Oh yes, that was definitely me and pretty much everyone else. The prevailing idea is that UT basically holds a vast majority of the cards in this decision making process, and that still seems true. I've layed out very plainly what scenarios I think UH makes sense for inclusion, so if UT (and everyone else in TX) was against that, the only thing I could surmise is that they were afraid of the competition. I give UT all the props in the world if this is true.
This is exactly what a few of us have been saying this entire time. There aren't any two teams that you can add that will increase the profit of the league by 50 million annually thus creating a consensus among every big 12 program on who to add. Also, a big 12 Championship will get a sponsor no matter what. They don't need to rope in Fedex by adding Memphis to get it sponsored. You get stability by increasing the value of the conference by making it more financially valuable and that is measured by the payouts to each team. Adding teams just to add them doesn't do that. Also, has anyone seen any information about the ratings of the SEC/Big 10 Network. I believe the payouts per school are based on the agreements with the various cable providers for carrying the content but the revenue per school is not tied to actual ratings on the network after they are live. I'm not trying to say that I think they're bad. I honestly have never seen them. I'm skeptical they are super impressive given the steady decline in cable subscriptions especially as more sports are adding subscription models for viewing content outside of cable. Then again, the Longhorn Network is projected to turn their first profit in 2016 for ESPN which is tied to coverage as well as ratings. If that's the case then the SEC and Big 10 networks must be doing well. ESPN drops 1.5 million subscribers in the last 4 months: http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...ubscribers-as-cord-cutting-accelerates-052816 Nielson: http://sportstvratings.com/how-many...nd-nbc-sports-network-june-2016-edition/5087/ TLDR: Cable subscription model is dying and the time has passed to put all of the cable companies on the hook for those networks with declining subscriber base. Personally, I feel like the big 12 has the least appealing schools nationally and would also be last in ratings and cost significantly more than the longhorn network to operate if there are field pieces at each school.
Allow me to refine this statement. You get stability by creating a conference that schools want to be a part of. Despite a very handsome payout per team, the Big 12 is not viewed as a stable conference right now. This is probably because many programs would leave if given the opportunity. Who, why and where? That's up for debate. Fair or not, this is the perception the Big 12 is dealing with. As for Chip Brown, I'm not surprised to hear that nobody is interested in launching a network given what is happening with cable TV right now. We do know from Boren & Bowlsby's earlier comments that teams can be added to the B12 's current media deal without reducing the payout to the current members, so that should keep the option on the table. If you can make your conference more competitive and keep the money the same or better, then you should probably do it. Especially if it makes your business partners happy enough to extend your current contract beyond the next 8 years. That's stability.
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...2-schools-back-expansion-one-problem-persists <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby doesn't expect votes on key issues this week but wants decisions by the end of summer.</p>— Chuck Carlton (@ChuckCarltonDMN) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChuckCarltonDMN/status/737823244879724544">June 1, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Source indicates at least six Big 12 schools now favor expansion as a concept and maybe as many as eight. No consensus on who just yet.</p>— Chuck Carlton (@ChuckCarltonDMN) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChuckCarltonDMN/status/737823554645819392">June 1, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I have never heard anyone measure a conference this way. It's completely subjective and arbitrary. Every single article about the strength of conferences is about current and projected payouts per school. Every non p-5 team wants to be in the big 12 so I don't understand how it fits into your point. The only two teams that might leave the big 12 given the opportunity are OU and UT. How are you measuring the big 12 "not being seen as a stable conference"? This is the perception by you and the BS Boren was putting out. Teams are locked in till 2025. Handsome payout. Teams are easily making it to the top 4 during the season and placed one in the final playoff standings last year. The conference is stable however there is no projection post 2025 which is not the same thing as being unstable and there is no two teams you can add that will change anything about the post 2025 planning. *If you can keep the money same or better* is the million dollar issue. If that was the case then ESPN and Fox would be pressuring the big 12 to add teams but they aren't so expanding is NOT making the business partners happier. None of the available teams bring valuable market additions which is why there is no agreement on the best teams to add. Summarizing your post: -Big 12 is unstable because many teams would leave if they could and other teams don't want to join. -Fix by adding 2 teams that do want to join from smaller conferences -Profit? (No issue you bring up is helped by adding two non p5 teams.)
Exactly!!! No one is leaving unless Texas or OU leaves. Every team who had the option to leave has already left. Nebraska and Colorado probably regret the move. The grass isn't always greener.
This was discussed a few months back in this thread. The SEC and Big10 are doing really well. Still a great deal for UT. Don't see why they would give up all that money.
Looks like the ratings or the payout per school (directly from SEC network) have not yet been released. Read that the ratings could be released later this year but apparently ESPN/SEC are keeping the payouts to themselves. But it sounds like both networks did well with the SEC doing very well. But some guy did some math and came up with 102M which equals out to just under 7M per school.
It's subjective, but not really all that arbitrary. The reasons that conference members are happy/unhappy typically make sense when viewed through their own lens. I doubt that. Financial data is included quite often, but you need look no further than 6 years ago with the Big 12 to see article after article talking about the conference and its instability due to things that had nothing to do with payouts and finances. (Those articles are still being written today, even) This is a completely disingenuous and irrelevant point, and you are smart enough to know why. They're the only two teams that could conceivably leave *on their own*, but not the only teams that would leave *if given the chance*. Big difference. This paragraph is all over the map so I'll just give you the advice that you should probably Google Big 12 instability and see what comes up. The instability narrative had legs far before Boren opened his mouth. You don't know this. *I* don't know this either. All I have heard is what teams/areas each TV partner prefers the Big 12 expand into, should they decide to expand. I have no idea whether ESPN or FOX is encouraging or discouraging expansion. That is what we are suppose to find out on Thurs/Fri, as the B12 is supposed to meet with the networks then. The business partners include your conferencemates, FYI. It's part of why there is no agreement, yes. We've known all along that the top 4-5 programs were fairly budget neutral when it comes to additional revenue. If it has to, it will end up being boiled down to other, more subjective factors. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I suppose one more time won't hurt. Assuming cost neutrality, if you can add teams to your conference that make it more competitive (both internally and nationally), then you should do it.
I haven't kept up with this thread, but does anybody really thing the Coogs have a shot at the Big XII? BYU, Cincy, Memphis all bring more $$, which is the only thing that matters
Is BYU still on the table? I thought the issue with adding them was Sunday sports for all non-football events.
Did you read this somewhere or just conjecture? I don't disagree but haven't read anything other than OU or UT possibly leaving but even that was unsubstantiated rabble.
Conjecture. Nobody has any inside info on who can or wants to leave. But I think you agree with me that many programs would go if they could. And you can't really blame them.
I'll have time to respond more later tonight Donny but I quickly wanted to say as an overview that your entire was of thinking and plan of action was exactly what the Big East did to improve "stability" and it literally destroyed the conference. Adding teams for the sake of adding teams does not make a conference more stable. They would have been way better off getting back to 8 teams instead of fluffing with 12. Notre Dame bailed and then the Catholic 7 with the Big East conference and Madison Square Garden.
The only thing the situations have in common is that they're both backfilling. Other than that, they're not really comparable. The Big East was backfilling out of pure necessity to field enough football teams to remain viable (and not lose their BCS bid). It was hemorrhaging programs and adding teams reactively and out of pure desperation. You act as if the backfilling the Big East did is what killed the conference. Sorry, no. From a revenue and media rights standpoint, it was dead before Tulane and ECU's phones even rang. Its fate was sealed in 2010 when it turned down a $1.2B TV contract offer from ESPN (a figure it would never even sniff again in the open market). The uncertainty that brought opened the door for Pitt and Syracuse (charter members) to jump ship. Followed by West Virginia/TCU. Then finally Rutgers and Louisville. There was never going to be a way for the conference to make up for those losses. Even if Notre Dame stayed (very unlikely) and the Catholic 7 were still around, it wouldn't come close to closing the $20+ million dollar revenue gap between them and the P5. The Big East added programs just to keep some semblance of a pulse. The Big 12 can add programs to make itself more competitive. Significant difference. Granted, I think the Big 12 is inherently unstable and will implode soon due to its extreme inequity, but as a UH fan it would be nice to get 20 million bucks more a year for a few years until it does. Can any current candidate improve the stability of the conference? I dunno. Maybe. But making the conference better at sports couldn't hurt.
On expansions, Bowlsby says Big 12 has "luxury of time." Bob Bowlsby: "I’m going to push for decisions to be made one way or the other by the end of the summer." Bowlsby on expansion discussion: "We haven't talked about schools at all." Texas AD Mike Perrin: "I'm philosophically against (Big 12) expansion for expansion's sake." Mike Perrin clearly wants Texas to keep Longhorn Network. "My position would be that we should not disturb it at this time." Texas AD Mike Perrin said there is plenty of value in the Longhorn Network that goes beyond the money. Texas AD Mike Perrin on expansion: "I think this is a dialogue that could continue several years." Texas AD Mike Perrin on potential expansion: "I think the prudent thing for us to do as a conference is stay where we are." Perrin suggests expanding now might limit the Big 12's options down the line: "We're probably going to see another round of alignment." Texas AD Mike Perrin: "I don't think the Big 12 has to do anything right now."
What makes you think that the current members are unhappy? Because Boren runs his mouth? Everyone has opinions about what they want but just because Mike Gundy says they need to turn the Longhorn Network into the big 12 Network doesn't mean Oklahoma St isn't happy with the university. They're happy with that 24 million dollar check they get every year which is consistently how the value of a conference is judged. You don't need to look further than 6 years ago to evaluate the situation they are in now. If that is the case then it doesn't matter who they add now. The status quo doesn't matter because they weren't stable 6 years ago. If your point is about big 12 stability then you look at the current 13 year deal that they are in that still has 9 more years to go with every team locked in because of media right granting. That is the definition of stability. http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205680799 What? It was a response to your argument that, "You get stability by creating a conference that schools want to be a part of." which I think is silly. However, if you think that's true then they have made a conference that at least 8 non p-5 schools have said they want to join. We don't know how content p-5 schools are since they are all locked in. Florida St and Clemsen fought the media rights rules because they were interested in the big 12 but it didn't happen. We won't know anything until 2023 comes around and the future finances of all of conferences becomes more clear. Every team will look at their payout opportunity that a different conference offers and base their decision off of that. Sure, I'm sure most of them would jump to the Big 10 or SEC if invited because of the advantage of their network and if was more money but that invite isn't happening. That's a huge factor here. There are only two teams left in the big 12 that other conferences would pursue and you don't fix value by just adding more mid-value teams. I mean I could see Kansas going to the SEC if their football program was decent and it brought a decent market. There is a reason the rest of the big 12 asked (begged in Baylor's case) for Texas, Ou, TT, Ok St to stay. It's because the big 12 is the best opportunity for them and that's why they wanted to make it work to the point where they offered to give up the penalty fees that the other exiting schools played the conference. Cost Neutrality would mean ESPN and Fox give the big 12 48 million dollars more a year for these two additional teams. That is a massive assumption. Again, this is why the big east was run into the group after they expanded. Adding for the sake of adding is useless. The big 12 does not have a problem with a perception of quality in football or basketball. They were all over the top 25 and top 5 through out the season in both. TCU, Baylor, OU were all in the top 4 at one point in the year and Ok ST broke the top 10 I believe. There are 5 big conferences and only 4 playoff spots. So far, the Big 12 and the Pac 12 have been left out once each. Does that mean the Pac 12 has a problem with competitiveness? You make think the big 12 needs better teams but the playoff committee does not. The points they have made concern non-conferece scheduling which is irrelevant to conference schools. Adding a quality program is always great but you don't do it for the sake of doing it if the other factors don't measure up.
