I never enjoyed the non-title game setup. Wasn't fun. I like fun. Edit - I speak in past tense because the conferences that used to not have a title game came to mind.
Was ratified by the universities' boards of regents back in the Fall. As I recall it happened in late October/ early November. http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45976/big-12-preparing-a-league-wide-facelift Neinas wants to celebrate the success of the Big 12, which recently executed the six-year grant of rights to make it official: The Big 12's 10 current members are in place through the league's next TV negotiations for the first-tier media rights.
The pledge is for 13 years of tier 1 rights. At this point it's still a pledge because the new TV deal, which in its current form is worth about 20 million a school per year, has not been finalized. The deal is in its final stages however (t's being crossed and i's being dotted) and will be signed. All Big12 fans and Big12 schools can think Chuck Nienis for the job he's done reigning in DeLoss Dodds and bringing order to the conference. As of now the Big 12 is in the cat birds seat because of the new TV Deal, granting of tier one rights and Big 12 / SEC New Years day game. Big 12 schools are looking at bringing in 24+ million a year each not including what they get if the conference is represented in the semi-finals or the championship game. Cash is King and that's the reason for the sudden Big 12 stability plus the 13 year granting of Teir 1 rights. That is why schools like FSU and Georgia Tech are casting there eyes toward the Big 12.
Personally I'm hopping for 12 teams because I love a conference championship game. The Big question IMO is does a conference championship game add enough money to make it worth moving the conference back to 12 schools.
The assignment of Tier 1 rights is between the universities and the conference, as I understand it. The Boards of Regents of the Big 12 schools have all voted to assign their respective school's Tier 1 rights already.
That's the six-year pledge, not the recently-discussed and supposedly agreed to 13-year one. Yes, the six-year pledge was voted on, as you said, in late October and early November. I remember it well because it was a few days before Mizzou officially left, which made it quite awkward because they had to "abstain" from that part of the call. It was long after September 20, when OU and OSU were set for the Pac 12 before having the rug pulled out from under them. Obviously it doesn't matter now, since the league is on solid footing. But it truly was that close to falling apart completely. The OU-to-the-Pac 12 bit wasn't overblown at all.
True but it will not be signed until the new TV deal is signed. The new TV deal and the Big 12 granting of rights are both 13 years.
Alternate theory - this is a preemptive strategy so that when it does finally happen, Texas isn't, for a change, cast as the evil conference destroying villain as it ususally is.
Exactly. It's cover for the "Texas runs the conference" stuff that A&M and Nebraska put out there the last couple years. At the same time, Texas doesn't NEED for Clemson/FSU to happen. The SEC/Big 12 arrangement alignment clearly puts Big 12/SEC/PAC/B1G on one side of the ledger. Clemson/FSU probably adds value to a Big 12 TV deal, and are nice programs, but it's not a complete game changer money wise (though getting to 12 and adding a CCG probably is worth a million or two by itself). Notre Dame would be. If you're Texas, you're probably maximizing dollars + path to championship. Arguably, if the dollars aren't that different, and it makes your path tougher, It's not worth it. Texas is in a good spot with only one other really elite program around -- sure WV, OSU, Baylor, or TCU may have a big year when things fall right (RG3, Weeden+Blackmon, etc.), but generally, the conference will come to Texas or OU, and a Big 12 conference champ in most years will be in the top 4. Texas isn't out in front trying to make this thing happen, but probably won't put up too much of a fight if the rest of the conference wants it.
Adding FSU gets the Big 12 squarely in the Florida market which would be a nice boost in tv market. Florida is only behind California and Texas for the number of TV sets so most certainly value would be added to the Big 12 TV deal. In addition, going to 12 teams adds a conference championship game which means more bucks for the Big 12. Not many schools can offer the type of value to the Big 12 that FSU can. SEC is already in Florida and now in Texas so FSU would be more valuable to the Big 12. IMO the only other school that could add equal or better financial value would be ND and their TV deal expires in 2016. 12 is the perfect number to maximize a conferences earnings IMO since that is the magic number for a conference championship game but anything less than FSU or ND might not make financial sense.
I swear you have a problem with reading comprehension. I specifically said TCU was not on par with Nebraska in terms of the value of the program. I said they were better on the field. We all know on the field success doesn't get you recruited by major conferences. For someone who criticizes the quality of the big 12 teams, I don't know why you don't see the value in adding them. Miami is not getting a death penalty. It might be bad but they will recover. Wasn't the reason A&M wants to go to the SEC even though because they will struggle because it's a "100 year decision" But when it comes to the big 12, there is no value in adding a struggling Miami? Yes they made BCS bowls from smaller conferences. How the hell does that work against them? It's not like the computers had them #1. They were ranked highly in the AP, Harris and Coaches poll. They were respected enough to say they are having as good a year as teams in the other divisions. I've criticized over hyped teams from smaller conferences but it's really elitist to dismiss them completely just because of what conference they are in. What kind of simplistic superficial analysis is that? They take care of business. What's REALLY mind boggling is that this is in reference to great teams in mid conferences vs. bad teams in a big conference.
Reading on multiple sites that FSU is doing extensive due diligence regarding cost/benefit analysis of joining Big 12. Then TCU's AD goes on the radio and says that Clemson, Miami and FSU are trying to get into the Big 12. http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...football-realignment-florida-state-notre-dame The irony is truly remarkable. A year ago, the Big 12 was a whiff from the end of days. Now it merely holds the future of the ACC and the new college football postseason in its hands. “The Big 12 has been and will be a key factor in college football,” interim commissioner Chuck Neinas says. Only now do we see just how key. TCU athletic director Chris Del Conte, speaking Wednesday morning on the Texas Tech campus, said the Big 12 has Florida State, Miami and Clemson trying to get into the conference, according to a Lubbock, Texas radio station. Later in the day, Del Conte told the Fort Worth Star Telegram that he was referring to the “rumor mill”—not confirming interest from other schools. I’m not buying it. The president of the board of trustees at Florida State recently said his university should take a hard look at its athletic options, all but daring the Seminoles to evacuate the ACC ASAP. At the same time, conference commissioners for the ACC and Big East and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick all said the same thing during spring meetings over the last week: We’re monitoring the situation. Meanwhile, the Big 12 and SEC spring meetings begin next week, with college football staring at two significant issues: the power conferences eating (another) one of their own, and the yet to be completed four-team playoff. Here’s how it could play out: If Florida State and another ACC team leaves for the Big 12, it will start a chain reaction of proactive protection that will separate the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten and Pac-12 from the rest of college football. It’s survival mode for everyone involved. The SEC can’t sit and watch the Big 12 encroach its television markets without responding, and that response will be a run at Virginia Tech and the Holy Grail of the ACC, North Carolina. One television industry source said Virginia Tech “wasn’t interested” in leaving the ACC last summer when the SEC was expanding, but that “the writing will be on the wall” if FSU and another ACC team leave for the Big 12. Only one move needs to happen to set it all in motion: FSU to the Big 12. If that happens, the SEC—knowing the Big 12 will need (at least) a 12th team—will pursue Virginia Tech to strengthen its television brand potential. Once that happens and the ACC is mortally wounded, North Carolina—one of the nation’s strongest athletic programs—will be available. This is the face of greed and envy. It’s volatile and it’s vexing and eventually poisons everything within reach. Why should something as simple as college football be any different? There’s an adage among defensive coaches: see ball, get ball. It fits perfectly here. See money, get money. This isn’t about a better postseason or a true champion or, for the love of self-involved fans and media, college football powerbrokers listening to the masses. This is about honest-to-goodness, tangible, television money. How to secure it—and where it takes college football from here. Once the Big 12 expands to 12 (or 14), it will revive its championship game (more money) and the four major conferences will all have championship games. The SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12 are adamant about keeping the conference championship games, and that means the postseason will have to be tweaked. By tweaked, I mean more teams added to the playoff. “There’s too much to risk in those games,” a BCS source said. “If you’re going with conference champions, you’re taking a huge gamble that upsets don’t happen. Television wants the four best teams.” Or the eight best. Last November, the SEC did its best to conceal the fact that Missouri would be the league’s 14th member. The deal was complete weeks in advance, but conference administrators didn’t want anything to overshadow the pending mega-matchup between LSU and Alabama. The Sunday after LSU’s overtime victory in Tuscaloosa, the SEC announced Missouri had joined the conference. At that time, commissioner Mike Slive said he didn’t foresee more expansion in the near future. Of course, four months prior to that, Slive looked at me in Birmingham, Ala., at the SEC’s annual media days, and uttered these now infamous – and foretelling – words: “I can get to 16 (teams) in 15 minutes.” So it might take a little longer. Who’s counting? Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...gnment-florida-state-notre-dame#ixzz1w4p9gnPe
http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1368751 D.C. Reeves Warchant.com Managing Editor An inevitable spike in travel costs for Florida State's athletic program have been at the forefront of the the debate about FSU's viability in the Big 12. A college athletics consulting firm suggests that FSU's travel budget could increase up to 40 percent if it realigned, but that the expense would not outweigh the potential profitability of a move to the Big 12. Russell Wright, Managing Director of Collegiate Consulting, Inc., estimates that Florida State would see its travel budget increase as much as 40 percent with the move from the ACC to the Big 12. According to Florida State's projected athletic budget for the current 2011-12 academic year, Florida State is slated to spend $4.36 million on team travel for its 18 varsity sports. A 40 percent increase on that would amount to about a $1.74 million bump in travel costs. "The travel costs are definitely going to go up," said Wright, whose firm has been contracted for studies by the athletic departments at more than 100 colleges and universities including 70 Division I institutions. "But 40 percent would be the high end." The 2011-12 projected budget does not factor in postseason play. However, FSU's most recent report filed to the NCAA which outlined the program's expenses for the 2010-11 season - a year in which all 19 FSU athletic teams made the NCAA postseason - said that FSU spent $5.78 million in travel. Even at the higher figure from 2010-11, a 40 percent spike would add up to $2.31 million in additional travel costs. The school reported to the NCAA that it spent $5.16 million on travel during the 2009-10 season, a figure that falls between the 2010-11 number and the 2011-12 projection. The athletic department reported a $2.4 million budget shortfall to the FSU Athletics Board earlier this month, a deficit that could have played a role in the overall operating projection entering the year. Wright's estimate of 40 percent differs somewhat from FSU president Eric Barron's memo to FSU fans earlier this month in which he outlined some potential pitfalls with a move to the Big 12. He addressed concern for steep travel expenses if FSU were to realign, saying "one estimate is that the travel by plane required by FSU to be in the Big 12 may exceed the $2.9 million difference in the contract - actually giving us fewer dollars than we have now to be competitive with the Big 12 teams." The $2.9 million figure has been a point of debate since it was derived from comparing the recently inked ACC deal, which averages about $17 million per school per year, to a rumored $20 million per school, per year Big 12 deal (yet to be completed) that only involves the Big 12's current 10-team setup. That rumored Big 12 deal would not factor in the value of adding Florida State, a potential 12th team and a championship game. If Florida State decided to realign, the discrepancy between the two TV contracts would increase well above the $2.9 million figure cited by Barron. But Wright believes even $2.9 million wouldn't be cancelled by the extra travel that Big 12 conference membership would require. "I don't see it being that high. There's no way that (added revenue with a move to the Big 12) gets eaten up all by the travel costs," Wright said. "They're just wrong, actually." Florida State's football team was projected to spend $950,000 in travel this past fall. The Seminoles played five road games (Wake Forest, Boston College, Clemson, Florida and Duke) and played in the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando. While a one-page outline of the projected athletic budget for the upcoming 2012-13 season was presented to the athletic board earlier this month, it did not have a specific line item for travel expenses. An FSU athletic department official said that the figure had not been finalized yet. Wright says that the final price tag on athletic travel is misconceived by some because they base a travel cost increase on the actual distance traveled. For example, the average road trip from Tallahassee to a Big 12 destination averages between 200-250 miles longer than the current ACC setup, roughly a 50 percent increase in average miles to travel for conference play. But unless it is an extreme case - like San Diego State moving to play all the way in the Big East - he says the biggest eater of travel dollars comes in destinations. "The distance isn't so much the issue if you're flying as the airports," Wright said. "If you're going into metropolitan airports, then obviously your pricing is better, and that's the whole hook." Wright said there are several remote destinations that would affect FSU's bottom line in the Big 12 like Lubbock, Texas, Ames, Iowa and Manhattan, Kan., but pointed out that those trips would compare cost-wise to Florida State's current ACC docket of Blacksburg, Va. Charlottesville, Va. and Syracuse, N.Y. Currently, all of Florida State's sports are already flying to every ACC school for road competition except Georgia Tech, Miami and Clemson in certain cases. Also, the $5.78 million FSU spent on travel in 2010-11, cited in the report to the NCAA, includes more than city-to-city transportation. The figure includes "air and ground travel, meals and incidentals for competition including preseason, regular season and postseason." It also includes the value of the use of school-owned vehicles or airplanes. So while the cost of getting from Point A to Point B would increase, there would be little or no change in the cost of meals, incidentals or lodging for FSU's teams according to Wright. Wright said that in the end, the potential financial outlook with a move to the Big 12 could prove beneficial one for Florida State financially and it's one that is worth investigating. "You're remiss if you don't look at it, you really are," Wright said. "They're not doing their due diligence if they don't at least do that. You're doing what's prudent for the best of the school. "To me, it's a no-brainer to at least look at it."
How does it work against them? Because it hasn't been settled on the field. They're "ranked highly" in a trio of highly arbitrary polls decided on the whims and hypotheticals of Average Joe sportswriters. It's not the same thing as proving it on a week-in, week-out basis against major conference teams. No one's using it against them, per se. It's just pointing out the lunacy of comparing what TCU and West Virginia do in the MWC and Big East to the results of Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M in the Big 12. Apples and oranges. Bad teams in a big conference? Are you being serious right now? In the last five years, Mizzou has 48 wins - good for No. 12 in the country (and tied with your supposed "great team" in West Virginia, despite the fact that WVU played in a much weaker league). You might not have realized it, though, because WVU has gotten easy BCS bids by virtue of playing in the Big East, while Mizzou had to compete with the likes of OU and Texas for one. Nebraska has 43 wins in that period, good for No. 24 in the country. Go back further (definitely relevant, since tradition is highly correlated with staying power in college football, for a number of reasons), and Nebraska is one of the top 5 or so power programs in the history of the sport. A&M is certainly in the top 25. I'm not trying to use anything against TCU and West Virginia. I'm just urging you to use perspective. Both schools have had a strong 5-to-10 year run while playing fairly weak competition. Maybe it will continue in the Big 12. There's also the possibility that it won't. To say they're "way better on the field" than the likes of Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M is a fairly silly statement to make when the fields they've played on have been so different.
Yes, it does. Fans aren't going to keep putting money (tickets, television ratings, merchandise, etc.) into a consistently bad-to-mediocre program. The same factors that make certain schools "attractive" to major conferences also make them likely to have a winning program over the course of time. The money factor allows those schools to hire and retain elite coaches, expand recruiting budgets, regularly enhance facilities, etc. Will it happen every year? Of course not. Hiring mistakes will be made, schedules can either be very weak or brutal, etc. Short-term anomalies will occur. But over the course of time, Nebraska is a clearly superior program to TCU, and it's highly likely they will be going forward as well. The same resources that made them attractive to the Big Ten also have a lot to do with that. There's value in adding them, certainly. I don't think we're denying that. The Big 12 did a great job in nabbing the two most valuable schools available - I think we all agree on that. But there's quite a leap between that and declaring a clear, on-field upgrade over the schools that left.
I don't think you read my comment (and are thus responding) to its context. Of course on the field performance represents the value of the program. I was acknowledging that it does not make a team attractive by itself. As I said, TCU is very good on the field but it isn't a very valuable program outside of that. A conference is evaluated by a variety of criteria. Quality of the teams is one of them and in that sense TCU is a good pickup. Again, I explicitly said Nebraska and A&M were more valuable programs overall. Replacing them with a Florida St and Miami combined with teams that have been successful on the field with TCU and West Virginia puts the big 12 is the same if not better position than they were in a couple years ago.
http://www.saycampuslife.com/2012/0...he-eventual-death-of-the-big-east-conference/ Besides the constant shift of colleges to different sport conferences, the big news this year has been the money major college programs are receiving for various TV deals. They’re both related and show just how important it is for schools to be aligned with the right conference or risk losing millions of dollars annually in revenue. This fall, the Big East Conference will be seeking its latest television deal. By the looks of things the Big East is about to receive a huge financial blow, one that could have more schools looking for a way out of this beleaguered conference. TV Contracts Money matters in college and schools with big time programs stand to earn millions annually from television rights alone. Those monies fund each school’s athletic programs, not just men’s basketball and football, the two top moneymakers in college athletics. Without the required funds, programs such as field hockey, golf and wresting would be put into jeopardy, and alumni dollars would also likely be stemmed. No university president wants to oversee a sinking ship! The Big East Conference is an excellent example of a once-promising league that has failed to keep up with the times. Originally predominately a basketball conference, football was added in 1991 and with it a number of highly respectable teams joined. Miami was the best of the football-playing Big East, followed closely by Virginia Tech and West Virginia. Though the conference wasn’t on par with the nation’s best conferences, it clearly fielded teams that competed on a national level. ACC Raids Due to its proximity to the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big East has been the subject of several ACC raids beginning in 2003 when Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech announced that they were leaving. The Big East rebounded by pulling in Conference USA teams Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida to fill the void. A second ACC raid will soon take out Syracuse and Pittsburgh, while West Virginia has already left for the Big 12. The Big East responded by pulling in more Conference USA teams as well as football-only programs including Boise State, San Diego and Navy. Despite the addition of Boise State and with Temple, Houston, Central Florida, Southern Methodist and Memphis also joining in — a Big East raid again — it is clear that the Big East cannot possibly aspire to the level of play seen in the Big12, Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC, let alone the ACC. Thus, the $3 billion TV contract inked by the Pac 12; the $3.6 billion for the ACC and the $2.6 billion for the Big 12, will be out of reach for the Big East. Last year, before West Virginia, Syracuse and Pittsburgh announced their departure for greener pastures, the Big East turned down a $1 billion contract over nine years reports the Boston Herald. Even that “low” number may be difficult to justify, leaving schools with less money this go around. Conference Raids The conservative estimate for the Big East TV contract is $6.4 million, an amount that is five times greater than the Conference USA take as well as what San Diego nets out west. This compares to what schools in the Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Big Ten and ACC pull in — at least $15 million per year. That’s a gap of nearly $10 million annually for Big East schools with football and men’s basketball teams, an amount some college presidents may have a difficult time swallowing. LIke UConn. Or Rutgers. So, here is the deal: if a conference comes calling and targets one of the few remaining Big East schools worth taking, expect the already diminished Big East to finally implode. Cincinnati, Louisville, UConn and Rutgers could easily be snapped up. And, if the ACC itself is raided, then South Florida could find a home there, replacing Miami.
