cincy/UConn, and then got everyone to agree to a GOR, we'd be absolutely HOSED. It would be the biggest mistake the Big 12 could have made, and do a lot more to push schools away towards the end of the GOR, due to the lowered pay out per school.

By sitting tight, we didn't dilute our revenue stream, and we haven't prevented access for schools like FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, Miami, all of which are better adds than Louisville. If the ACC does stabilize, its something that was going to happen with or without Louisville, and if it doesn't, we have more room for valuable additions.

I would prefer 1990 conference structures too, but nothing we can do about it now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back