NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Fri May 27, 2016 1:08 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 311, 312, 313, 314, 315
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 8:55 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Phoenix Arizona
lash wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
I think a Comcast sponsored network would be a bad idea. I just can't see other providers wanting to carry that network in non-Big 12 states.

You do realize Comcast which now owns Time Warner are in the top 50 markets of the USA. Comcast could offer the Big 12 network in all of these 50 markets as a premium channel. If Comcast became the sponsor or part owner of the Big 12 network, they would not necessarily want other providers having access to the Big 12 network.

It the Big 12 network were exclusively offered by Comcast, you would have to subscribe to Comcastto get the Big 12 network. This could be good marketing sense for Comcast.

If the Big 12 expanded into the Denver Market, Salt Lake City Market, Connecticut NYC markets, and Florida markets with four new schools, the only way those schools could get a lot of Big 12 sports is for fans to subscribe to the premium channel.

Of course the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Big 12 would continue to be offered on ESPN and FOX, however, new Big 12 inventory could be pushed down to the tier 3 Big 12 network which would help Comcast to market the Big 12 network to those fans wanting to view Big 12 sports.

The problem with the PAC 12 networks is they are not on a national type provider and are limited to the markets the Pac 12 can push their network which is primary the West Coast. The SEC Network got the benefit of ESPN pushing the network out to all the ESPN type subscribers. The BTN worked hard to push their network into markets, however, the Big Ten has much larger markets compared to the Pac 12.

Would the Big 12 be better of with a network that is owned or partially owned by a single national carrier, or not having a 3 tier network at all.

If the objective of the Big 12 is to start up a network, the conference is going to have to have a sponsor that will push the network onto their owned carriers.

I say go big or go home. If Comcast is willing to invest in the Big 12 network, there would be hope the Big 12 could get a network off the ground. ESPN is apparently no longer interested in pushing out networks such as ACC and Big 12 because my assumption is they lost money on these type of networks. I got SEC network without any increase to my ESPN subscriptions and somebody apparently took a loss on this. Ditto LHN.

You have got schools in large markets lining up to join the Big 12 and will stop short of selling their soles to get into a power league.

Expand to 16 by taking UConn, UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Colorado State, and BYU and use their tier 3 inventory to initially push out the Big 12 network with live TV football and basketball.

East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Memphis, UCF, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Connecticut
West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado State, BYU

Comcast and the Big 12 would have to pay ESPN 15 million per year to acquire the University of Texas Tier 3 rights which in turn ESPN would be able to pay Texas contract until 2032. This is the biggest investment that would have to be absorbed by the new network, other than start up cost. With Comcast startup cost should be more easy with one single carrier.

There are other 3 tier networks with the current Big 12 schools that would have to be acquired as well including the Sooner network and Kansas 3 tier.

All the new potential 6 expansion schools other than possibly BYU would have to fork over their tier 3 rights which could include live football and basketball. BYU may have to be bought out as well.

If Comcast is willing to invest which is the big question, then the Big 12 network would appear to be a possibility.

If Comcast is not an option and ESPN is not willing to help launch the Big 12 network, my guess is the Big 12 will remain status quo with 10 schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:47 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 467
Is UT really worth that much to the television sports corp's.?
The answer is clearly NO.
The B12(really 10 anything but a G5 conference that has UT and UO)
The messes at Baylor and BYU also play into the show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 10:52 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Phoenix Arizona
ctx48c wrote:
Is UT really worth that much to the television sports corp's.?
The answer is clearly NO.
The B12(really 10 anything but a G5 conference that has UT and UO)
The messes at Baylor and BYU also play into the show.

Sometimes CTX you do not make any sense with your comments. I usually try to ignore your comments as you obviously would like to believe Rutgers of all schools was the only formal Big East that actually came out a head in realignment. In other words you are not objective in your opinions.

Many conferences including the Big Ten would be in the same situation without Ohio State and Michigan.

My question to you is do your school Rutgers bring much value to TV? The answer is obviously yes because why else would the Big Ten have selected Rutgers without a piece of the NYC markets. Rutgers were a perianal bottom feeder in the old Big East and continuous to be the same in its new digs.

The difference between say TCU and Rutgers as both are in very good markets, TCU actually plays sports specifically football.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 11:30 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Phoenix Arizona
lash wrote:
ctx48c wrote:
Is UT really worth that much to the television sports corp's.?
The answer is clearly NO.
The B12(really 10 anything but a G5 conference that has UT and UO)
The messes at Baylor and BYU also play into the show.

Sometimes CTX you do not make any sense with your comments. I usually try to ignore your comments as you obviously would like to believe Rutgers of all schools was the only formal Big East that actually came out a head in realignment. In other words you are not objective in your opinions.

Many conferences including the Big Ten would be in the same situation without Ohio State and Michigan.

My question to you is do your school Rutgers bring much value to TV? The answer is obviously yes because why else would the Big Ten have selected Rutgers without a piece of the NYC markets. Rutgers were a perianal bottom feeder in the old Big East and continuous to be the same in its new digs.

The difference between say TCU and Rutgers as both are in very good markets, TCU actually plays sports specifically football.

Just to be a little more clear on why I decided to finally challenge your useless post on the Big 12 thread. I am sure Rutgers fans would hate for UConn to finally make it to a power league. UConn has actually remained relatively competitive in sports despite have lack of revenue resources. Just think what Big 12 money would do for UConn that apparently Big Ten money can help with Rutgers sports.

Again I do not mean to be disrespectful to you as I understand your concern with UConn gaining access to power money, you negatives comments are not providing any value to the discussion of Big 12 expansion and if the league will actually expand and create a network that may someday rival the BTN.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 11:35 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1284
Location: Columbus, OH
lash wrote:
lash wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
I think a Comcast sponsored network would be a bad idea. I just can't see other providers wanting to carry that network in non-Big 12 states.

You do realize Comcast which now owns Time Warner are in the top 50 markets of the USA. Comcast could offer the Big 12 network in all of these 50 markets as a premium channel. If Comcast became the sponsor or part owner of the Big 12 network, they would not necessarily want other providers having access to the Big 12 network.

It the Big 12 network were exclusively offered by Comcast, you would have to subscribe to Comcastto get the Big 12 network. This could be good marketing sense for Comcast.

If the Big 12 expanded into the Denver Market, Salt Lake City Market, Connecticut NYC markets, and Florida markets with four new schools, the only way those schools could get a lot of Big 12 sports is for fans to subscribe to the premium channel.

Of course the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Big 12 would continue to be offered on ESPN and FOX, however, new Big 12 inventory could be pushed down to the tier 3 Big 12 network which would help Comcast to market the Big 12 network to those fans wanting to view Big 12 sports.

The problem with the PAC 12 networks is they are not on a national type provider and are limited to the markets the Pac 12 can push their network which is primary the West Coast. The SEC Network got the benefit of ESPN pushing the network out to all the ESPN type subscribers. The BTN worked hard to push their network into markets, however, the Big Ten has much larger markets compared to the Pac 12.

Would the Big 12 be better of with a network that is owned or partially owned by a single national carrier, or not having a 3 tier network at all.

If the objective of the Big 12 is to start up a network, the conference is going to have to have a sponsor that will push the network onto their owned carriers.

I say go big or go home. If Comcast is willing to invest in the Big 12 network, there would be hope the Big 12 could get a network off the ground. ESPN is apparently no longer interested in pushing out networks such as ACC and Big 12 because my assumption is they lost money on these type of networks. I got SEC network without any increase to my ESPN subscriptions and somebody apparently took a loss on this. Ditto LHN.

You have got schools in large markets lining up to join the Big 12 and will stop short of selling their soles to get into a power league.

Expand to 16 by taking UConn, UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Colorado State, and BYU and use their tier 3 inventory to initially push out the Big 12 network with live TV football and basketball.

East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Memphis, UCF, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Connecticut
West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado State, BYU

Comcast and the Big 12 would have to pay ESPN 15 million per year to acquire the University of Texas Tier 3 rights which in turn ESPN would be able to pay Texas contract until 2032. This is the biggest investment that would have to be absorbed by the new network, other than start up cost. With Comcast startup cost should be more easy with one single carrier.

There are other 3 tier networks with the current Big 12 schools that would have to be acquired as well including the Sooner network and Kansas 3 tier.

All the new potential 6 expansion schools other than possibly BYU would have to fork over their tier 3 rights which could include live football and basketball. BYU may have to be bought out as well.

If Comcast is willing to invest which is the big question, then the Big 12 network would appear to be a possibility.

If Comcast is not an option and ESPN is not willing to help launch the Big 12 network, my guess is the Big 12 will remain status quo with 10 schools.


I think that would be over-expansion and the quality of the the Big 12 product would be dramatically reduced. Going to 16 and stealing them all from the ACC would make sense, since they are worth more than G5 schools to the networks and they have a tradition of playing at the top level. If you aren't going to bring in P5 schools then the expansion has to be modest--12 would be ideal. If I had it my way, I'd grab Florida St, Clemson, and 4 of: GT, Miami, VT, NC St, Louisville, & Pitt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 4:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Phoenix Arizona
fighting muskie wrote:
lash wrote:
lash wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
I think a Comcast sponsored network would be a bad idea. I just can't see other providers wanting to carry that network in non-Big 12 states.

You do realize Comcast which now owns Time Warner are in the top 50 markets of the USA. Comcast could offer the Big 12 network in all of these 50 markets as a premium channel. If Comcast became the sponsor or part owner of the Big 12 network, they would not necessarily want other providers having access to the Big 12 network.

It the Big 12 network were exclusively offered by Comcast, you would have to subscribe to Comcastto get the Big 12 network. This could be good marketing sense for Comcast.

If the Big 12 expanded into the Denver Market, Salt Lake City Market, Connecticut NYC markets, and Florida markets with four new schools, the only way those schools could get a lot of Big 12 sports is for fans to subscribe to the premium channel.

Of course the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Big 12 would continue to be offered on ESPN and FOX, however, new Big 12 inventory could be pushed down to the tier 3 Big 12 network which would help Comcast to market the Big 12 network to those fans wanting to view Big 12 sports.

The problem with the PAC 12 networks is they are not on a national type provider and are limited to the markets the Pac 12 can push their network which is primary the West Coast. The SEC Network got the benefit of ESPN pushing the network out to all the ESPN type subscribers. The BTN worked hard to push their network into markets, however, the Big Ten has much larger markets compared to the Pac 12.

Would the Big 12 be better of with a network that is owned or partially owned by a single national carrier, or not having a 3 tier network at all.

If the objective of the Big 12 is to start up a network, the conference is going to have to have a sponsor that will push the network onto their owned carriers.

I say go big or go home. If Comcast is willing to invest in the Big 12 network, there would be hope the Big 12 could get a network off the ground. ESPN is apparently no longer interested in pushing out networks such as ACC and Big 12 because my assumption is they lost money on these type of networks. I got SEC network without any increase to my ESPN subscriptions and somebody apparently took a loss on this. Ditto LHN.

You have got schools in large markets lining up to join the Big 12 and will stop short of selling their soles to get into a power league.

Expand to 16 by taking UConn, UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Colorado State, and BYU and use their tier 3 inventory to initially push out the Big 12 network with live TV football and basketball.

East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Memphis, UCF, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Connecticut
West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado State, BYU

Comcast and the Big 12 would have to pay ESPN 15 million per year to acquire the University of Texas Tier 3 rights which in turn ESPN would be able to pay Texas contract until 2032. This is the biggest investment that would have to be absorbed by the new network, other than start up cost. With Comcast startup cost should be more easy with one single carrier.

There are other 3 tier networks with the current Big 12 schools that would have to be acquired as well including the Sooner network and Kansas 3 tier.

All the new potential 6 expansion schools other than possibly BYU would have to fork over their tier 3 rights which could include live football and basketball. BYU may have to be bought out as well.

If Comcast is willing to invest which is the big question, then the Big 12 network would appear to be a possibility.

If Comcast is not an option and ESPN is not willing to help launch the Big 12 network, my guess is the Big 12 will remain status quo with 10 schools.


I think that would be over-expansion and the quality of the the Big 12 product would be dramatically reduced. Going to 16 and stealing them all from the ACC would make sense, since they are worth more than G5 schools to the networks and they have a tradition of playing at the top level. If you aren't going to bring in P5 schools then the expansion has to be modest--12 would be ideal. If I had it my way, I'd grab Florida St, Clemson, and 4 of: GT, Miami, VT, NC St, Louisville, & Pitt.

fighting muskie, I have to disagree on G5 school comparison to power schools. Sure Florida State and Clemson would be a very good catch because both have national brands in football. Other than that or possibly academic comparison, a cable company is only going to care about how many subscribers a schools could bring into the market. UCF would trump Louisville, Pitt, Georgia Tech, and probably NC State.

And less face it, the only place that ACC schools will end up after the GOR expire in 2028 are the SEC or Big Ten. So it is a pipe dream for your suggestion of merging the best ACC schools with the Big 12.

To me the Big 12 has one chance right now to create a network with schools regardless of P5 or G5 to keep pace with the SEC and Big Ten and ensure the league is stable in the future.

The ACC is not any more stable compared to the Big 12, the ACC does have 14 schools as a buffer for losing members. That fact alone would make the ACC the conference that gets the leftovers and not the other way around with the Big 12 picking up the left overs should major realignment occur in the next decade.

So yes maybe 16 is too many schools, however, for a network 14 schools would be idea for right now and would match the other leagues in size.

We have heard from so many sources on which schools are the top pick when we really have not be provided with the TV data the Presidents and AD will review next week on expansion.

Just from market strength and size and I would not rule out Comcast option for the Big 12 sponsor. UCF, UConn, BYU, and Colorado State or Houston could make the cut over Cincinnati. It really is going to depend on how the TV data perceives the marketability of those schools in their perspective market.

If the Big 12 does not create a network, I do not believe the league will expand and its not because they are waiting on the ACC schools you are suggesting.

The Big 12 will have a decade to determine if 10 schools can make enough revenue to keep Oklahoma and Texas happy with tier 1 and tier 2 money.

If I am the current 10 Big 12 schools would be looking at every opportunity possible to create a network while there are G5 schools willing to do anything to join this league. This may not be the case next decade if the Big 12 is not able to keep pace with the SEC and Big Ten and Texas and Oklahoma bolt to a league to make more money.

I do not think the Big 12 has to make the same revenue projections as the Big Ten and SEC, it just has to be a competitive league in revenue. That will take a network or all bets are off for the long term future of this league.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 4:57 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 467
The tv market of the B12 is based upon UT and UOKL.
Who watches Kansas ,Texas Tech,Iowa St,Kansas St and even WVU.
Besides UT or UOKL no other P5 league is interested in any other B12 member.
If UT keeps blocking the B12 expansion and UT and UOKL for greener pastures lots of AAC members will become members of the B12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 6:35 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Phoenix Arizona
ctx48c wrote:
The tv market of the B12 is based upon UT and UOKL.
Who watches Kansas ,Texas Tech,Iowa St,Kansas St and even WVU.
Besides UT or UOKL no other P5 league is interested in any other B12 member.
If UT keeps blocking the B12 expansion and UT and UOKL for greener pastures lots of AAC members will become members of the B12.

ctx, we actually may be more closer in opinion that I originally thought.

Just for laughs, the Oklahoma/Kansas basketball game was the highest rated regular season game on ESPN. Granted its basketball, however, fans are watching.

I am not sure Texas is the hold up on expansion. Nobody at Texas has came out publicly against expansion. Where are these rumors coming from?

I continue believe it has to do with a carrier for the Big 12 network and ESPN has laid off many employees trying to appease the SEC and Texas with networks.

Comcast is the answer if the Big 12 is willing to limit its coverage in some markets and gaining national marketability, the league should be fine and expand with UConn, Cincinnati, Colorado State, and BYU that has long been the front runners for expansion.

Its not Texas and more the cable carrier that has to commit to the Big 12 network resulting in expansion of new markets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 7:57 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 1:31 am
Posts: 8
UT is most definitely the hold up... They are joined with Tech and TCU who reside in the Longhorns hip pocket (Tech because they are hoping Texas will take them with them wherever they end up going, and TCU because they feel an obligation as a gratuity for getting an invite themselves)... Too many writers and Sports folks in the know have exposed this for it not to be accurate... And the reason WHY they are holding the line is very simple... ESPN is giving them $15M a year for the next 15 years to sponsor the LHN (the Athletic Dept gets 50% of it). Meanwhile the rest of the League only gets their share of the Television distribution shared 10 ways. This is a UT Athletic Department advantage in the conferences of $7.5 M over the other Big 12 members (although OU and one or two other schools get a significantly smaller contribution for broadcasting rights but they are much smaller that what UT gets for the LHN).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 8:03 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 1:31 am
Posts: 8
As for Comcast being the sponsor of the Big 12??? I can't get very excited about that... They have had sponsorship's before that they have sold off after they became a total mess... Their sponsorship of the MWC would be a terrific case study on their viability. Comcast ended up selling it off to CBS and I don't even think that it exists today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:35 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 494
ctx48c wrote:
The tv market of the B12 is based upon UT and UOKL.
Who watches Kansas ,Texas Tech,Iowa St,Kansas St and even WVU.
Besides UT or UOKL no other P5 league is interested in any other B12 member.
If UT keeps blocking the B12 expansion and UT and UOKL for greener pastures lots of AAC members will become members of the B12.

Looks true for now. Even OU has big limitations. If they went to the SEC, they would have trouble scheduling both oSu and the RRR each season. Two usually tough OOCs' each season in fb would be problematic in the SEC. It would be similar circumstances for the B1G and P12.
Texas does not have the extensive open options as often suggested. There would probably be resistance by the SEC. PAC12 may not be open to tag-a-longs. Texas would be a B1G outlier; and even Nebraska is not really happy with some of their B1G scheduling and they are geographically connected. The ACC is not going to give Texas a Notre Dame-type deal.
Where is Texas going to be able to carry the LHN with them? Not another P5 conference. And that matter of the GoR remains. I doubt neither Texas and OU would get the votes to be released from the contract. For that to happen, six other B12 members would each have to be given lucrative offer elsewhere.
They need to make the B12 work for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Today I am ready to move on that the potential of a Big 12 network may just not be in the works. ESPN has lost money on these endeavors in the past and apparently would be the only valuable option to creating the network.

OK is expansion going to occur without a network.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-co ... #twt_staff

I have always liked the idea of only taking one member, going back to the old Big Ten type schedule with 11 members and 8 game football schedule, requiring a CCG because every schools would not play each other and the 8 game schedule increases the odds of making the playoff.

BYU would be the single school option and for all sports.

This option would keep the Big 12 in the third best league spot and possibly in sight of the Big Ten and SEC.

Texas
Oklahoma
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Kansas
Iowa State
Kansas State
WVU
BYU

The Big 12 would accomplish everything they want with this option minus the network option and can always come back for a 12 school latter.

It is good to see the option being discussed as the 11 team Big 12 with BYU would be a tough football league.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 5:09 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1906
PONDER THIS !

Who's going to represent Baylor at upcoming Big XII meetings ?

AND....

If they don't send a representative, what are the rules on voting ?
(instead of 8/10, does it become 7/9 for something to pass ?)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 311, 312, 313, 314, 315

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group