Big 12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3757

lash wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

lash wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

pounder wrote:

Schmack mostly gets my Texas theory, but I'll go one better.

I'm imagining Clemson and Florida State making the jump, then Texas whispering to Oklahoma: "there, we shored up yer football, now we'll go to the B10." (Or, if you just saw Lash's comments on Nebraska, consider Texas in the ACC)

They've merely demonstrated that they're the big ego in that B12 room. They've also all but publicly flirted with the Pac-12 and Big 10. That's the real hazard of getting in bed with them. Of course, Big East schools face bigger hazards at the moment. I'm not so sure the same isn't true of the ACC, and maybe that conference would consider Texas and not harm LHN.

Maybe.

But there's no reason FOR Clemson or Florida State to make the jump.

Is the level of football better in the Big 12? Yes.

Does that matter? No. The dollars do. The ACC's deal is going to be about the same or more than the Big 12. And it should be. The football might be better, but the Big 12 has 38 million people in its footprint. The ACC has 86 million. And that's going to translate to a TV deal richer than they deserve from a football standpoint.

The Big 12 is geographically placed in the middle of the country, where they can be picked by every other BCS conference. The flirting between the Pac-12 and Texas and Oklahoma, the Longhorn Network... and the ability to replenish from the Big East should the SEC or Big Ten raid... anyone in the ACC would respond to a Big 12 invite with a "Uh, we're good, thanks."

This is not necessarily a true statement that ACC schools would make the same as Big 12 schools.
...
This would make the ACC deal somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 million dollars per school if true.

This would indicate each ACC school will get considerable less dollars compared to the 19 plus million dollars the proposed Big 12 will get for each of the 10 schools if the Big 12 accepts the Fox and ESPN deal extended out to 2025.

What gets complicated in these projections is how much could the Big 12 could generate additionally if Clemson and Florida State were included as the 11 and 12 school of the Big 12.

First up you have to consider 20 million dollar exit fee for each school to bolt for the Big 12. That is a onetime exit fee of 40 million dollars. Not necessarily pocket change, however could be paid by boasters of both schools.
Several Florida state supporters have been very unhappy with recent ACC expansion which included basketball schools of Syracuse and to some extent Pitt.

I am not totally convinced that Clemson and Florida State would not jump to the Big 12 if there were many more millions of dollars to make from such a move.

Yes, we've learned that for every school, it's always about the money. But it's also about the security of money for the longterm.

It's $3 million a year for the length of the Big 12 contract. 2025, that's 13 years. Well, it would take two to move, so 11 years. That's $33 million more, (plus the Big 12 Tournament game and any increase in TV deal based on new members). FSU would bring some new money, Clemson not so much.

Throw in the exit fee for $20 million, and it's $1 million more per year for 13 years.

However, the STABILITY PIECE is the key part here in my opinion. The Big 12 is far less stable than the ACC.

The entire Big 12 is the mercy of the University of Texas. It sound crazy, but their ability to get a TV contract depends on market and fan interest, and Texas delivers two top eight markets, and four Top 40 markets. Take that away and what kind of TV deal are they getting? What did we talk about in terms of fallout during the last Pac-16 rumors: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State were headed to the Big East/Mountain West. That's exhibit A for "Texas makes the Big 12 a power conference" (from a TV standpoint).

So, if you're Florida State or Clemson, why would you jump into a league that's solely dependent on one member.

The natural response is "Well, where's Texas going?" But they're always going to have suitors (from coast to coast) with the Pac-12, Big Ten and to a lesser extent, the SEC.

Now, I don't think Texas is going to go anywhere. With LHN, they could basically let everyone else leave them for power conferences, pick up smaller schools from CUSA/MWC/Sun Belt, and those guys would be happy to get the table scraps and have Texas on the schedule at home every other year.

With 14 members, the ACC can survive a raid and replenish from the Big East/CUSA/MWC with very little drop off. Losing FSU would hurt. But the Big 12 is a shell of its former self without Texas.

This is still a conference where YOUR WORD wasn't good enough as a sign of good faith, you had to sign over your TV rights for six years as collateral. (Which also makes that $3 million difference only guaranteed for THREE years, not 11. That's $9 million more total guaranteed -- and it costs you $20 million to get it. Not to mention that the ACC is a "equal revenue sharing" league for NCAA revenue. Since the ACC went to 12 teams: 82 NCAA shares (Not counting 26 earned from Pitt/SU). The remaining Big 12 teams: 57 shares (WVU has earned 16 in that span). That would offset the TV deals a little bit as well.

You'd be taking a very large risk moving from the ACC to Big 12. I don't think you make a move unless it's clearly a better situation. Long term, the ACC is more stable and more likely to continue earning big revenue, while the Big 12 has potential for larger revenue, it also has the potential for catastrophe.

Last year only the Pac 12, SEC, and Big Ten could safely claim solid stability of all the BCS conferences.

I am adding the Big 12 to the stability list this year with the signing of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV rights respectively and especially if these rights gets extended out to 2025.

The ACC continues to be venerable to raids. The only reason Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC is because the ACC was planning on a losing couple teams to the SEC. Everyone does not understand how close the SEC came to adding Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M and Missouri last year. The Pac 12 decision to remain at 12 basically put a stop in the 16 team conference movement.

There is a reason the ACC changed the exit fees to 20 million dollars. Money is the reason schools could leave the ACC for other leagues. The Big 12 has a different issue which needed to ensure teams did not bolt for other leagues. The signing of tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the Big 12 was not so much about money and more to ensure schools did not bolt for other issues and concerns. LHN comes to mind for one of those concerns.

The only way the ACC can truly fill safe from future raids if Notre Dame somehow has to join a league with changes to the BCS and Notre Dame can help bring the revenue sharing especially for football up to comparables with the other top BCS leagues. With Notre Dame sliding further with the school’s football reputation, Notre Dame may not help that much in the future if changes do not occur very soon.

The major issue within the ACC is football strength compared to the SEC and the Big 12.

It is no secret and the TV execs understand and realize the ACC has been very down in football for years. Florida State was not holding up the league and reason Miami and company were brought on board with the original Big East raid.. The problem with this plan and you can’t necessarily blame the ACC, Miami dropped to level of Florida State and the plan was to have Florida State and Miami together elevate the league to a more comparative football league. We are talking SEC and Big 12 type level for football.

I have stated this many times, the ACC expanded for markets and basketball with Pitt and Syracuse when they could have tried to get WVU and/or TCU or both to sure up football strength. If you did not want those two schools, maybe try to raid another league with schools that had a better football reputation. Louisville and Cincinnati have been better in football the last 10 years compared to Pitt and Syracuse. South Florida is progressing better than either of Pitt and Syracuse for football.

The SEC could afford to expand into Missouri because football strength is basically at the top of the BCS conferences. In other words you have a product in football that is worth marketing to the those markets you have for your TV contract negotiations.

Would it have really mattered that soft drink maker Coke had all those existing markets if the company had continued to market new Coke and had not been smart enough to revert back to making Coke Classic.

While it is critical to have markets it is much more important to have a good product for those markets. At the moment the ACC does not have a good product for markets outside of the ACC or ACC markets shared with other BCS leagues that are much better in football. I believe this will be reflected in the conference ability to negotiate TV contracts and possibly prevent defections from schools that may want to play in a much stronger football league

One thing to factor in...ACC is #2 in basketball viewership overall...and #3 in football viewership overall. The Big 12 is #4 in hoops, #4 in football. Our perception is that the ACC product is weak based on things like BCS standings. But from a "sales" standpoint, it's pretty dominant over the Big 12, Pac-12, and Big East.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:57 pm

Quinn wrote:

lash wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

lash wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

pounder wrote:

Schmack mostly gets my Texas theory, but I'll go one better.

I'm imagining Clemson and Florida State making the jump, then Texas whispering to Oklahoma: "there, we shored up yer football, now we'll go to the B10." (Or, if you just saw Lash's comments on Nebraska, consider Texas in the ACC)

They've merely demonstrated that they're the big ego in that B12 room. They've also all but publicly flirted with the Pac-12 and Big 10. That's the real hazard of getting in bed with them. Of course, Big East schools face bigger hazards at the moment. I'm not so sure the same isn't true of the ACC, and maybe that conference would consider Texas and not harm LHN.

Maybe.

But there's no reason FOR Clemson or Florida State to make the jump.

Is the level of football better in the Big 12? Yes.

Does that matter? No. The dollars do. The ACC's deal is going to be about the same or more than the Big 12. And it should be. The football might be better, but the Big 12 has 38 million people in its footprint. The ACC has 86 million. And that's going to translate to a TV deal richer than they deserve from a football standpoint.

The Big 12 is geographically placed in the middle of the country, where they can be picked by every other BCS conference. The flirting between the Pac-12 and Texas and Oklahoma, the Longhorn Network... and the ability to replenish from the Big East should the SEC or Big Ten raid... anyone in the ACC would respond to a Big 12 invite with a "Uh, we're good, thanks."

This is not necessarily a true statement that ACC schools would make the same as Big 12 schools.
...
This would make the ACC deal somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 million dollars per school if true.

This would indicate each ACC school will get considerable less dollars compared to the 19 plus million dollars the proposed Big 12 will get for each of the 10 schools if the Big 12 accepts the Fox and ESPN deal extended out to 2025.

What gets complicated in these projections is how much could the Big 12 could generate additionally if Clemson and Florida State were included as the 11 and 12 school of the Big 12.

First up you have to consider 20 million dollar exit fee for each school to bolt for the Big 12. That is a onetime exit fee of 40 million dollars. Not necessarily pocket change, however could be paid by boasters of both schools.
Several Florida state supporters have been very unhappy with recent ACC expansion which included basketball schools of Syracuse and to some extent Pitt.

I am not totally convinced that Clemson and Florida State would not jump to the Big 12 if there were many more millions of dollars to make from such a move.

Yes, we've learned that for every school, it's always about the money. But it's also about the security of money for the longterm.

It's $3 million a year for the length of the Big 12 contract. 2025, that's 13 years. Well, it would take two to move, so 11 years. That's $33 million more, (plus the Big 12 Tournament game and any increase in TV deal based on new members). FSU would bring some new money, Clemson not so much.

Throw in the exit fee for $20 million, and it's $1 million more per year for 13 years.

However, the STABILITY PIECE is the key part here in my opinion. The Big 12 is far less stable than the ACC.

The entire Big 12 is the mercy of the University of Texas. It sound crazy, but their ability to get a TV contract depends on market and fan interest, and Texas delivers two top eight markets, and four Top 40 markets. Take that away and what kind of TV deal are they getting? What did we talk about in terms of fallout during the last Pac-16 rumors: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State were headed to the Big East/Mountain West. That's exhibit A for "Texas makes the Big 12 a power conference" (from a TV standpoint).

So, if you're Florida State or Clemson, why would you jump into a league that's solely dependent on one member.

The natural response is "Well, where's Texas going?" But they're always going to have suitors (from coast to coast) with the Pac-12, Big Ten and to a lesser extent, the SEC.

Now, I don't think Texas is going to go anywhere. With LHN, they could basically let everyone else leave them for power conferences, pick up smaller schools from CUSA/MWC/Sun Belt, and those guys would be happy to get the table scraps and have Texas on the schedule at home every other year.

With 14 members, the ACC can survive a raid and replenish from the Big East/CUSA/MWC with very little drop off. Losing FSU would hurt. But the Big 12 is a shell of its former self without Texas.

This is still a conference where YOUR WORD wasn't good enough as a sign of good faith, you had to sign over your TV rights for six years as collateral. (Which also makes that $3 million difference only guaranteed for THREE years, not 11. That's $9 million more total guaranteed -- and it costs you $20 million to get it. Not to mention that the ACC is a "equal revenue sharing" league for NCAA revenue. Since the ACC went to 12 teams: 82 NCAA shares (Not counting 26 earned from Pitt/SU). The remaining Big 12 teams: 57 shares (WVU has earned 16 in that span). That would offset the TV deals a little bit as well.

You'd be taking a very large risk moving from the ACC to Big 12. I don't think you make a move unless it's clearly a better situation. Long term, the ACC is more stable and more likely to continue earning big revenue, while the Big 12 has potential for larger revenue, it also has the potential for catastrophe.

Last year only the Pac 12, SEC, and Big Ten could safely claim solid stability of all the BCS conferences.

I am adding the Big 12 to the stability list this year with the signing of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV rights respectively and especially if these rights gets extended out to 2025.

The ACC continues to be venerable to raids. The only reason Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC is because the ACC was planning on a losing couple teams to the SEC. Everyone does not understand how close the SEC came to adding Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M and Missouri last year. The Pac 12 decision to remain at 12 basically put a stop in the 16 team conference movement.

There is a reason the ACC changed the exit fees to 20 million dollars. Money is the reason schools could leave the ACC for other leagues. The Big 12 has a different issue which needed to ensure teams did not bolt for other leagues. The signing of tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the Big 12 was not so much about money and more to ensure schools did not bolt for other issues and concerns. LHN comes to mind for one of those concerns.

The only way the ACC can truly fill safe from future raids if Notre Dame somehow has to join a league with changes to the BCS and Notre Dame can help bring the revenue sharing especially for football up to comparables with the other top BCS leagues. With Notre Dame sliding further with the school’s football reputation, Notre Dame may not help that much in the future if changes do not occur very soon.

The major issue within the ACC is football strength compared to the SEC and the Big 12.

It is no secret and the TV execs understand and realize the ACC has been very down in football for years. Florida State was not holding up the league and reason Miami and company were brought on board with the original Big East raid.. The problem with this plan and you can’t necessarily blame the ACC, Miami dropped to level of Florida State and the plan was to have Florida State and Miami together elevate the league to a more comparative football league. We are talking SEC and Big 12 type level for football.

I have stated this many times, the ACC expanded for markets and basketball with Pitt and Syracuse when they could have tried to get WVU and/or TCU or both to sure up football strength. If you did not want those two schools, maybe try to raid another league with schools that had a better football reputation. Louisville and Cincinnati have been better in football the last 10 years compared to Pitt and Syracuse. South Florida is progressing better than either of Pitt and Syracuse for football.

The SEC could afford to expand into Missouri because football strength is basically at the top of the BCS conferences. In other words you have a product in football that is worth marketing to the those markets you have for your TV contract negotiations.

Would it have really mattered that soft drink maker Coke had all those existing markets if the company had continued to market new Coke and had not been smart enough to revert back to making Coke Classic.

While it is critical to have markets it is much more important to have a good product for those markets. At the moment the ACC does not have a good product for markets outside of the ACC or ACC markets shared with other BCS leagues that are much better in football. I believe this will be reflected in the conference ability to negotiate TV contracts and possibly prevent defections from schools that may want to play in a much stronger football league

One thing to factor in...ACC is #2 in basketball viewership overall...and #3 in football viewership overall. The Big 12 is #4 in hoops, #4 in football. Our perception is that the ACC product is weak based on things like BCS standings. But from a "sales" standpoint, it's pretty dominant over the Big 12, Pac-12, and Big East.

first post I've read on here in a while, I needed something short, I didn't want to read long novels about ACC vs B12 and how Tk single handedly ended the UT vs A&M rivalry because he is actually Deloss Dodds and tk is his undercover name. Sorry for exposing you Deloss but this has gone on long enough.

gsohokiefan · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:43 pm

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

first post I've read on here in a while, I needed something short, I didn't want to read long novels about ACC vs B12 and how Tk single handedly ended the UT vs A&M rivalry because he is actually Deloss Dodds and tk is his undercover name. Sorry for exposing you Deloss but this has gone on long enough.

Amen.

westwolf · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:49 pm

Be serious. Neither Clemson nor Florida State is considering leaving the ACC for the Big 12.

seanbo · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:57 pm

Quinn wrote:

lash wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

lash wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

pounder wrote:

Schmack mostly gets my Texas theory, but I'll go one better.

I'm imagining Clemson and Florida State making the jump, then Texas whispering to Oklahoma: "there, we shored up yer football, now we'll go to the B10." (Or, if you just saw Lash's comments on Nebraska, consider Texas in the ACC)

They've merely demonstrated that they're the big ego in that B12 room. They've also all but publicly flirted with the Pac-12 and Big 10. That's the real hazard of getting in bed with them. Of course, Big East schools face bigger hazards at the moment. I'm not so sure the same isn't true of the ACC, and maybe that conference would consider Texas and not harm LHN.

Maybe.

But there's no reason FOR Clemson or Florida State to make the jump.

Is the level of football better in the Big 12? Yes.

Does that matter? No. The dollars do. The ACC's deal is going to be about the same or more than the Big 12. And it should be. The football might be better, but the Big 12 has 38 million people in its footprint. The ACC has 86 million. And that's going to translate to a TV deal richer than they deserve from a football standpoint.

The Big 12 is geographically placed in the middle of the country, where they can be picked by every other BCS conference. The flirting between the Pac-12 and Texas and Oklahoma, the Longhorn Network... and the ability to replenish from the Big East should the SEC or Big Ten raid... anyone in the ACC would respond to a Big 12 invite with a "Uh, we're good, thanks."

This is not necessarily a true statement that ACC schools would make the same as Big 12 schools.
...
This would make the ACC deal somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 million dollars per school if true.

This would indicate each ACC school will get considerable less dollars compared to the 19 plus million dollars the proposed Big 12 will get for each of the 10 schools if the Big 12 accepts the Fox and ESPN deal extended out to 2025.

What gets complicated in these projections is how much could the Big 12 could generate additionally if Clemson and Florida State were included as the 11 and 12 school of the Big 12.

First up you have to consider 20 million dollar exit fee for each school to bolt for the Big 12. That is a onetime exit fee of 40 million dollars. Not necessarily pocket change, however could be paid by boasters of both schools.
Several Florida state supporters have been very unhappy with recent ACC expansion which included basketball schools of Syracuse and to some extent Pitt.

I am not totally convinced that Clemson and Florida State would not jump to the Big 12 if there were many more millions of dollars to make from such a move.

Yes, we've learned that for every school, it's always about the money. But it's also about the security of money for the longterm.

It's $3 million a year for the length of the Big 12 contract. 2025, that's 13 years. Well, it would take two to move, so 11 years. That's $33 million more, (plus the Big 12 Tournament game and any increase in TV deal based on new members). FSU would bring some new money, Clemson not so much.

Throw in the exit fee for $20 million, and it's $1 million more per year for 13 years.

However, the STABILITY PIECE is the key part here in my opinion. The Big 12 is far less stable than the ACC.

The entire Big 12 is the mercy of the University of Texas. It sound crazy, but their ability to get a TV contract depends on market and fan interest, and Texas delivers two top eight markets, and four Top 40 markets. Take that away and what kind of TV deal are they getting? What did we talk about in terms of fallout during the last Pac-16 rumors: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State were headed to the Big East/Mountain West. That's exhibit A for "Texas makes the Big 12 a power conference" (from a TV standpoint).

So, if you're Florida State or Clemson, why would you jump into a league that's solely dependent on one member.

The natural response is "Well, where's Texas going?" But they're always going to have suitors (from coast to coast) with the Pac-12, Big Ten and to a lesser extent, the SEC.

Now, I don't think Texas is going to go anywhere. With LHN, they could basically let everyone else leave them for power conferences, pick up smaller schools from CUSA/MWC/Sun Belt, and those guys would be happy to get the table scraps and have Texas on the schedule at home every other year.

With 14 members, the ACC can survive a raid and replenish from the Big East/CUSA/MWC with very little drop off. Losing FSU would hurt. But the Big 12 is a shell of its former self without Texas.

This is still a conference where YOUR WORD wasn't good enough as a sign of good faith, you had to sign over your TV rights for six years as collateral. (Which also makes that $3 million difference only guaranteed for THREE years, not 11. That's $9 million more total guaranteed -- and it costs you $20 million to get it. Not to mention that the ACC is a "equal revenue sharing" league for NCAA revenue. Since the ACC went to 12 teams: 82 NCAA shares (Not counting 26 earned from Pitt/SU). The remaining Big 12 teams: 57 shares (WVU has earned 16 in that span). That would offset the TV deals a little bit as well.

You'd be taking a very large risk moving from the ACC to Big 12. I don't think you make a move unless it's clearly a better situation. Long term, the ACC is more stable and more likely to continue earning big revenue, while the Big 12 has potential for larger revenue, it also has the potential for catastrophe.

Last year only the Pac 12, SEC, and Big Ten could safely claim solid stability of all the BCS conferences.

I am adding the Big 12 to the stability list this year with the signing of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV rights respectively and especially if these rights gets extended out to 2025.

The ACC continues to be venerable to raids. The only reason Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC is because the ACC was planning on a losing couple teams to the SEC. Everyone does not understand how close the SEC came to adding Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M and Missouri last year. The Pac 12 decision to remain at 12 basically put a stop in the 16 team conference movement.

There is a reason the ACC changed the exit fees to 20 million dollars. Money is the reason schools could leave the ACC for other leagues. The Big 12 has a different issue which needed to ensure teams did not bolt for other leagues. The signing of tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the Big 12 was not so much about money and more to ensure schools did not bolt for other issues and concerns. LHN comes to mind for one of those concerns.

The only way the ACC can truly fill safe from future raids if Notre Dame somehow has to join a league with changes to the BCS and Notre Dame can help bring the revenue sharing especially for football up to comparables with the other top BCS leagues. With Notre Dame sliding further with the school’s football reputation, Notre Dame may not help that much in the future if changes do not occur very soon.

The major issue within the ACC is football strength compared to the SEC and the Big 12.

It is no secret and the TV execs understand and realize the ACC has been very down in football for years. Florida State was not holding up the league and reason Miami and company were brought on board with the original Big East raid.. The problem with this plan and you can’t necessarily blame the ACC, Miami dropped to level of Florida State and the plan was to have Florida State and Miami together elevate the league to a more comparative football league. We are talking SEC and Big 12 type level for football.

I have stated this many times, the ACC expanded for markets and basketball with Pitt and Syracuse when they could have tried to get WVU and/or TCU or both to sure up football strength. If you did not want those two schools, maybe try to raid another league with schools that had a better football reputation. Louisville and Cincinnati have been better in football the last 10 years compared to Pitt and Syracuse. South Florida is progressing better than either of Pitt and Syracuse for football.

The SEC could afford to expand into Missouri because football strength is basically at the top of the BCS conferences. In other words you have a product in football that is worth marketing to the those markets you have for your TV contract negotiations.

Would it have really mattered that soft drink maker Coke had all those existing markets if the company had continued to market new Coke and had not been smart enough to revert back to making Coke Classic.

While it is critical to have markets it is much more important to have a good product for those markets. At the moment the ACC does not have a good product for markets outside of the ACC or ACC markets shared with other BCS leagues that are much better in football. I believe this will be reflected in the conference ability to negotiate TV contracts and possibly prevent defections from schools that may want to play in a much stronger football league

One thing to factor in...ACC is #2 in basketball viewership overall...and #3 in football viewership overall. The Big 12 is #4 in hoops, #4 in football. Our perception is that the ACC product is weak based on things like BCS standings. But from a "sales" standpoint, it's pretty dominant over the Big 12, Pac-12, and Big East.

Quinn, you nailed it. If I was a TV executive, the most important thing to me is selling advertisement on my network. So what I see is average football viewership for the ACC is 2.65 million compared to the Big 12's 2.35 million and average basketball viewership for the ACC is 1.25 million compared to the Big 12's 1.07 million. That's 2 ACC wins over the Big 12. That doesn't include the fact that the ACC added 2 new markets in Syracuse and Pitt which will make it's ratings better while the Big 12 lost Missouri and Texas A&M but gained TCU and West Virginia which is a net loss for that conference.

lash · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:01 am

Sorry guys I am not buying these TV figures for ACC football compared to the Big 12.

Maybe its ESPN ratings only for comparison and does not factor in the Fox ratings for Big 12 which the ACC does not get any additional ratings from a second major network not including ABC family of networks?

Otherwise why is a 10 member Big 12 going to make a projected 20 million and the ACC with 14 schools and two new markets going to make a projected 16 million.

Something does not add up here and TV execs understand their business better than an of us posting here in cyber space.

I understand there are a lot of ACC homeys on this board that believe the ACC is sacred cow that can't be touched.

My thoughts are now that the Big East carcass has been picked fairly clean, the next major conference in line to be cherry picked is the more venerable ACC.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3757

lash wrote:

Sorry guys I am not buying these TV figures for ACC football compared to the Big 12.

Maybe its ESPN ratings only for comparison and does not factor in the Fox ratings for Big 12 which the ACC does not get any additional ratings from a second major network not including ABC family of networks?

Otherwise why is a 10 member Big 12 going to make a projected 20 million and the ACC with 14 schools and two new markets going to make a projected 16 million.

Something does not add up here and TV execs understand their business better than an of us posting here in cyber space.

I understand there are a lot of ACC homeys on this board that believe the ACC is sacred cow that can't be touched.

My thoughts are now that the Big East carcass has been picked fairly clean, the next major conference in line to be cherry picked is the more venerable ACC.

Lash, you can take up your objections with the Nielson company, as the ratings come from them. These are the same ratings that are used as an industry standard. If you don't like them, that is your opinions. But since the discussion is about the TV industry in regards to college conferences, the Nielson numbers are exactly the type of strong data we all rely on.

lash · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:08 pm

Quinn wrote:

lash wrote:

Sorry guys I am not buying these TV figures for ACC football compared to the Big 12.

Maybe its ESPN ratings only for comparison and does not factor in the Fox ratings for Big 12 which the ACC does not get any additional ratings from a second major network not including ABC family of networks?

Otherwise why is a 10 member Big 12 going to make a projected 20 million and the ACC with 14 schools and two new markets going to make a projected 16 million.

Something does not add up here and TV execs understand their business better than an of us posting here in cyber space.

I understand there are a lot of ACC homeys on this board that believe the ACC is sacred cow that can't be touched.

My thoughts are now that the Big East carcass has been picked fairly clean, the next major conference in line to be cherry picked is the more venerable ACC.

Lash, you can take up your objections with the Nielson company, as the ratings come from them. These are the same ratings that are used as an industry standard. If you don't like them, that is your opinions. But since the discussion is about the TV industry in regards to college conferences, the Nielson numbers are exactly the type of strong data we all rely on.

Quinn,
I am not at all questioning the accuracy of the Nielson ratings and more on the spin or accuracy of how these ratings are used in discussions.

I would assume the Nielson ratings are one of the factors every TV executive uses in establishing how much revenue and particular contract may generate.

If the ACC TV ratings are correct and higher that the Big 12 for football, does that mean that marketing will pay more for Ads in Texas compared to say North Carolina?

What I believe is fans will use a portion of a Nielson rating for argument sake when there are other factors they do not take into consideration. For example I am assuming ACC only contracts with ABC/ESPN for football and the Neilson ratings for ACC are based on ESPN compared to ESPN views for games for Big 12, SEC, Pac 12, etc. I am just not sure because I do not understand how Nielson compiles its rankings.

What may be missing and not understood is the Big 12 has games on Fox and are those ratings factored into the overall Nielson ratings that we see reported? Or are these Nielson ratings based on just ESPN viewership? In other words comparing apples to apples.

Do the Nielson ratings take into consideration every network games and provide an average for total viewership. If so, I have more issues with these ratings figures as ACC games are very seldom televised on ABC (non cable ESPN networks) in Pac 12 markets as these games almost always go to regional Pac 12 games. I would assume the local (ABC, NBC. CBS, Fox) non cable ratings are by far larger than cable subscribers and reach far more households.

On the other token some Big 12 games are on Pac 12 markets for Fox and of course SEC games are always on exclusive for CBS. And Notre Dame games are of course on exclusive for NBC when Notre Dame plays at home in Pac 12 markets.

All of the above are why I questions just using one set of Nielson figures to prove a point when the real world contracts provided by the networks to college conferences do not match. Or at the very least they appear to be that way. Otherwise ABC/ESPN does not like the ACC very well based on TV ratings for football and what that network is willing to pay the ACC. These ratings did not happen overnight and would be reflective of the last contact when the ACC renewed for 14 million ballpark for each ACC school and was considerably lower compared to rival SEC schools.

If the ACC was actually the second best conference for football TV ratings overall networks and they got considerably less than rival SEC, someone is not doing their job in Greensboro. I just do believe we have all the facts here based on one set of Nielson ratings was my point.

I also understand the ACC is splitting the pie in more pieces compared to a 10 member Big 12 for instances and will contribute to some of the reasons ACC schools make considerably less per school. If this is the primary reason ACC makes less when ratings are better than other leagues for TV, it further supports my argument of bad decisions made by the ACC on expansion of Pitt and Syracuse.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:40 pm

TK, WTF is this! You guys are nike's b*tch too?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/866 ... e-jerseys/

seanbo · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:10 pm

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

TK, WTF is this! You guys are nike's b*tch too?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/866 ... e-jerseys/

I think they look good

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1036

seanbo wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

TK, WTF is this! You guys are nike's b*tch too?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/866 ... e-jerseys/

I think they look good

Practice only, alums would freak out if those ever showed up at DKR, I saw a mock up of a orange helmet with a white longhorn logo that looked good, I'll post it later...about to watch the Hunger Games.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:45 pm

tkalmus wrote:

seanbo wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

TK, WTF is this! You guys are nike's b*tch too?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/866 ... e-jerseys/

I think they look good

Practice only, alums would freak out if those ever showed up at DKR, I saw a mock up of a orange helmet with a white longhorn logo that looked good, I'll post it later...about to watch the Hunger Games.

What is that? Twilight for guys?

I only go to the movies once a year, I love to see all the special effects on the big screen in action packed thrillers like Hangover 2, American Pie 4

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1036

Wife loved it (she read the books), I thought it was okay...
UT has been with Nike for years, and from what I've read (not sure how accurate it is) we are the only school besides Oregon that has veto power over the designs...that being said every time we debut a new Nike uniform it always looks the same just with new style/cut/stitching.

Out of the tons of Nike concept art I've seen, this is the only thing I liked, it would look sweet in the all whites especially if we debut it against OU at the Cotton Bowl when we're the away team.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:03 pm

tkalmus wrote:

Wife loved it (she read the books), I thought it was okay...
UT has been with Nike for years, and from what I've read (not sure how accurate it is) we are the only school besides Oregon that has veto power over the designs...that being said every time we debut a new Nike uniform it always looks the same just with new style/cut/stitching.

Out of the tons of Nike concept art I've seen, this is the only thing I liked, it would look sweet in the all whites especially if we debut it against OU at the Cotton Bowl when we're the away team.

It's alright. I would have liked a white mask for some contrast.

Phlipper33 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:18 am

tkalmus wrote:

Wife loved it (she read the books), I thought it was okay...
UT has been with Nike for years, and from what I've read (not sure how accurate it is) we are the only school besides Oregon that has veto power over the designs...that being said every time we debut a new Nike uniform it always looks the same just with new style/cut/stitching.

Out of the tons of Nike concept art I've seen, this is the only thing I liked, it would look sweet in the all whites especially if we debut it against OU at the Cotton Bowl when we're the away team.

I'll even admit that helmet looks pretty good...and I'm an Aggie.

I am sad that we won't get to play you guys for several years in football. I think the political pressure will force the two to play again at some point, even if they can't play every year in football. Yeah, you can say its all Aggie fault for ending the rivalry, and I can't really argue that. I can't blame President Loftin for ending it either. Texas A&M has always seemed great cultural fit with the other SEC schools, and the Aggie alumni were enthralled with the idea of going to the SEC when the whole Pac16 thing started in the summer of 2010. When A&M turned down the SEC then and pledged to stay in the Big 12, a very large portion of the alumni were upset. Had the Pac-16 deal actually went through, with Utah going in replace of A&M, and A&M going to the SEC, I'm sure the schools would have found a way to keep the rivalry going. If Florida/Georgia/South Carolina can all play their in-state rival each season, why couldnt the same be done in Texas?

I was actually rooting for West Virginia to get stuck in the Big East another season so that the Big 12 would only have 8 conference games and UT-Austin would have the need for another game (and lord knows the Aggies could beef up their OOC games in 2012)

Good luck playing in the Big 12 next year, it will be really weird not having games against all my non-Aggie friends's schools next season. But hey, I can still look forward to A&M going 13-0 during the regular season but still not make it to the National Championship thanks to the world ending on December 21st. I figure the odds have got to be pretty close on each of those events, so I figure if the Aggies lose 1 game then the world won't end....Oops, wait - the Aggies never lose - they're just behind when the clock runs out :lol:

Big 12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

Who is online