Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clonebey said:
I understand and agree BUT I can't remember any previous public talk like this..There were internet rumors but no one in the media were saying its about to happen, thats not to say that means its a sure thing
Click to expand...

Is Rantsports any different than the WVU Dude's blog? I hope the rumors are true but forgive me if I seem a little jaded.
 
Boxerdaddy said:
Is Rantsports any different than the WVU Dude's blog? I hope the rumors are true but forgive me if I seem a little jaded.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if I were you I would wait until we get confirmation from Bleacher Report before you get really worked up about it.
 
Here is a list of schools that nobody will read:

Texas
California
Oregon
Auburn
Syracuse
Florida
Ohio State

Georgia
Kansas
Iowa State
Maryland
Utah
Vanderbilt
Boston College

Boom.
 
aeroclone said:
But the big TV money isn't related to the entire pool of games, it is tied to the top games each week. The money in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV contract is really being paid to get a hold of the top 2 or 3 games each week for a large, national audience. By adding a couple big name football schools like FSU and Clemson, you increase the likelihood of having a good TV matchup each week even if we move from a 9 game schedule back to 8. If you need to spread out the conference games, play an OOC game during the year like the SEC, or shift some bye weeks around.

The move to 8 also increases the likelihood of schools scheduling more BCS teams in the non-conference. You can bet that ESPN is more pumped for something like OU-ND than making sure we have a KU-Baylor game this year.

The B1G, ACC, and SEC are all getting paid with an 8 game schedule right now. With the depth and the quality of the B12, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to get back to 8 during expansion while maintaining our payout. The additional revenue from the conference title game alone should cover at least one of the new schools, if not a little more than that.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the FOX execs think, but, by and large I think you are correct. FOX is paying the money for big matchups and that means FSU (and to a lesser extent Clemson) playing the other heavyweights. The inventory overall would be increasing by three games total and they are getting a bunch of higher profile matchups. As well as some flexibility in scheduling an occasional heavyweight out of conference. What it likely means is that ISU-Kansas, ISU-Baylor, and Baylor-Kansas and those kinds of games probably won't make the Tier 2 slate as often. If the money is going up to $30 million per team, is that something we can live with? I don't think there are enough quality time slots to support 54 conference games (12 team with 9 games each) much less 63 time slots needed for 14 teams at 9 games each. Imagine 16 teams with 9 conference games - an inventory of 72 games? I'm guessing that we would see a lot more conference games played in Week2, with the cupcakes coming in late in the year like the SEC has done just to make sure we have enough time slots available for the Big Dogs. I'm thinking that 16 team with a 9-game schedule would make for a huge electronic and media presence. If it happens, we need to be prepared for ISU to have a number of games not aired on T1/T2 each season, probably 2 or even 3.

Issues like this are why I just really like the 12-team model. If all of it leads to a playoff with greater than 4 teams in the future, I think we may all look back at this mess from 2010 forward as a shameful, unnecessary money and power grab. With a seeded 8-team model, you could have a viable BigEast and ACC along with the Big Four conferences and a couple of wild cards and have everything work out fine most years.
 
Cyclophile1 said:
Depends on what the FOX execs think, but, by and large I think you are correct. FOX is paying the money for big matchups and that means FSU (and to a lesser extent Clemson) playing the other heavyweights. The inventory overall would be increasing by three games total and they are getting a bunch of higher profile matchups. As well as some flexibility in scheduling an occasional heavyweight out of conference. What it likely means is that ISU-Kansas, ISU-Baylor, and Baylor-Kansas and those kinds of games probably won't make the Tier 2 slate as often. If the money is going up to $30 million per team, is that something we can live with? I don't think there are enough quality time slots to support 54 conference games (12 team with 9 games each) much less 63 time slots needed for 14 teams at 9 games each. Imagine 16 teams with 9 conference games - an inventory of 72 games? I'm guessing that we would see a lot more conference games played in Week2, with the cupcakes coming in late in the year like the SEC has done just to make sure we have enough time slots available for the Big Dogs. I'm thinking that 16 team with a 9-game schedule would make for a huge electronic and media presence. If it happens, we need to be prepared for ISU to have a number of games not aired on T1/T2 each season, probably 2 or even 3.

Issues like this are why I just really like the 12-team model. If all of it leads to a playoff with greater than 4 teams in the future, I think we may all look back at this mess from 2010 forward as a shameful, unnecessary money and power grab. With a seeded 8-team model, you could have a viable BigEast and ACC along with the Big Four conferences and a couple of wild cards and have everything work out fine most years.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You just need two or three good games per week to fill up the big money spots. After that, does it really matter if KU is playing Baylor that week as opposed to KU playing Rice?
 
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back