*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[Die4Cy]

BYU and ND's football independence really isn't threatened as long as there is a Big 12. A move outside of current BCS structure is pretty unlikely unless they were able to find a way to whittle things down to only four conferences. As long as there are more than that, something resembling the current BCS format will probably remain. Ultimately, BYU will have more trouble with their football independence because of the difficulty involved in scheduling. ND is unlikely to want to ever move to a full member status in any conference as long as they get their own TV money for their home football games.

 

[Jambalaya]

REPLY # 17, 586

 

[Wesley]

REPLY # 17, 586

You missed it by one.

 

[isuno1fan]

The PAC-12 already turned down Oklahoma without Texas and Texas said they don't want to go independent in football because they want a regional conference, but let's not let what's happened cloud your ******** doomsday scenario.

Things change....don't give Larry Scott a third chance.

Bad idea....all or none for ND.

 

[LindenCy]

REPLY # 17, 586

You missed it by one.

Technically they are correct. The first post does not count as a reply. :wink:

 

[Clonehomer]

I'm okay with ND coming in for all but football in 2012 as long as they agree to add football at the end of their NBC contract. From what I remember, their contract ends at the same time as our tier 1. If they want to stay on NBC, just have the comcast group bid on the conference contract.

Or, we could work out a deal where the ND home games could be separate that could be bid by Comcast/NBC, but the revenue from that would be included in the conference tv deal. ND would still probably come out ahead and their road games would help the rest of the tier 1 deal.

 

[CyBer]

Good morning huge thread how are you doing toda.......oh god it's eating me! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSDFKL;dsaafkdsa.asdf



..
.

 

[Clonefan94]

Texas would love the scenario of independence. Imaging the longhorn network going nationwide and they do not need to share the money with anyone. Once independence happens for football with Texas and they can keep the Big 12 for olympic sports they would get over $40 million for the LHN and the Big 12 would be the Big East. No thanks.

There is no doubt that Texas would love to go indy, imo. The problem is though, and I think Texas sees that, if they go indy, the Big XII goes Bye Bye, which means super conferences. Which means, if you aren't one of us, you aren't getting a shot at the National Title. I just don't believe there is any room for independence in the Super Conference world. The goal of super conferences is to control every thing from top to bottom. Including every dime that's in the pipeline. There will be an ultimatum placed on the independents if the super conferences form. If nothing else, 9 game con. schedules everywhere aren't going to have enough big dogs of college football jumping on board to be part of Texas' schedule. Tha's why I believe that Texas knows, the only way for the LHN to really survive is with a Big XII.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Doesn't matter, according to Pollard most of the conference wants 10 teams so that is what we will be stuck with. I think this is horrible for ISU, KSU, KU, TCU, Baylor and Tech. I assume they are all thinking about money, how they are currently playing (not historical I am talking to you KSU, Okie St, KU & Baylor) and that the Big 12 will be perfect going forward. As things stand now, ISU will more than likely be a doormat until some of these powers have coaches retire or ISU gets a few breaks to go their way.

Essentially ISU needs to go 3-0 in non con every year going forward in order to sniff a bowl game.

I don't see them taking 3 teams all at once to get back to 12. This is something the league would have to study for a while so they can accurately gauge the impact on all sports, scheduling, revenue, travel, etc.

Once somebody's in, it's REALLY hard to get rid of them. So you do your due diligence on any member. Pick the one team you really want for next year, and hire the consultants to give you options on the remaining two for 2013, if that's want you want to do.

I can see why WVU make sense as a Mizzou replacement on the surface: good football, good basketball, highly motivated fans.

But what the Big 12 needs now is a larger viewership footprint. They're down to 4 states, and only dominant in 3. They DON'T need even tougher competition than they have now (esp. w/o a CCG). Find a school that allows the B12 to expand its audience.

Is that WVU? L-ville? I have no idea. But there's no way the B12 can command a larger TV deal with fewer households.

 

[Al_4_State]

I think the WVU/Louisville/Cincy pick up does a lot for TV sets.

Even though WVU doesn't have a large footprint, they're a "name" program that people will watch. As Nebraska to the Big 10 proved, if a lot of people will watch your games across the country, being in a small state isn't a big deal. WVU has alot of fans in the DC/Baltimore area, and that would be great to have Big 12 football on TV in that part of the world.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Good morning huge thread how are you doing toda.......oh god it's eating me! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSDFKL;dsaafkdsa.asdf



..
.

You'll like it down here, Georgie. We float down here.

 

[boone7247]

I don't see them taking 3 teams all at once to get back to 12. This is something the league would have to study for a while so they can accurately gauge the impact on all sports, scheduling, revenue, travel, etc.

Once somebody's in, it's REALLY hard to get rid of them. So you do your due diligence on any member. Pick the one team you really want for next year, and hire the consultants to give you options on the remaining two for 2013, if that's want you want to do.

I can see why WVU make sense as a Mizzou replacement on the surface: good football, good basketball, highly motivated fans.

But what the Big 12 needs now is a larger viewership footprint. They're down to 4 states, and only dominant in 3. They DON'T need even tougher competition than they have now (esp. w/o a CCG). Find a school that allows the B12 to expand its audience.

Is that WVU? L-ville? I have no idea. But there's no way the B12 can command a larger TV deal with fewer households.

Considering this Mizzou saga has gone on for more than a month. I am going to guess the B12 has been doing due diligence. They have said for a month now they will act quickly once Mizzou make a decision/announces their dicision.

If it is WVU I agree with ealier posts it makes no sense to only add them. It has to be WVU and Lville, and either BYU (currently out of favor) or Cinci. I perfer Cinci, that is better for ISU, and I can be biased.

As far as TV markets go we lose St. Louis # 20. I believe we retain KC #31 as there are just as many if not more KU grads there as MU grads.

Adding Louisville # 50, Cincinatti # 34, and I believe Pittsburg # 23 with the addition of WVU. Not sure if you could get some viewership from Washington DC. So we lose one top 50 market and gain 3. So going to 12 makes sense and more than offsets the loss of St. Louis.

 

[Cydwinder]

Considering this Mizzou saga has gone on for more than a month. I am going to guess the B12 has been doing due diligence. They have said for a month now they will act quickly once Mizzou make a decision/announces their dicision.

If it is WVU I agree with ealier posts it makes no sense to only add them. It has to be WVU and Lville, and either BYU (currently out of favor) or Cinci. I perfer Cinci, that is better for ISU, and I can be biased.

As far as TV markets go we lose St. Louis # 20. I believe we retain KC #31 as there are just as many if not more KU grads there as MU grads.

Adding Louisville # 50, Cincinatti # 34, and I believe Pittsburg # 23 with the addition of WVU. Not sure if you could get some viewership from Washington DC. So we lose one top 50 market and gain 3. So going to 12 makes sense and more than offsets the loss of St. Louis.

This. I highly doubt the Big 12 has been sitting around doing absolutely nothing this entire time.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Considering this Mizzou saga has gone on for more than a month. I am going to guess the B12 has been doing due diligence. They have said for a month now they will act quickly once Mizzou make a decision/announces their dicision.

If it is WVU I agree with ealier posts it makes no sense to only add them. It has to be WVU and Lville, and either BYU (currently out of favor) or Cinci. I perfer Cinci, that is better for ISU, and I can be biased.

As far as TV markets go we lose St. Louis # 20. I believe we retain KC #31 as there are just as many if not more KU grads there as MU grads.

Adding Louisville # 50, Cincinatti # 34, and I believe Pittsburg # 23 with the addition of WVU. Not sure if you could get some viewership from Washington DC. So we lose one top 50 market and gain 3. So going to 12 makes sense and more than offsets the loss of St. Louis.

I don't disagree...they've known we're leaving for several weeks. But I still think that this year is a 1-team add, UNLESS the TV networks require them to expand more to fulfill their end of the TV deal.

I understand that the WVU fanatics will tell you that they can deliver Pittsburgh and DC. I really have no idea. But the SEC and ACC don't think they can. They consider them a Charleston/Huntington area draw only...hence their lack of an invite over their several previous periods of expansion.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I don't disagree...they've known we're leaving for several weeks. But I still think that this year is a 1-team add, UNLESS the TV networks require them to expand more to fulfill their end of the TV deal.

I understand that the WVU fanatics will tell you that they can deliver Pittsburgh and DC. I really have no idea. But the SEC and ACC don't think they can. They consider them a Charleston/Huntington area draw only...hence their lack of an invite over their several previous periods of expansion.

ACC already has DC and Pittsburgh. So adding WVU would not pick up those markets. SEC sees adding KC and St. Louis directly as a bigger pickup than adding Pittsburgh and DC indirectly. If they added both WVU and MU, then they would need a number 16. They don't have a #16 right now, so for SEC it is an argument of MU vs. WVU.

So, ACC it adds nothing because they are already there. SEC, it doesn't add the TV, MU does. But for Big 12, it does pick up some markets that will demand games.

 

[Wesley]

Technically they are correct. The first post does not count as a reply. :wink:

Were you reffing on Saturday?

 

[MaccloNe]

I don't disagree...they've known we're leaving for several weeks. But I still think that this year is a 1-team add, UNLESS the TV networks require them to expand more to fulfill their end of the TV deal.

I understand that the WVU fanatics will tell you that they can deliver Pittsburgh and DC. I really have no idea. But the SEC and ACC don't think they can. They consider them a Charleston/Huntington area draw only...hence their lack of an invite over their several previous periods of expansion.

You still here? Damn.

 

[Wesley]

I'm okay with ND coming in for all but football in 2012 as long as they agree to add football at the end of their NBC contract. From what I remember, their contract ends at the same time as our tier 1. If they want to stay on NBC, just have the comcast group bid on the conference contract.

Or, we could work out a deal where the ND home games could be separate that could be bid by Comcast/NBC, but the revenue from that would be included in the conference tv deal. ND would still probably come out ahead and their road games would help the rest of the tier 1 deal.

A possible scenario: Exactly, the ND and Big 12 contracts wrap in a similar timeframe. A Tier One could have special concessions written into the contract for #14 ND and #13 BYU to do some of their own thing if both came in as #13 and #14 for football in 2015-16 after #12 Lousiville, #11 WVU and #10 mystery team (Tigger and Cincy or Rutgers) join in 2013-14.

 

[Mizzoulander]

But, go ahead and trust everything Texas wants you to believe.

I've been asked repeated to provide "evidence" that UT and OU will eventually bolt the conference. Hoops, CrossCyed, and other "Bevo Believers" seem to think that because UT couldn't come to an agreement with the Pac-12, and the P12 presidents turned OU down, their leaders came to Jesus and realized that the B12 is the best home for them.

Think about 15 months ago: if I had told you that TAMU and MU would be leaving the Big 12 in less than 2 years, the Bevo Believers (and probably most others) would have said I was crazy. The arguments:

1. TAMU looked at the SEC, and decided against it. Besides, they need UT to survive. So they're just as committed to the conference as the other TX schools.

2. Nobody wants Missouri. They got shot down by the Big 10, and they'd be stupid to try and move again. They're just not that desirable.

3. The Big 12 just signed a big new TV revenue deal, so money's no reason to leave now.

4. We just upped the buyout, so it's (almost) impossible for anyone to leave now.

Every one of these argument would have made rational sense in summer 2010. And every one of them would be dead wrong.

Maybe that means that all players in this saga are irrational. Maybe it means that we're not privvy to the information that these decisions are based on. Either way, we're not going to see in advance the circumstances that cause the Big 12 to fall apart...if they occur.

 

[ricochet]

My understanding is that our buyout will be in the same neighborhood as TAMU. $20-30M. Serious cash.

Don't you have any reservations about dumping that kind of money on top of moving to a conference where you are at a bigger monetary disadvantage than the one you are currently in? Heck Oklahoma would be middle of the pack in the SEC for athletic budgets and theirs is $30 million more a year than Missouri's.