Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

[Itjustdoesn'tmatter]

I think Ga. Tech is in question. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't. I don't like Ga. Tech as a 20th spot, 24th is a little better. I'm just saying it may be an addition that fails. I absolutely feel the SEC blocks the B1G from FSU, but I am less sure about Ga. Tech. If a miracle happened and the B1G could get FSU, Ga. Tech makes sense as a bridge.

I am absolutely on board for the Houston addition for the B12. IMO it wasn't addition number 4 it was more like 1 or 2.
Houston to the B12 is completely different than Ga. Tech to the B1G. There is so much synergy IMO for adding UH with the existing Texahoma schools, that it helps ratings in those 4 games where UH is involved. Granted, they were big opponents like OU but UH has had 5M 2x in the past 4-5 yrs. UH won't get those kind of numbers against B12 but it will be solid, they will also be a non-conference team other Power leagues schedule which will give good inventory for the league.

I will go one step farther, even though Houston is now an SEC market first planting a hometown B12 school will help B12 coverage in Houston as a solid #2 and make sure the B12 is not forgotten and to a lesser extent probably around the state. I think this will help the other Texahoma games ratings even when UH is not involved.

UH needs a good coach and to be relevant but I thought they were a no brainer from the beginning. I even thought the B12 with UT & OU could have afforded to add UH and one other school to go to 12 for some of those same reasons. But I think both UT & OU were reluctant to elevate UH.

I think the UH addition is interesting for recruiting.

Clearly if you live in Houston and get an offer from UH & Alabama or Georgia or Texas you likely DON'T go to UH, but how many Houston players are there in places like Arkansas or Miss State? I think some of THOSE players might choose to go to a Power 5 Houston over second tier Sec teams. (or ACC/B1G)

edit: pretty soon, UT will also be considered a second tier Sec team.

 

[Win5002]

Synergy, or suffocating by breathing the same limited air?

Houston was added because it was considered to be adding an SEC city in which the current Big 12 member didn't have a hold on. With all the ACC alumni in ATL, but still an SEC city, GT would be similar to the BIG

Houston's standing in Houston, even with the other three, isn't terribly different than GT in ATL, but GT and the BIG have the linear model to extract revenue. BIG difference.

In state games matter. I think if your looking at the number of eyeballs per game which matters under current T1 & T2 and eventually streaming options. We may differ but I think UH vs TT, TCU, Baylor, OSU(I know this one is regional) will do better than Cincy vs all those schools if the teams have similar records.

I also think the additional coverage the league gets by adding UH will give the B12 a chance in recruiting Texas. The perception of the B12 might be better in Texas than nationally due to the heavy coverage of teams in Texas.

 

[t-noah]

It's funny how we like this and yet it would be unpopular at OSU and a total non-starter at Tech. This is not a split that would garner broad support outside of the Iowa and Kansas borders.

Yeah that's some iffy redistricting there.


Essentially what I assume will happen (among realistic options) is equal split/"recruiting access" of Texas schools and even split of the 4 newcomers (two in one division, two in other, can't be 3/1). Retaining ISU/KU/KSU might work while adhering to those aspects, or perhaps it won't, but that's probably priority 3.

I like this alignment the best but our division is much tougher currently. I would hate not playing Okie St but I think for the league, right now, that's the two best programs in the league. It would make sense to split them up. I think end the end, they'll try their hardest to split up TX and put 2 "new" teams in each division.

I think those are the two realistic options:

1. BYU, OSU, and all of Texas in a West / everyone else in an East. Pick this one if maximizing rivalries wins out over splitting Texas for recruiting. The East gets UC and UCF so there is still good recruiting ground here.
2. Chop up Texas; either 2/2 across divisions or something like Tech/TCU/Baylor in one and Houston/UCF in the other. Pick this one if it's important to ISU/KSU/KU to have more Texas access. That might matter more if we go back to only 8 conference games, too.

"Keep the old Big 8 together" is not really a realistic approach.

I'm not even sure these maps are relevant, things might change again soon. And we may have to figure OuT in this for the next couple of years, but somehow I doubt that. Anyway they are kind of fun to look at and think about. The 1st 8 maps we are in the West, the last 2 we are in the East..

 

[Win5002]

It'd maybe nice to go to an 8 conference game schedule, but don't think that is realistic. The 'better' conference games will be important for our league TV revenue-wise I'd think.

We will stay at 9 games.

It depends if the B12 gets added to the alliance. If they do the league may play only 8 conference games.

If this league is not part of the alliance and can't get games with those leagues, they probably look to a scheduling with the SEC and may even look at 10 conference games to get paid. Hopefully, if they did that the SEC would consider keeping the B12 with the Sugar Bowl. Which might be a more favorable matchup in the expanded playoffs if we are looking at the SEC's 4th or 5th place team vs the B12 2nd most years, sometimes #3 possibly. Then again, I'm not sure what the Sugar Bowl is paying with expanded playoffs.

 

[Win5002]

all who and the other guy have said was how Boise is this great option. They aren’t.

While OU & UT leaving sucks you're negative about everything.

The fact is Boise St. has done well ratings wise playing a lot worse schedule. Also, if the networks are going to pay a premium for late night games they also make sense.

Lastly, if you have hopes of ISU getting to one of the other 4 power conferences or possibly only 3 or 2 depending on how this shakes out BSU doesn't threaten ISU as a program to take one of the spots open like some other programs do like UH, UCF, and maybe Cincy.

 

[WhoISthis]

In state games matter. I think if your looking at the number of eyeballs per game which matters under current T1 & T2 and eventually streaming options. We may differ but I think UH vs TT, TCU, Baylor, OSU(I know this one is regional) will do better than Cincy vs all those schools if the teams have similar records.

I also think the additional coverage the league gets by adding UH will give the B12 a chance in recruiting Texas. The perception of the B12 might be better in Texas than nationally due to the heavy coverage of teams in Texas.

Largely because the Big 12 has no network, it is all ratings. GT can bring that, plus the instant inmarket gain.

All of what you said is applicable to GT and the ACC/BIG. ATL is closer to many ACC cities than Houston is to Big 12 cities, and the Big 12 in Texas is now lower than the ACC in GA. Clemson is very close to Athens and has done well recruiting that state. I don't think any of the current Big 12 are getting premium recruits from texas- UT, A&M, LSU, likely Ark will all be viewed as better options. Most already were.

If Houston makes sense, GT does too, as it is the same thing plus the benefit of inmarket and adding more of a new footprint.

 

[t-noah]

I'm not even sure these maps are relevant, things might change again soon. And we may have to figure OuT in this for the next couple of years, but somehow I doubt that. Anyway they are kind of fun to look at and think about. The 1st 8 maps we are in the West, the last 2 we are in the East..
View attachment 89817 View attachment 89818 View attachment 89819 View attachment 89820 View attachment 89822 View attachment 89823 View attachment 89824 View attachment 89825 View attachment 89826 View attachment 89827

Here's one North/ South map. It just doesn't work or divide well, whether you split KU or Ok-State, still not good..

 

[Win5002]

Largely because the Big 12 has no network, it is all ratings. GT can bring that, plus the instant inmarket gain.

All of what you said is applicable to GT and the ACC/BIG. ATL is closer to many ACC cities than Houston is to Big 12 cities, and the Big 12 in Texas is now lower than the ACC in GA. Clemson is very close to Athens and has done well recruiting that state. I don't think any of the current Big 12 are getting premium recruits from texas- UT, A&M, LSU, likely Ark will all be viewed as better options. Most already were.

If Houston makes sense, GT does too, as it is the same thing plus the benefit of inmarket and adding more of a new footprint.

I admit I am no expert and can be wrong but below is the college football tv ratings by sportsmedia which is very interesting. At the bottom of the page you can go to previous seasons.

I was trying to find Ga. Tech games to look at ratings and they are almost never listed at quick glance. That means they constantly fell to T3 content and were almost never chosen for T2 even. I could only find one of the past 3 years vs Georgia on rivalry weekend. Maybe I looked too quickly and you will find some examples. But I think this shows the hill there is to overcome in taking Ga. Tech. I'm also not sure Ga. Tech gets statewide carriage for the BTN, it might just be Atlanta.

It also points out how the ACC has been able to hide its poorly rated games on ACCN which doesn't produce a viewer rating and even before when they did ESPN 3. This is/was a disadvantage for the B12 because they couldn't hide their lower tv ratings games and they always showed up in the B12 averages.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

 

[WhoISthis]

I admit I am no expert and can be wrong but below is the college football tv ratings by sportsmedia which is very interesting. At the bottom of the page you can go to previous seasons.

I was trying to find Ga. Tech games to look at ratings and they are almost never listed at quick glance. That means they constantly fell to T3 content and were almost never chosen for T2 even. I could only find one of the past 3 years vs Georgia on rivalry weekend. Maybe I looked too quickly and you will find some examples. But I think this shows the hill there is to overcome in taking Ga. Tech. I'm also not sure Ga. Tech gets statewide carriage for the BTN, it might just be Atlanta.

It also points out how the ACC has been able to hide its poorly rated games on ACCN which doesn't produce a viewer rating and even before when they did ESPN 3. This is/was a disadvantage for the B12 because they couldn't hide their lower tv ratings games and they always showed up in the B12 averages.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

Yes, GT, like most outside the big brands, is dependent on being good.
They still have the backbone of the inmarket and new footprint.

An SEC realignment guy I follow that has proven to be good the past many years, has them on the SEC board at 20+. Their value to the BIG can only be hire imo

 

[Win5002]

Yes, GT, like most outside the big brands, is dependent on being good.
They still have the backbone of the inmarket and new footprint.

An SEC realignment guy I follow that has proven to be good the past many years, has them on the SEC board at 20+. Their value to the BIG can only be hire imo

who is the SEC guy?

 

[AuH2O]

Largely because the Big 12 has no network, it is all ratings. GT can bring that, plus the instant inmarket gain.

All of what you said is applicable to GT and the ACC/BIG. ATL is closer to many ACC cities than Houston is to Big 12 cities, and the Big 12 in Texas is now lower than the ACC in GA. Clemson is very close to Athens and has done well recruiting that state. I don't think any of the current Big 12 are getting premium recruits from texas- UT, A&M, LSU, likely Ark will all be viewed as better options. Most already were.

If Houston makes sense, GT does too, as it is the same thing plus the benefit of inmarket and adding more of a new footprint.

GT is interesting and makes sense for the Big 10 for a few reasons, but I'll disagree that GT will bring ratings, even if they are good, which recently seems like a tall task.

In 2016 they won 9 games and still were largely relegated to lower channels. But as a comparison a noon game on ESPN 3-1 GT vs. #5 Clemson got 1.8 M. The same slot a couple weeks later saw Duke-Louisville get 1.9 M. That same season the same slot saw Clemson-FSU pull 5.4 M.

In 2014 they won the orange bowl. Same deal - vs. Clemson they pull 1.8 mil. The same slot the following week or two saw Nebraska - Min pull 3.4 M.

 

[surly]

Ku's A.D. Goff's statements were largely incoherent.

"The facts are there's most likely a scenario where when we do a new deal with a makeup where we likely can't stay at the level we're at."

And then this gem: "(This) puts us in the most positive strength and position we can be in in this league we're in, most importantly, and for all the unknowns that are out there."

Ku's chancellor the next day tried to tamp down his rookie A.D.'s earlier comments by saying Ku ended up in a good place after expansion.

The reality is that Ku has balance sheet issues to go with their facility problems. For example, Ku's declining net assets are $110 million lower than little brother's $279 million. I have no clue how they spend so much money in Lawrence with so little impact.

 

[WhoISthis]

GT is interesting and makes sense for the Big 10 for a few reasons, but I'll disagree that GT will bring ratings, even if they are good, which recently seems like a tall task.

In 2016 they won 9 games and still were largely relegated to lower channels. But as a comparison a noon game on ESPN 3-1 GT vs. #5 Clemson got 1.8 M. The same slot a couple weeks later saw Duke-Louisville get 1.9 M. That same season the same slot saw Clemson-FSU pull 5.4 M.

In 2014 they won the orange bowl. Same deal - vs. Clemson they pull 1.8 mil. The same slot the following week or two saw Nebraska - Min pull 3.4 M.

I don’t think anyone is saying they are tops on the list. those others are no brainers

This is just me, but their style killed my interest in watching. But still high enough to warrant being included if looking to add an ACC pod to the BIG.

Clemson, FSU, UNC, Duke, UVa seem to be the most common 5. I put GT over VT. Partially because I like continuity, admittedly, but also for thinking with Maryland and UVa, VT isn’t needed. If VT runs the option for a decade and falls off, will they have that much better ratings to offer set redundancy? Atlanta is one of the best college sports markets Imo, with a lot of ACC alumni.

Delaney retired too soon. He’d be walk through the south like Sherman to get his ACC additions, all the way until he had enough to get ND

 

[t-noah]

Ku's A.D. Goff's statements were largely incoherent.

"The facts are there's most likely a scenario where when we do a new deal with a makeup where we likely can't stay at the level we're at."

And then this gem: "(This) puts us in the most positive strength and position we can be in in this league we're in, most importantly, and for all the unknowns that are out there."

Ku's chancellor the next day tried to tamp down his rookie A.D.'s earlier comments by saying Ku ended up in a good place after expansion.

The reality is that Ku has balance sheet issues to go with their facility problems. For example, Ku's declining net assets are $110 million lower than little brother's $279 million. I have no clue how they spend so much money in Lawrence with so little impact.

Like I said, not impressed with their new AD at all, nor with their athletic departments leadership in general. The trend they'd had and recent talk do not appear to be something that will easily lift them out of financial trouble either.

KSU on the other hand seems to be managing things quite well.

 

[CrossCyed]

Decent but not great numbers for our game

 

[Win5002]

Did I miss some news, or is your imagination running away with you?

I think he means overall depth which is possible.

 

[Win5002]

Synergy, or suffocating by breathing the same limited air?

I think you will find Synergy will be the answer.

Houston was added because it was considered to be adding an SEC city in which the current Big 12 member didn't have a hold on. With all the ACC alumni in ATL, but still an SEC city, GT would be similar to the BIG

Houston's standing in Houston, even with the other three, isn't terribly different than GT in ATL, but GT and the BIG have the linear model to extract revenue. BIG difference.

I think for that to be accurate you need to show me a history of Ga. Tech having better tv ratings than UH, which you won't find.

UH will be affecting T1 and T2 ratings which are more valuable than T3.

Also, those ratings are with UH being a G5 school and Ga. Tech being in a P5 league. UH is getting a promotion and will have better games to draw ratings. UH is also joining a league with 3 instate teams and a regional foe in OSU that will probably due well. Ga. Tech would be on an island.

Maybe the recruiting angle works out, but Ga. Tech will be a dud for tv ratings. Maybe limited access to Georgia is worth it though.

 

[Win5002]

Decent but not great numbers for our game

That's great ratings for Ia. vs ISU! what are you talking about? Networks consider 4M viewers premium games and we almost got that.

 

[Win5002]

That's great ratings for Ia. vs ISU! what are you talking about? Networks consider 4M viewers premium games and we almost got that.

Stanford vs USC ratings were lousy for an in state game in a state that large!

 

[CrossCyed]

That's great ratings for Ia. vs ISU! what are you talking about? Networks consider 4M viewers premium games and we almost got that.

Two million less than the Alabama-Miami game in the same time slot the week before. The reason I said good, not great, is that there was only one real game for competition in that time slot and it lost to it