NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:07 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 831 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 56  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:50 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Jon Wilner blog article reporting that PAC 12 Presidents dont want to expand unless TAMU leaves the Big 12.Thats great except that TAMU has already announced that they are leaving and are in talks with the SEC.Expansion pot looks like its getting ready to "boil over".Link at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -to-expand


This is why we all love freaked and appreciate him so much. Because EVERYTIME I read an article, even if it's just been posted live to the original site...when I come to post it on CSI, freaked has already done it! Thanks again freaked for all your excellent work, you're the best!

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:00 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Jon Wilner blog article reporting that PAC 12 Presidents dont want to expand unless TAMU leaves the Big 12.Thats great except that TAMU has already announced that they are leaving and are in talks with the SEC.Expansion pot looks like its getting ready to "boil over".Link at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -to-expand


Jon is certainly right there at the top when it comes to accurate and timely expansion news, especially with the Pac-12. One thing that is clear now is that the "power" this time around is clearly in the hands of the Pac-12 and not Texas. For instance, last year, the Pac-10 only wanted to expand beyond 12 if Texas was in the mix. And texas controlled the other 4 schools too: no Texas, no Pac-16 expansion. But now, it is clear: the Pac-12 will consider adding just Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. and both schools WILL accept if offered. So now Texas is left with no leverage. They can't play hardball because if Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. leave, Texas is in a less desirable position. Sure, there are the single-site generated rumor of Texas to the ACC, but the ACC has said they require equal revenue sharing, so scrap that idea. Texas can remain in Big 12 without OU/OSU and bring in CUSA schools (maybe even Big East if Texas commits to staying) for a watered down B12 (where Texas can have even more LHN conference games). The "indy" and Big East idea i pitched a month ago still is an option, perhaps even with a Big East split (Big East 9 + 5 of Kansas, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Baylor for all sports PLUS Notre Dame and Texas for non-football sports. BUT, the money for that football contract is expected to be fairly low compared to the P12/B10/SEC money.

So it still comes back to Pac-16: Pac-12 and Oklahoma might be days away from putting Texas in the spot to come or be left behind. the move is simple: absorb LHN into Pac12 TV model and make more overall TV revenue than even in current B12 (with TAMU still in). But that requires the pride stripping move of dropping LHN which is the issue. Not that different than Notre Dame with the Big Ten: ND passes on B10 despite B10 being more lucrative...but ND also has the indy model they prize whereas Texas is less persistent on the indy model.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
IFFFFF the Okie schools go west alone, I guess the Pac 14 could move Utah to the North division and keep much of the schedule format they set up earlier. It would further reduce visits to LA by the NW schools, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:44 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Reedley, CA
I don't see how a Pac 14 could work

They'd have to move UCLA or USC to the East.

I think they'd take Kansas and Missouri or Kansas St. for 16 if Texas said no.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:46 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Reedley, CA
I guess Utah to the North would be the best option keeping N/S. The So.Cal schools would have a lot of travel for their division.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1322
Quinn wrote:
Jon is certainly right there at the top when it comes to accurate and timely expansion news, especially with the Pac-12. One thing that is clear now is that the "power" this time around is clearly in the hands of the Pac-12 and not Texas. For instance, last year, the Pac-10 only wanted to expand beyond 12 if Texas was in the mix. And texas controlled the other 4 schools too: no Texas, no Pac-16 expansion. But now, it is clear: the Pac-12 will consider adding just Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. and both schools WILL accept if offered. So now Texas is left with no leverage. They can't play hardball because if Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. leave, Texas is in a less desirable position. Sure, there are the single-site generated rumor of Texas to the ACC, but the ACC has said they require equal revenue sharing, so scrap that idea. Texas can remain in Big 12 without OU/OSU and bring in CUSA schools (maybe even Big East if Texas commits to staying) for a watered down B12 (where Texas can have even more LHN conference games). The "indy" and Big East idea i pitched a month ago still is an option, perhaps even with a Big East split (Big East 9 + 5 of Kansas, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Baylor for all sports PLUS Notre Dame and Texas for non-football sports. BUT, the money for that football contract is expected to be fairly low compared to the P12/B10/SEC money.

So it still comes back to Pac-16: Pac-12 and Oklahoma might be days away from putting Texas in the spot to come or be left behind. the move is simple: absorb LHN into Pac12 TV model and make more overall TV revenue than even in current B12 (with TAMU still in). But that requires the pride stripping move of dropping LHN which is the issue. Not that different than Notre Dame with the Big Ten: ND passes on B10 despite B10 being more lucrative...but ND also has the indy model they prize whereas Texas is less persistent on the indy model.
Quinn you have lots of fine point but I think you're overstating the power the PAC12 has...Texas has leverage and its name is ESPN. ESPN own's the PAC12's 1st tier TV rights and they won't just hand over more TV money if the PAC12 doesn't play ball. They have the ability to do a 'look in' on the TV contract if expansion happens, that doesn't mean more money right away, no way the PAC12 expands without ESPN's blessing. Now ESPN has no control over the revenue distribution...that is true, but they will make it more difficult than its being advertised. Like I said a few days ago, I either see the Longhorn Network staying as a single team network or becoming the Lonestar Network with Texas Tech, either way I think ESPN stays in control and keep a good portion of athletic events including at least one football game, however I think the revenue will be split evenly. The PAC16 gets Texas and their money from the LHN, ESPN keeps control of the network its sunk money into, and Texas claims a moral victory by keeping the programming giant on their side (instead of Fox who cfb programming sucks). Like I said earlier an OU, OSU, Tech network would get picked up in DFW, an OU/OSU network may not, the businessman in me thinks that would be best for all involved (at least for the time being) though from a PR POV I get how that looks like a problem from the outside...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:12 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
tkalmus wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Jon is certainly right there at the top when it comes to accurate and timely expansion news, especially with the Pac-12. One thing that is clear now is that the "power" this time around is clearly in the hands of the Pac-12 and not Texas. For instance, last year, the Pac-10 only wanted to expand beyond 12 if Texas was in the mix. And texas controlled the other 4 schools too: no Texas, no Pac-16 expansion. But now, it is clear: the Pac-12 will consider adding just Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. and both schools WILL accept if offered. So now Texas is left with no leverage. They can't play hardball because if Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. leave, Texas is in a less desirable position. Sure, there are the single-site generated rumor of Texas to the ACC, but the ACC has said they require equal revenue sharing, so scrap that idea. Texas can remain in Big 12 without OU/OSU and bring in CUSA schools (maybe even Big East if Texas commits to staying) for a watered down B12 (where Texas can have even more LHN conference games). The "indy" and Big East idea i pitched a month ago still is an option, perhaps even with a Big East split (Big East 9 + 5 of Kansas, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Baylor for all sports PLUS Notre Dame and Texas for non-football sports. BUT, the money for that football contract is expected to be fairly low compared to the P12/B10/SEC money.

So it still comes back to Pac-16: Pac-12 and Oklahoma might be days away from putting Texas in the spot to come or be left behind. the move is simple: absorb LHN into Pac12 TV model and make more overall TV revenue than even in current B12 (with TAMU still in). But that requires the pride stripping move of dropping LHN which is the issue. Not that different than Notre Dame with the Big Ten: ND passes on B10 despite B10 being more lucrative...but ND also has the indy model they prize whereas Texas is less persistent on the indy model.
Quinn you have lots of fine point but I think you're overstating the power the PAC12 has...Texas has leverage and its name is ESPN. ESPN own's the PAC12's 1st tier TV rights and they won't just hand over more TV money if the PAC12 doesn't play ball. They have the ability to do a 'look in' on the TV contract if expansion happens, that doesn't mean more money right away, no way the PAC12 expands without ESPN's blessing. Now ESPN has no control over the revenue distribution...that is true, but they will make it more difficult than its being advertised. Like I said a few days ago, I either see the Longhorn Network staying as a single team network or becoming the Lonestar Network with Texas Tech, either way I think ESPN stays in control and keep a good portion of athletic events including at least one football game, however I think the revenue will be split evenly. The PAC16 gets Texas and their money from the LHN, ESPN keeps control of the network its sunk money into, and Texas claims a moral victory by keeping the programming giant on their side (instead of Fox who cfb programming sucks). Like I said earlier an OU, OSU, Tech network would get picked up in DFW, an OU/OSU network may not, the businessman in me thinks that would be best for all involved (at least for the time being) though from a PR POV I get how that looks like a problem from the outside...


If you're saying that the situation now is the same as last year in regards to leverage, then why is the Pac16 scenario even on the table? Because obviously, if texas were in a position of power like they were last year, then the P16 scenario would have already been scrapped by Texas. The reason is because they don't have the same cache as last year. The LHN/ESPN contract can be null and void with Texas moving to another conference...that is in the contract. And there is more money to be made for Texas based alone on the Pac-12 existing contract. And again, the Pac-12 TC contract has specific revisions that open up re-negotiations even before the Pac-12 decides to expand. In other words, the contract is specific enough that the Pac-12 will be given an exact new rate before they have to invite a school...unlike when the invited CO and Utah and only had market research to estimate the revenue impact.

This is why the Pac-12 can and will sit aside and watch. Only when Texas asks to be invited is Scott in the position to invite them. That was not the case last year when Texas held the cards. TAMU leaving is a blow since it puts the financials out of whack for the existing B12 contract (more to come out this week). That, and losing Oklahoma and OSU would greatly effect the B12 TV revenue...while the Pac-12 per-school revenue would just grow with OU and OSU. So what's Texas to do? Have the B12 contract scrapped for pennies and just make the LHN the official B12 contract? Estimate are that even with LHN in that scenario, Texas would be making less than the lowest in the Pac12 then. And as we've seen, money has been their motivating factor, not indy pride like with ND.

Leverage can be simplified: last year, Texas had the leverage to demand what schools other than Colorado joined the Pac-10. And they had the leverage to get whatever schools they wanted to come with them to join their move...even with the TAMU/SEC talks last year, TAMU still had the P12 on the table as an option. This year, TAMU is gone. This year, Oklahoma AND Oklahoma St. have publicly said they will leave for the Pac12 if invited regardless of what Texas does. And Pac12 sources have said that they would indeed strongly consider adding OU and OSU without Texas (logic being to strengthen P12 product and prevent those schools being in SEC16 mix). None of this was the case last year. And that is why it is in no way a stretch to say that Texas in no way, even with the LHN, has not anywhere close to the cache, the leverage, they had last year.


More leverage: this now makes TAMU and Oklahoma as saying that a Texas rivalry is of less importance now. If OU leaves and Texas stays behind, no more Red river rivalry
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ns-rivalry

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:25 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I guess Utah to the North would be the best option keeping N/S. The So.Cal schools would have a lot of travel for their division.


Yeah, not pretty at 14. But all signs point to the per-school revenue growth having great potential with OU/OSU and Texas (w TT). But less profitable is OU/OSU and other options. Estimates last year were based on Texas/TT/OU/OSU/Colorado with Texas A&M, not with Utah. It is doubtful that Kansas and Missouri would have the same impact. You can assume though that if 16 HAD to be the path, that both would be considered since the other options would be New Mexico, UNLV. Boise St., BYU, Air force, etc...not exactly homeruns.

Revenue-wise, the Pac-16 in 2 divisions would be huge: every big market west of the Mississippi. Southwest division (Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah) and Pacific with the original Pac8. Rivalries are by region, championships being 2 big names likely each year (Texas vs USC, Oklahoma vs Oregon?). And lots of money. It's why it really will be LHN PRIDE and not $$$ that stops this from happening.

Swap UT/TTech for Missouri and Kansas, and it's not bad. It's like the old Big 8 but swapping Nebraska, Iowa St. and Kansas St. with Arizona, Arizona St. and Utah. Financially, that is an upgrade due to Phx/SLC markets. Not as flashy as Texas coming, but looking at that 8 as stronger financially than the old Big8 isnt a stretch. KU and Mizzou certainly could work as a backup.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:35 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Reedley, CA
So are you saying UT is out? If so what do you think they'll do? Rebuild the B12? Go to the BE? Go BE/Indy?

I think they'll go to the Pac w/ TT

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:48 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
So are you saying UT is out? If so what do you think they'll do? Rebuild the B12? Go to the BE? Go BE/Indy?

I think they'll go to the Pac w/ TT


Who ya asking?

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Reedley, CA
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
So are you saying UT is out? If so what do you think they'll do? Rebuild the B12? Go to the BE? Go BE/Indy?

I think they'll go to the Pac w/ TT


Who ya asking?

you, what do you think?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:02 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
Brothaman, I just posted all that info on the P12 Tv contract including that Texas in P16=more $ for Texas. But it's a good question since there is the "pride" factor. I think if OU and OSU leave and Missouri is the likely SEC #14, then yes, Texas will go. Because there just aren't any other more profitable options for them. Pride would mean less money than OU, OSU, TAMU. Because Texas can't make the B12 any good if they have a core of texas, Texas tech, Kansas, Kansas St. and Iowa...not going to get 7 Big east schools to jump at that group...and if you do, it's not going to be P14/SEC/B10 money. I think ultimately, $ will outweigh pride. Will get interesting this week.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
I know Colorado is upset at the prospect of being pushed back into a division with the Plains schools, but 16 does make much more sense than 14 for this conference. You wouldn't get many cross-division games (USC would visit Austin only once in 8 years for example), but rivalries would be protected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:18 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 873
I think Oklahoma and OSU can bring Texas.

IF the Pac-12 has Oklahoma on board with or without Texas (or at least they are willing to bluff), they can call Texas and say: "Look, the Pac-16 IS happening with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. It can be UT and Tech or two of KU/KSU/Mizzou. Call me tomorrow with your decision." And OU and OSU can call Texas and say "you need to do this or you're gonna be stuck with the ACC, SEC or waiting on a call from the Big Ten that might never come."

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:05 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
JPSchmack wrote:
I think Oklahoma and OSU can bring Texas.

IF the Pac-12 has Oklahoma on board with or without Texas (or at least they are willing to bluff), they can call Texas and say: "Look, the Pac-16 IS happening with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. It can be UT and Tech or two of KU/KSU/Mizzou. Call me tomorrow with your decision." And OU and OSU can call Texas and say "you need to do this or you're gonna be stuck with the ACC, SEC or waiting on a call from the Big Ten that might never come."


Texas pride. Since Texas made it clear last year that they had less interest in SEC (public reason was academics, real reason being competitiveness being too strong), one might think that would be the same reason why they'd pass on the SEC. But the reason the SEC is a virtual lock to never be a Texas home IS Texas A&M. Forget the pride of the LHN. I find it impossible to fathom Texas FOLLOWING Texas A&M lead. Oklahoma, that's a different story. Texas can follow OU and it's for PR purposes...not looking like the bad guy.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 831 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 56  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jbb 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