WVU vs The Big East....getting ugly

[cyclones500]

I do wonder if WV is forced to stay whether the B12 can get a waiver to allow two 1AA teams to count toward bowl eligibility.

Good question.

I don't think it's a big deal if it takes another year to get WVa on-board (although it's typical that Big 12 could let two members exit immediately, but has to wait a year for an immediate replacement).

The main scheduling hurdle is trying to get a late addition with the contingency that WVa might come aboard after all. Would FCS schools be more likely to accept such an arrangement? That could affect the bowl eligibility.

Tangent question: Is there any requirement for schools to play a 12-game schedule? Would it be a disadvantage to play 8 conference/3 non-conf?

 

[alarson]

Tangent question: Is there any requirement for schools to play a 12-game schedule? Would it be a disadvantage to play 8 conference/3 non-conf?

Maybe less bowl eligible teams from the conference (have to get to 6 wins still, have less games to do it in).

I doubt you'd see it happen.

Worst case scenario, if we only had 8 conference games (and itd be hard to schedule a 12th FBS team as a replacement) you'd see b12 teams get a bunch of last minute FCS games on the schedule. Even if they dont count towards bowl eligibility, theyd be home games, so they'd make money for the indivisual schools.

 

[cykadelic2]

There is no back-up plan and going from 10 to 9 reduces conference game TV inventory by 20 percent. TV deals can be voided or renegotiated, probably for 20 percent less. Big 12 teams would also be up **** creek without a paddle for finding another non-conference game at this point. It would be a huge **** up by the Big 12 if WVU is legally forced to stay in Big East for two more years.

If by some chance, WVU is forced to play in the BE next season, BYU would be the logical likely backfill candidate for FB only. The networks and the B12 may have to give in to some of BYU's demands but I don't think any of them are oppressive enough not to negotiate for FB only (e.g. replays on BYUtv, # of ESPN appearances, etc.).

 

[MNCyGuy]

I'm not 'obsessed with adding a florida school'. (really those proposing Tulane appear to be the more 'obsessed' ones here) Theyre just not bad options, especially compared to the crappy option that is Tulane. Tulane has academics, and that is it. Academics are a nice bonus when adding a school, but academics alone dont cut it. Might as well add rice too while we're at it. (theyre ranked much higher than Tulane in the latest USNews ranking)

The two florida schools offer the chance to bring top 10 size schools to the big 12. Those will help bring ratings long-term. (they already, without being in nationally relevant conferences, have fanbases 5x the size of Tulane's). And as far as their distance goes, we were apparently willing to talk to BYU at one point (and they had a lot of support here). Does everyone realize how far away they were?

Louisville and cincinatti make geographic sense and have played in a BCS conference (and have fanbases 3x the size of tulane)

Houston would offer a tier 1 academic school and some recent football success. If we're going to invest in a 'project' school, why not do so in a much larger market with more potential viewers to gain?

All of these are better than Tulane, a school that's 6th in fanbase in a fairly small state (behind the Saints, LSU, La Tech, La monroe, and La Lafayette), that's a small school (so its not going to be building a large fanbase anytime soon). Sure, nobody argues its academics, but you can't add a school with nothing else besides that to offer.

-As has been said, I think everybody is speculating based on the assumption that Louisville is #11.

-I'm surprised to see you throw out Houston as an option. A lot of your arguments seem based on TV markets and surely having four of the top 5 or 6 teams in the state means we already have all the major Texas markets locked down.

-You are correct on BYU. I think a lot of people, myself included, saw them as similar to Colorado and didn't really look closely at the actual geography. As a 1-for-1 swap with A&M I still think they might have worked, but now that we are replacing two schools and possibly expanding back to 12, I think it becomes a lot more important to at least somewhat consider geography.

-Maybe it's naive, but I have to think that interest in Tulane would jump and put them at #3 in interest behind LSU if they were added to a big time conference. Lousiana is a football crazy state and at the very least the opportunity to see teams like Texas and Oklahoma that never play in the state would be a shot in the arm for their attendance. If they started having any sort of success, I think they would develop a following. Yes, I know that's a big if.

-Surely, you can see that your state interest argument would also apply to Florida schools. I have to think interest in Florida would be something like Dolphins, Buccaneers, Gators, Seminoles, Retirees home NFL teams, Hurricanes, Jaguars, USF, UCF, FIU, FAU. If we can get FSU, yea go for it, but I don't think we're getting the big chunk of the Florida fanbase adding USF that you seem to think we'd get.

 

[twojman]

There is no back-up plan and going from 10 to 9 reduces conference game TV inventory by 20 percent. TV deals can be voided or renegotiated, probably for 20 percent less. Big 12 teams would also be up **** creek without a paddle for finding another non-conference game at this point. It would be a huge **** up by the Big 12 if WVU is legally forced to stay in Big East for two more years.

There is a back up plan...ISU would play a conference member for a second time.

 

[isuno1fan]

-As has been said, I think everybody is speculating based on the assumption that Louisville is #11.

-I'm surprised to see you throw out Houston as an option. A lot of your arguments seem based on TV markets and surely having four of the top 5 or 6 teams in the state means we already have all the major Texas markets locked down.

-You are correct on BYU. I think a lot of people, myself included, saw them as similar to Colorado and didn't really look closely at the actual geography. As a 1-for-1 swap with A&M I still think they might have worked, but now that we are replacing two schools and possibly expanding back to 12, I think it becomes a lot more important to at least somewhat consider geography.

-Maybe it's naive, but I have to think that interest in Tulane would jump and put them at #3 in interest behind LSU if they were added to a big time conference. Lousiana is a football crazy state and at the very least the opportunity to see teams like Texas and Oklahoma that never play in the state would be a shot in the arm for their attendance. If they started having any sort of success, I think they would develop a following. Yes, I know that's a big if.

-Surely, you can see that your state interest argument would also apply to Florida schools. I have to think interest in Florida would be something like Dolphins, Buccaneers, Gators, Seminoles, Retirees home NFL teams, Hurricanes, Jaguars, USF, UCF, FIU, FAU. If we can get FSU, yea go for it, but I don't think we're getting the big chunk of the Florida fanbase adding USF that you seem to think we'd get.

This is what needs to be considered along with the positives they already possess when considering them for an addition. The folks who say "no chance" for Tulane assume they remain the Conference USA Tulane of today. "Promoting" them to BCS status would rapidly elevate interest level IMO.

I'm not saying Tulane is my first choice because they certainly are not. I just don't expect ND (all sports), FSU, Arkansas, Kentucky, etc to say yes. If it comes down to Rutgers, Tulane, USF, Cincy, BYU, UCF, Houston, etc. Tulane is my top choice and I don't think I'm the only one with that opinion (that even includes some folks involved in the actual decision IMO).

 

[isuno1fan]

There is a back up plan...ISU would play a conference member for a second time.

Hadn't thought of that and it is likely true now that I have. I'm sure we'd get OU twice in that scenario...LOL

 

[TykeClone]

There is a back up plan...ISU would play a conference member for a second time.

Hadn't thought of that and it is likely true now that I have. I'm sure we'd get OU twice in that scenario...LOL

and both times in Norman.

 

[alarson]

-I'm surprised to see you throw out Houston as an option. A lot of your arguments seem based on TV markets and surely having four of the top 5 or 6 teams in the state means we already have all the major Texas markets locked down.

Agreed somewhat, but at the same time, Texas is a much bigger state, with much larger population to pull from. Louisiana has 4 million and not growing, Texas has about 25 million. A lot bigger pool to split. As far as holding the market down, as we dont have a cable package, we're dealing in straight ratings. A successful houston team would draw ratings in Houston.

-You are correct on BYU. I think a lot of people, myself included, saw them as similar to Colorado and didn't really look closely at the actual geography. As a 1-for-1 swap with A&M I still think they might have worked, but now that we are replacing two schools and possibly expanding back to 12, I think it becomes a lot more important to at least somewhat consider geography.

Id say we've already made a nod to geography with our invitation of TCU, a small school in DFW.

-Maybe it's naive, but I have to think that interest in Tulane would jump and put them at #3 in interest behind LSU if they were added to a big time conference. Lousiana is a football crazy state and at the very least the opportunity to see teams like Texas and Oklahoma that never play in the state would be a shot in the arm for their attendance. If they started having any sort of success, I think they would develop a following. Yes, I know that's a big if.

They might jump to number 3, but even if their fanbase doubled overnight, itd still be the smallest fanbase in the big 12. Also, a lot of your arguments here would apply to a school like Houston. Theyd see a jump from getting schools like OU and UT every year instead of the CUSA rotation.

-Surely, you can see that your state interest argument would also apply to Florida schools. I have to think interest in Florida would be something like Dolphins, Buccaneers, Gators, Seminoles, Retirees home NFL teams, Hurricanes, Jaguars, USF, UCF, FIU, FAU. If we can get FSU, yea go for it, but I don't think we're getting the big chunk of the Florida fanbase adding USF that you seem to think we'd get.

Same thing as Texas... a lot larger pool to come from (18 mil instead of 4). And youre talking about large alumni bases being built long-term by being 2 of the largest schools in the country.

 

[Clonehomer]

There is a back up plan...ISU would play a conference member for a second time.

Math doesn't work well for that. You can't have 9 teams playing 9 games. You would have to have 8 teams playing 9 games plus 1 team playing 8.

The more I think about this, I don't think this will be a big deal. If we only have 9 teams we should be able to go to Fox and ask to renegotiate for 2012 for approximately 80% of the current deal. Since we only have 9 teams to distribute that to and TCU isn't getting a full share, that wouldn't be such a big hit to anyone as it will still be a big increase from last year. Then given the circumstances that Mizzourah and Aggie left, there shouldn't be any reason not to get the full buyout. Just tell them $28mil or we will see them on the field next year. So you can distribute that money and it's no big deal.

The issue will be with scheduling. I would think that with the money from Mizzourah and Aggie, that most schools would be able to buy an opponent. Even if you give them a home game or a majority of the gate, it isn't like we're dealing with 2011 money.

 

[Senolcyc]

There is a back up plan...ISU would play a conference member for a second time.

That's not a plan; that's a pathetic joke of an attempt at a plan. Is this major college football or Pop Warner where a team disbands because one of the dads took the equipment money to Vegas?

 

[IowaSTATCyclone]

and both times in Norman.

Back-to-back as a double-header, to, you know, save staging costs for OU.

Of course, playing them twice would give them the Alabama "Do-over Bowl" excuse, too, just in case they lost the first game.

Barry Switzer never retired - he just moved into OU's game-scheduling department.

 

[cykadelic2]

A successful houston team would draw ratings in Houston.

Never did when they were successful back in the SWC days and never will regardless of conference affiliation. It's a commuter school in a pro sports market like Cincy and USF which is why all three will very likely not ever be B12 members.

 

[IowaSTATCyclone]

That's not a plan; that's a pathetic joke of an attempt at a plan. Is this major college football or Pop Warner where a team disbands because one of the dads took the equipment money to Vegas?

What do you mean that's not a plan? This year, do-over scheduling provides the foundation of the NCAA's National Championship game!

 

[twojman]

That's not a plan; that's a pathetic joke of an attempt at a plan. Is this major college football or Pop Warner where a team disbands because one of the dads took the equipment money to Vegas?

I did not say it was a good plan.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Simple solution. Force Mizzourah to stay. The SEC has no legal standing as to harm done by them not coming in 2012. Tell Mizzourah and the SEC that if the current TV deals get voided they are on the hook for them. This is the same strategy that delayed A&M from announcing because of lawsuit threats from Baylor. If Mizzourah breaking their contract can be shown to cause the breakage of the TV deal, they can be held responsible. While we can't technically force mizzourah to stay, voided TV contracts are in a much different financial category than buyout clauses.

How do you "force" Missouri to stay? Blow up the bridges over the Mississippi?

Baylor's lawsuit did NOT have to do with scheduling; it had to do with the future existence of the Big 12. Once the Big 12 remained viable (with the Pac 12 shutting the door on OU, etc.) Ken Starr had no grounds for a suit.

The bylaws clearly spell out what you have to do to leave the Big 12...and don't mention ANYTHING about maintaining TV inventory. Plus, the Big 12 already granted Missouri permission to leave. It's not Missouri's responsibility to make sure the Big 12 and WVU get their **** in order with the Big East.

When it comes to conference realignment, you can bank on just one thing: NOBODY sees the inside of a courtroom.

Deals will be made - WVU will pay more to get out, or the TV networks will work out a deal with the Big 12 until WVU can get in. But the one thing that NOBODY wants is to have all of the inside dealings, plans, and conversations open to scrutiny by outsiders in a lawsuit.

We fans can flip around terms like "Sue 'em!" as if the competition of the playing field carried over to the courtroom. That's silly. The folks who run schools are collegial with each other...they all want to keep their jobs and make the boosters happy. They don't take legal action on a whim.

(all except WVU, anyway. How long before those guys sue the Big 12 for something?) :smile:

 

[brett108]

How do you "force" Missouri to stay? Blow up the bridges over the Mississippi?

Baylor's lawsuit did NOT have to do with scheduling; it had to do with the future existence of the Big 12. Once the Big 12 remained viable (with the Pac 12 shutting the door on OU, etc.) Ken Starr had no grounds for a suit.

The bylaws clearly spell out what you have to do to leave the Big 12...and don't mention ANYTHING about maintaining TV inventory. Plus, the Big 12 already granted Missouri permission to leave. It's not Missouri's responsibility to make sure the Big 12 and WVU get their **** in order with the Big East.

When it comes to conference realignment, you can bank on just one thing: NOBODY sees the inside of a courtroom.

Deals will be made - WVU will pay more to get out, or the TV networks will work out a deal with the Big 12 until WVU can get in. But the one thing that NOBODY wants is to have all of the inside dealings, plans, and conversations open to scrutiny by outsiders in a lawsuit.

We fans can flip around terms like "Sue 'em!" as if the competition of the playing field carried over to the courtroom. That's silly. The folks who run schools are collegial with each other...they all want to keep their jobs and make the boosters happy. They don't take legal action on a whim.

(all except WVU, anyway. How long before those guys sue the Big 12 for something?) :smile:

If WVU is not allowed to come, then the TV deal cannot be satisfied if Mizzou leaves. Therefore, I think it reasonable that the Big 12 make Mizzou make up the difference in their exit fees. You have no idea how this is going to play out. The Big 12 will not eat a TV loss and allow you to go. Bank on that. BTW, your exit fees have yet to be determined. If you can't pay what the Big 12 wants, you can stay another year.

 

[CyFan61]

I don't get how anyone can say "What if WVU isn't allowed to come?" or "What if WVU is forced to play in the Big East?" That is impossible, they will not be handcuffing the players and dragging them to Piscataway, Storrs, Tampa, and wherever else to play a Big East schedule. The question will be if WVU owes the Big East for a breach of contract when they ignore the Big East's schedule and play the Big 12's one instead.

P.S. Mizzoulander - LOL Mizzou

 

[Clonehomer]

Mizzoulander,
The Baylor lawsuit was based on the loss of money due to the elimination of TV contracts if the conference folded. This would be the same situation. Mizzourah leaving would void the current TV deal. If a team would lose money due to that contract voided, they would have grounds for a lawsuit. Whether it would be levity or just sabre rattling, who knows? But, I would expect that if WVU is unable to play in the Big12 next year, Mizzourah and aggie will not be given any settlements in their exit fees. All the Big12 has to do is just say if you don't like it we've got a spot for you in the schedule. That's a heck of a bargaining chip.

 

[Mizzoulander]

If WVU is not allowed to come, then the TV deal cannot be satisfied if Mizzou leaves. Therefore, I think it reasonable that the Big 12 make Mizzou make up the difference in their exit fees. You have no idea how this is going to play out. The Big 12 will not eat a TV loss and allow you to go. Bank on that. BTW, your exit fees have yet to be determined. If you can't pay what the Big 12 wants, you can stay another year.

It may be reasonable, but think about it from the Big 12's standpoint. You want a deal that best enhances your long-term stability and revenue potential. Your options are:

1. Work with the Big East to get WVU in next year no matter what (helping with the buyout, if necessary)

2. Negotiate with the TV networks for 1 year with less inventory and a return to status quo for WVU's entry in 2013 (either by "selling" them OOC games or a reduced fee)

3. Taking Missouri to court (they won't pay outside of legal action) to get whatever portion of the lost TV revenue you can

4. Keeping Missouri around for a lame-duck season in 2012: a weekly billboard highlighting Big 12 dysfunction
​

If you're a fan, of COURSE you want Mizzou around for a chance at conference-wide revenge. But if you're in charge of the Big 12, the LAST thing you want is to share revenue and spend marketing resources on a team that's leaving your conference. Twelve weeks of games where game announcers rehash the Big 12's instability to a national audience? No thank you.

The best chance to bring stability and long-term money is to work out a deal to get WVU as quickly as possible. Barring that, you go to your TV partners and work something out with 9 teams. Lawsuits and lame-ducks are great way to waste money without improving your conference.

I'd imagine that the Big 12 legal team is occupied with the WVU situation...I wouldn't expect exit fees to be worked out for another month or two.