Yeah but it wasn't really an intellectually honest comparison. Do you think people really want to watch Rutgers, Minnesota, Northwestern, or Illinois? Of course not, but the Big 10 does fine. Do people really want to watch Washington State, Arizona State, Washington, or Colorado? of course not, but the PAC 12 does fine The only conference that only has a few "who cares" type schools is the SEC and that's not going to change. A Big 12 network would do better numbers than the Longhorn network so if you can justify a Longhorn network, you can easily justify a Big 12 network. As to talking about adding teams, it's not just a matter of increasing the chance of a team landing in the top 4, it's a matter of the Big 12 wanting to be a "big kid" conference or a 10 school joke with no conference championship.
Good point but I would still say yes. Minnesota and Illinois have huge following in their states which are both in the top half of US population (Illinois is 5th). Rutgers brings the new york market which USA Today said had 607,157 Rutgers fans in 2014 and that number has by no doubt grown since then. Plus, the network penetration into new york is massive and you're reaching fans of all different universities since there are so many transplants. If they can muscle their way for the network to be put on the standard TV package instead of a special add on then that is a TON of money they get from all NY subscribers (fans or not). Can't do much about Northwestern but every conference needs a token private school. The conference also is more loaded at the top. In 2015, The big 10 had 6 of the top 20 most valuable schools which isn't a perfect representation of brand appeal but it's decently close. The big 12 had two (UT and OU). That might very well be true but that doesn't mean the big 12 network will be that good and make a decent amount of money. If you are Texas, your making a tremendous risk by losing the Longhorn Network for a conference that has no real indication that it will be very profitable so Texas could end up with nothing. I'm sure Texas wants the Longhorn Network to be profitable however they still make a lot of money off it and the brand awareness is tremendous. This is just silly. Being the only conference to not add teams from a different power 5 conference because they waited to long does not make them a "big boy." Whatever, it's called the big 12 with 10 teams. Matching the number isn't worth adding teams that don't help the financial or competitive appeal of the conference. The big east might have survived if it didn't try to get to 12 teams by adding SMU and Tulane which I believe was the final straw for the Catholic 7. Plus, TCU and Baylor were both in the top 4 for a span last season and OU finished in the top 4 with no risk of dropping out of it. That includes both the Playoff Committee and the AP. At the end of the day, no one is going to say, "Wow, the big 12 added Cincinnati and BYU? They're playing with the big boys now."
No but they very well might say "The Big 12 still only has 10 schools and no conference championship? What bush league nonsense". They'll also say that about how one of the weakest programs in the conference has a network while the conference as a whole doesn't. Stupid things like that make the entire conference look bad. Imagine if the Big 10 didn't have a network but Rutgers did....what would we say about that?
The AP voters and Playoff committee doesn't seem to think that. (OU not at risk for being left out of playoffs last year and Baylor,TCU being ranked in top 4 for multiple weeks). Honestly, the only people I've heard that from are UH and A&M fans. I mean I know there are others but that is the bulk...oh and Boren : ) Comparing Texas which finished a modest 4th to last pace Rutgers makes me realize you have to just be trolling me. You're just responding with whatever you can to keep getting digs in. Don't even factor in how Texas is a world wide brand so the idea of them having a network isn't ridiculous but it still can be assholish. Also, the longhorn network is projected to make a profit (Only 2 Million) in 2016. The trend toward profitability is a big deal. Everyone keeps pointing to the overall cost so far but that is going to be stacked with 1 time costs for facilities, crew, reporters, administrative departments, broadcast equipment etc. Also, it was going to take time to get deals worked out for TV Cable networks. Barely anyone could see the network for 2 years. I mean, the big 10 and SEC Network were able to expand MUCH easier but normally any new network is going to take time to reach profitability and recoup setup revenue. They still have 15 years on the deal. Maybe I am completely crazy here but the numbers seem promising to me. What am I missing? Well... other than it's selfish. That's a quote directly from the report. I can't fine the actual report. You could google it and see 1000 different news outlets talking about it. http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/se...laughable-as-a-business-proposition-thus-far/
Lol at anyone trying to seriously argue that anyone will think differently of a team just because Cincinnati or Houston is in their conference.
If you don't understand that they view a team differently that is in a conference without a championship than they do teams in conferences with a championship.....well you might be a UT homer. Pretty much everyone else realizes that intuitively.
You're changing the argument. We were never talking about being against a conference championship game. We were talking about expansion and they are two different matters. The big 12 does not need to expand to have a conference championship. If people view the conference so meagerly, why didn't OU drop out of the top 4 in the playoffs or AP rankings when they didn't play a conference championship game? Stanford won the pac 12 championship game but didn't jump OU. It doesn't mean a big 12 championship wouldn't have helped. It just means that the status quo does not lose them consideration or put them automatically behind other conferences.
Boren did a giant course correction. A further sign that UT and OU are on good terms at the top level regardless of what the former politician mouths off. He says a decision on expansion will likely come at the end of the year. He HAD said it would be earlier but things have changed for some reason. Virtually ever sentence contradicts statements he has made in the last year. http://collegesports.blog.statesman.com/2016/05/12/ou-president-says-im-not-out-to-get-texas/ <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Boren confirms he will vote the wishes of regents but says can’t remember last time he and the board haven’t been unanimous.</p>— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) <a href="https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/730871998780313600">May 12, 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">Boren: “I”ve never asked them to fold it (LHN) up."</p>— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) <a href="https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/730867884621103104">May 12, 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">Boren: "I love to do things quickly. I try to be decisive. But there are times you have to say, Let’s gather all the information."</p>— Guerin Emig (@GuerinEmig) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuerinEmig/status/730882960925196288">May 12, 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">Boren: "It can’t be something where you say ‘by a vote of 8-2, we’re gonna do this.’ You want to say unanimity will be formed, or it won’t."</p>— Guerin Emig (@GuerinEmig) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuerinEmig/status/730881500078477312">May 12, 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">Boren: "I personally don't have any (expansion) candidates."</p>— Guerin Emig (@GuerinEmig) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuerinEmig/status/730863021988274177">May 12, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Nothing really matters until everyone sees the report at the next meeting about a potential network. That's why UT hasn't said anything and it's what the OU regent wants to see.
Championship game = Playoffs, just ask the Pac-12! Look, I know you know how CFB works. An undefeated Texas will never get left out of the playoffs, championship game or not. Barring a 2008 scenario (and we saw how a championship game solved that controversy lulz), Texas will only get left out with 1-loss in the rarest of scenarios. More losses than that, and Texas doesn't deserve to be in the discussion. There's a reason 1-loss loss OU was never in question of making the playoffs despite having a WAY worse loss than either Baylor or TCU the year before. And it has nothing to do with conference affiliation. Again, there is absolutely no incentive for Texas to cave here.
It'll be dead air aside from their meeting next month. No action likely and regents will likely kill it before the end of the year.
Or they've seen what the gist of the report says and it's not good. Reading about all the issues the PAC 12 network is having, I don't see how a report on the viability of a Big 12 network would be any better, if not worse. Despite only paying a million or so to each school, the PAC Network has been operating in the black and have already started looking at cost-cutting measures, changing up game times, and alternative business models (not sure what that exactly means)...
I've thought about the +1 conference championship and changed my mind about it. I hope teams warm up to the +1 conference championship. Sure, teams will re-play each other after doing a round robin but that happens in the NFL where divisions have 2 round robins and %80 of the "non-conference games" are the same for all teams in the division. There is no reason division opponents should play each other in the 1st two rounds of the NFL playoffs but they do. I mean, I'd watch 10 win Ok St, and 11 win OU face off again on a neutral field after having a week to make any adjustments they need to prepare for one another. I'd watch 10 win TCU face off against 11 win Baylor again. Would you have rather seen OU vs a West Virginia team that finished with a losing conference record? Do you really miss those mismatched big 12 North-South title games? There were about 2 times in the last 10 years of that game that that featured a north team that finished with a better division record (and usually overall record) than the 2nd place south team. Yes they don't play all the same division opponents but non-conference records and cross division records were always lower in the north. Adding a conference championship and expanding apparently just increases the likelihood of the big 12 getting to the playoffs by %5 so there isn't a big advantage but it's hard to think that Baylor wouldn't have made the playoffs instead of Ohio St when they finished with the same record and Baylor had beaten the #6 team in the country. Even if it doesn't make a difference, It's just a better product on the field as long as you don't expand to 12 teams, split divisions where half of the teams play the other every 2 years and create lame "championship" games.
The viewing public, however, would not. That Alabama LSU rematch national title was a total ratings bomb IIRC.
Ha brainfart on my part. But also meant to post that they originally projected 5-6M per team when they modeled it out. Think both AZ schools made out with 800k or something last year.
That's not a good comparison. A conference championship puts two teams from within the same conference against each other. It's just an issue of which two. The entire college football championship was never meant to work out a battle between what team is better than a single conference. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying come up with an apples to apples example because I still believe those lopsided big 12 matchups are less interesting to everyone than the top two teams in the conference. The other consideration is that there is a 50-50 chance the north-south teams will have played each other in the regular season anyway. 4 out of the 5 pac 12 championship games had repeat matchups. Note that you aren't going to find that in the 14 team conferences as much because they play less cross division games. For instance, Texas A&M only plays Florida once every 6 years so there is only a %20 chance they would have met in the regular season instead of a 12 team conference's 50%
As opposed to the 6 years of probation Memphis hoops is looking at. Such a fine upstanding institution.
