***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
I dont think just adding any school will solve everything. Look at the big east for that result. But i do think if valuable assets are available you have to look at taking them, not just for right now, but for 10 years from now and the 10 after that. We may not have a chance again to grab these sort of markets if the ACC joins the big 10\big12 in adopting a GoR sort of deal, and we may wish we had made the move now in the 2020s when our GoR is expiring.
This is a long-term game. For now, for 10 years from now, for 20 years from now.
Does anyone know where this 4/16 hysteria came from in the first place? Have the Pac/B1G/SEC made a profit from their additions so far?
Larry Scott was on the record aiming for a 4x16 system. He didn't ultimately succeed, but I don't know why it's crazy to think other conferences, especially two sitting at 14 teams each, aren't pursuing the same goal the Pac 10/12/16 openly was openly pursuing.
At this point people thinking the SEC and Big Ten aren't heading toward 16 teams are the conspiracy theorists. The "x4" is a bit of a debate, the writing about "16" is on the wall.
Big Ten: 11 to 12 to 14 in two years time
Pac 10: 10 to 12 in the same time frame
SEC: 12 to 14 in the same time frame
ACC: 12 to 14 to 13 in the same time frame
The grant of rights and the Champions Bowl partnership make me feel better about the health of the Big 12 even at just ten teams, but I don't for a second think the SEC, Pac 12 and Big Ten are thrilled with their current 40 teams and we have long term stability right now.
If the Big 12 were to somehow add FSU plus spare parts I don't see how any other conference could claim significant superiority now (on the field or in TV markets) or especially 50 years from now as population centers in the south grow.
Think about that. The recent move from the Big 10 was not about getting to 14.
Not the only reason, but a reason that clearly some ISU fans do not get. Sure if you are a fan of Texas and OU, let the other conferences establish themselves, ride out some of the GoR and do not deal with a CCG, then become the biggest free-agents available. For, ISU, time to join the minor leagues.
I agree 100% on adding valuable assets if available, and I didn't really intend to direct my post specifically at you.
We can only add schools that are available and willing to come. I don't believe for 1 second that if FSU and Clemson wanted in, the Big 12 would reject them. I don't believe they were coming last summer and got nixed because DeLoss Dodds wanted Notre Dame. I think they started looking around and didn't think that the gains in payment justified a move at that time, and the internet rumor mongers just went nuts making up complete and utter garbage.
My point being, the idea that some folks have of adding Louisville to outflank the ACC is ridiculous unless you have an FSU in the wings. If FSU and Clemson want a "football" school, Louisville isn't going to cut that mustard. There's no one the ACC can add that will placate those schools if they're looking for another football power. If its a sticking point, we're better off waiting for them to bolt (because they're going to do that, or not going to do that, regardless of which Big East schools are added) so we aren't stuck with a school that doesn't move the needle.
You can become more relevant if you are more than Texas, some midwestern states, and WV from national recognition standpoint. People do not watch B12 games on the left coast. A few watch them on east coast. I think Fox and ESPN, both in battle, are looking at a national eyeball conference standpoint and are egging conferences on to add teams. And money talks.
I'm really torn on this. Personally, I like the 10 team league we have going on now. I don't think expansion adds stability in our current environment. Our new stability comes in the form of improved TV payouts that get us in line with the other leagues, the GOR, and equal revenue sharing. Expansion really doesn't add anything to this.
That said, if the opportunity arises to add programs like FSU, Clemson, or GT, you have got to look long and hard at that. From the angle of national prestige and program quality, adding those schools would be better than any move made by any conference so far (Utah and CU to the PAC, Nebby, Maryland, and Rutgers to the B1G, Mizzou and aTm to the SEC, and WVU TCU to the B12). The quality of the league on the field would be top notch, and we could fetch a nice CCG payday. We would also be setup well for the next round of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV deals by adding more name programs and a larger population footprint. Opening up recruiting in the southeast would be good for the conference as well.
That said, I don't see the benefit of going beyond 16, unless we are planning to get to a conference TV network like the B1G. I think a move to 12 with FSU and Clemson and a shift back to 8 conference games per year would position the Big 12 well to get two teams into the playoffs each year and cash in on that. I think that getting 2 into the playoffs is going to be the big item for us to get paid assuming we don't switch our approach to a conference network.
That said, if the opportunity arises to add programs like FSU, Clemson, or GT, you have got to look long and hard at that. From the angle of national prestige and program quality, adding those schools would be better than any move made by any conference so far (Utah and CU to the PAC, Nebby, Maryland, and Rutgers to the B1G, Mizzou and aTm to the SEC, and WVU TCU to the B12). The quality of the league on the field would be top notch, and we could fetch a nice CCG payday. We would also be setup well for the next round of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV deals by adding more name programs and a larger population footprint. Opening up recruiting in the southeast would be good for the conference as well.
That said, I don't see the benefit of going beyond 16, unless we are planning to get to a conference TV network like the B1G. I think a move to 12 with FSU and Clemson and a shift back to 8 conference games per year would position the Big 12 well to get two teams into the playoffs each year and cash in on that. I think that getting 2 into the playoffs is going to be the big item for us to get paid assuming we don't switch our approach to a conference network.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
Or maybe you just don't know how to write so that you get your point across, since I'm not the only one who disagreed with you. "Don't rush into things" is not the same as "I believe a 16-team conference will split apart". There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of 16-team conferences, BTW (I am, too, and I love the 10-team league)...but what happened with the WAC should be about #183 on the reasons to be wary since it's not even close to a valid comparison.
To all those who think we are going to go to an 8 game conference schedule you are crazy. Networks don't pay schools money for playing UNI. They pay to see Texas play OU, or #5 KState play #20 TCU. As it stand we make $20 million a year, that is approx $4.444 million per conference game. If we go to a 12 team league with 8 conference games that will end up being 48 game conference schedule which is 3 games more than we play now (45=(9*10)/2). At $4.444 million per game that comes out to approx $213.333 million per year, which is about $17.777 million per school. Now obviously if we are to come to an agreement that we would play an SEC team every year that could make up for it (this is what the B1G was trying to do with the PAC 12). A CCG would help make up for some of the deficiet but why would you leave money on the table. A 9 game conference schedule is here to stay.
Three things matter 1) number of people watching 2) number of games played 3) Quality of games played. Right now as it stand the SEC wins 2 and 3 with a tie ror 1 with the B1G. In order for the B12 to compete we need to expand our footprint while also being concerned with the quality we are going to put on the field.
The B12 will never get the viewership of the B1G just because of geography, however, with an expanding south and south east we can position the league to take advantage of that and help get our teams extra revenue.
Three things matter 1) number of people watching 2) number of games played 3) Quality of games played. Right now as it stand the SEC wins 2 and 3 with a tie ror 1 with the B1G. In order for the B12 to compete we need to expand our footprint while also being concerned with the quality we are going to put on the field.
The B12 will never get the viewership of the B1G just because of geography, however, with an expanding south and south east we can position the league to take advantage of that and help get our teams extra revenue.
Last edited:
To build on this post, I'm more convinced the "Powers That Be" are aiming to eliminate FCS and mid-major non-conference games all together than I am of us ever playing 8 conference games again.
What would a network pay a conference if they had a 12 game conference schedule?
I don't know if you have to have a 12 game conference schedule, but what about a conference that eliminates FCS games, and limits teams to one mid-major a year.
Think if the B12 would match the SEC with 14 teams, each team played one game a year from the other conference, that plus a 9 game conference schedule. Then you find one other BCS team and one mid-major, I would think that inventory would be worth a crap load.
You are on the right track, replace "conference" with "relevant". For the same reason you ask how much would a network pay a conference for a 12 game conference schedule, is why the "Powers That Be" are on a path to creating a clear major and minor leagues in college athletics. Why share the CBB and CFB post-season money? The partitioning can be done with larger conferences and the subsequent conference TV networks- whether it be conferences of 16 (or likely more). Think if the SEC and Big 10 went to 20 teams each. With that much critical mass and influence, their networks will be in most markets ($$$) and will dictate what is relevant in post-season play.
Last edited:
While I agree this makes sense, the SEC is leading the charge on all this and they LOVE their bye week against an FCS team late in the year every year and an 8 game schedule. Going to 14 would have been their time to ditch that but they held onto it.
They hold onto it because the media give them a pass and have crowned it the toughest conference no matter what. Ignoring the fact that the past two seasons Big 12 and Pac 12 schedules have been tougher than SEC schedules. They have it made, third toughest schedules while getting credit for being the #1 league.
*****9:00 am update North Carolina and Virginia: B10 targets?
MHver3 @MHver3
Yeah I can confirm what Fravel is reporting. UVA BOT will meet today to possibly accept B10 offer. Might they sit at 15 or will they go 16?
The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
I think I just may sit back and watch this happen.
And yeah, i take these two with an entire mine worth of salt, but interesting that someone else is getting in on this.
MHver3 @MHver3
Yeah I can confirm what Fravel is reporting. UVA BOT will meet today to possibly accept B10 offer. Might they sit at 15 or will they go 16?
The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
I think I just may sit back and watch this happen.
And yeah, i take these two with an entire mine worth of salt, but interesting that someone else is getting in on this.
- Status
