NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:03 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:30 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
Article out of Utah discussing speculation regarding possibility of Utah Utes fitting into PAC 10.Link at http://www.sltrib.com/Sports/ci_13354639


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:42 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
In football the Big Ten is falling behind not the Pac 10. Its a monkey see monkey do. SEC goes to 12 boom Big 12, MAC, BE 16, WAC failed 16. Conference title game makes $$$ brings in recruits. Count on the the Big 10 going to 12 within 2-3 years after the Pac 10 does, if they do. The Big Ten wants to be 12. ND just refuses to join.


How EXACTLY is the Big 10 falling behind?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:56 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Houston 3rd largest market in the US isn't in the Big 12 They don't have anyone in Dallas either. Why not Houston or TCU, maybe Colorado St. Arkansas seems like a pipe dream. BYU just seems too far west and I think would get a no vote from the other schools. Everyone has a boner for BYU cuz they're good right now. Big 12 is the Big 8 plus the SWC, Houston, TCU were SWC.


The Big 12 TV contract already covers the state of Texas and games are already shown in those TV markets. Do you think because no Big 12 school is in Dallas or Houston that the Big 12 doesn't have a huge following there? That's like saying the Pac10 will add San Diego State because they have no university there either.

It's not that BYU is good 'right now'. BYU has the largest FB attendance at any non-BCS school over the last 10 years averaging over 60k each year. That's more than many BCS schools. They also finished the in the top 50 of the Director's every year over the past 10 years. While distance and their religious affiliation may keep them out of any conference expansion, they are NOT the 'flavor of the month'. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:47 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Panther, put your money where your mouth is. BYU gets in I'll stop posting, any of my 3 get in you stop posting. Houston, TCU belong in the B-12 just as much as BYU or Colorado St. PS the no sports on Sunday should kill any thought of BYU in the B-12 too. They couldn't even play in the Conf championship in bkball, its been on sunday forever! :lol: Comparing SDSU to TCU & Houston is like comparing Jamarcus Russell to Drew Brees and Peyton Manning.

How is the Big 10 falling behind? They can't win a big game, they bitch about the long layoff while others are playing a conference title game. Their arch rival conference just went to 12 leaving them as the only BCS conference w/ under 12. (BE is weird they have 16/8 FB) Remember this is all IF the pac-10 goes to 12. Like I said before the B-10 has been trying to get to 12 with ND. Then they finally started looking into Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse BEFORE the Pac-10 said anything.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Panther, put your money where your mouth is. BYU gets in I'll stop posting, any of my 3 get in you stop posting. Houston, TCU belong in the B-12 just as much as BYU or Colorado St. PS the no sports on Sunday should kill any thought of BYU in the B-12 too. They couldn't even play in the Conf championship in bkball, its been on sunday forever! :lol: Comparing SDSU to TCU & Houston is like comparing Jamarcus Russell to Drew Brees and Peyton Manning.

I never said it was going to happen. As I said in my above post (and you note above) that religious affiliation may keep them out. However, if you put what BYU has done of the field historically, attendance for FB and BB, olympic sports, etc to another MWC school, Memphis, ECU, UCF, etc and I guarantee you they would be in a shoe in for expansion somewhere. Again, I was simply laying out that BYU has everything a conference would want (minus what we both said about their religious affiliation).

Your point about adding Houston or TCU is that it will give the Big 12 access to Houston and Dallas-FW, right? Again, the Big 12 is already big in the Dallas and Houston TV markets. The Big 12 headquarters are just outside Dallas-FW. They don't NEED either of them to gain access to those markets. The Texas 4 and the Big 12 already cover Texas. Again, what does the Big 12 GAIN by expanding with TCU and Houston as a replacement for Colorado? Why EXACTLY do Houston and TCU BELONG in the Big 12?

I will say that NO TEXAS SCHOOL will be added as a replacement for Colorado. You can take all of the Texas' school under with your silly 'bet' with me...

Fresno St. Alum wrote:
How is the Big 10 falling behind? They can't win a big game, they bitch about the long layoff while others are playing a conference title game. Their arch rival conference just went to 12 leaving them as the only BCS conference w/ under 12. (BE is weird they have 16/8 FB) Remember this is all IF the pac-10 goes to 12. Like I said before the B-10 has been trying to get to 12 with ND. Then they finally started looking into Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse BEFORE the Pac-10 said anything.


So, the Big 10 has no chance of ever coming back to the top of the CollegeFB world because they don't have a championship game? They could go even later by having games during championship weekend like the Pac10 and Big East - if they want.

The 'long layoff' is being addressed by having a bye week in their season so it won't end before Thanksgiving.

So, wouldn't the Pac 10 be following the Big 10? I mean, rumors of Big 10 #12 started before the Pac 10 expansion.

Again, I am not saying the Big 10 will NOT expand. I also realize that the Big 10 has been waiting for ND since it expanded with Penn State in 1989 and they have been looking around at other schools.

Expansion has almost always happened to INCREASE revenue. And my point was simply that the Pac 10 MAY NEED to expand to try and keep pace with the revenue that the Big 10 and SEC are getting. Those two conferences are the clear leaders in this area. If it makes sense for the Big 10 to stop waiting for ND and expand with another, they will do so but it won't be because they are worried that they are the only conference that's not at 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Penn St was 1992. I'm saying if the Pac 10 Expands then the Big will go to 12. If they don't they still might. I believe I added Colorado St. w/ Texas. My point is the Big 8/SWC made the B12 if not Houston, TCU, Colorado St. then who They won't get all crazy with the footprint like the WAC. What do they add? How bout schools that can play football better than most of the B-12 north and Baylor, Texas A&M. Why argue for a school like BYU who you say isn't in the pic because of religion? That's like me saying Boise St. belongs in the Big East. they're good enough but it aint gonna happen why waste time posting it. Big 10 forever down? They aren't bottom but they aren't near the top. No I don't see it changing for a while. Yeah yeah USC plays UCLA in dec. is that really equal to Alabama vs Florida, NO. If you have the top 2 play at end it really helps give the winner a shot at the title. Not just blind hope that UCLA will be in 2nd to USC in Dec. Ohio St. vs. Michigan in Dec would have helped them none last year.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:19 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:12 am
Posts: 3
Just can't see Colorado leaving the Big 12. I don't think they're a Pac-10 fit in any way.

_________________
Purdue Basketball Forum | Purdue Football Forum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:57 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
Colorado would leave the Big XII in a heartbeat if it meant more revenue. And it could...

The Big XII is getting $60 million each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, an average of $5 mil each
The Pac 10 is getting about $43 mil each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, about $4.5 mil each

But the Big XII is paid out by appearance, not split equally. So Colorado, which doesn't get a ton of national games with their program down, could jump ship, because...

The Pac 10's deal is up first, after 2011. The Big XII is up after 2016. The Pac 10 could really drop the hammer on the Big XII if they can get a deal lined up and steal a Big XII market. There's actually talk of the ACC and Pac 10 becoming joint partners in a national TV network for their two conferences.

Let's say that happens. They'd definitely want Denver and it's 2.5 million people (#21 market) to get the biggest TV coverage possible.

Then, in theory, it would be between UNLV (#30 Las Vegas, 1.8 mil) or Utah (#49 Salt Lake, 1.1), with Utah probably getting the nod because so many Las Vegans are transplants and Utah would bring almost the whole state making them a wash.

Of course, there is absolutely ZERO reason why the should not take a shot at the big dog. Someone who could bring in
over 14 million households to their network, including the #4, #6 and #36 markets. That's of course, Texas.

Would Texas listen? I think they could

There's also the caveat of ESPN's new LA branch. Does anyone think that an ESPN West channel is out of the question?

Imagine ESPN launching a new Pacific time zone channel. If the Pac 10 were smart, they'd be calling ESPN and advocating it left and right. The Pac 10 could cash in on that, and Colorado/Texas would really help that channel spread a bit east to the Central time zone. Texas might jump because of the new TV deal bringing in much higher revenues for the next five years, being the marquee member of the league TV wise (their home games could also be on ESPN/ABC's East stations) and

Then the domino would be what the Big 12 does. I'd think they'd have to target Notre Dame/Illinois first, then look at Utah, Colorado State, etc.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:06 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
JPSchmack wrote:
Colorado would leave the Big XII in a heartbeat if it meant more revenue. And it could...

The Big XII is getting $60 million each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, an average of $5 mil each
The Pac 10 is getting about $43 mil each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, about $4.5 mil each

But the Big XII is paid out by appearance, not split equally. So Colorado, which doesn't get a ton of national games with their program down, could jump ship, because...

The Pac 10's deal is up first, after 2011. The Big XII is up after 2016. The Pac 10 could really drop the hammer on the Big XII if they can get a deal lined up and steal a Big XII market. There's actually talk of the ACC and Pac 10 becoming joint partners in a national TV network for their two conferences.

Let's say that happens. They'd definitely want Denver and it's 2.5 million people (#21 market) to get the biggest TV coverage possible.

Then, in theory, it would be between UNLV (#30 Las Vegas, 1.8 mil) or Utah (#49 Salt Lake, 1.1), with Utah probably getting the nod because so many Las Vegans are transplants and Utah would bring almost the whole state making them a wash.

Of course, there is absolutely ZERO reason why the should not take a shot at the big dog. Someone who could bring in
over 14 million households to their network, including the #4, #6 and #36 markets. That's of course, Texas.

Would Texas listen? I think they could

There's also the caveat of ESPN's new LA branch. Does anyone think that an ESPN West channel is out of the question?

Imagine ESPN launching a new Pacific time zone channel. If the Pac 10 were smart, they'd be calling ESPN and advocating it left and right. The Pac 10 could cash in on that, and Colorado/Texas would really help that channel spread a bit east to the Central time zone. Texas might jump because of the new TV deal bringing in much higher revenues for the next five years, being the marquee member of the league TV wise (their home games could also be on ESPN/ABC's East stations) and

Then the domino would be what the Big 12 does. I'd think they'd have to target Notre Dame/Illinois first, then look at Utah, Colorado State, etc.



Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.

I wonder if UC ever did move to the Pac 10, if the WCC would try to capitalize on that as well by adding Denver. You'd have more TV eyes used to west coast games with the Colorado exposure and Denver could likely get in front of the next tier of eyeballs.

_________________
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 Dec 08, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:41 am
Posts: 118
Location: Chicago, IL
Quinn wrote:
JPSchmack wrote:
Colorado would leave the Big XII in a heartbeat if it meant more revenue. And it could...

The Big XII is getting $60 million each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, an average of $5 mil each
The Pac 10 is getting about $43 mil each year from ESPN/ABC/FSN, about $4.5 mil each

But the Big XII is paid out by appearance, not split equally. So Colorado, which doesn't get a ton of national games with their program down, could jump ship, because...

The Pac 10's deal is up first, after 2011. The Big XII is up after 2016. The Pac 10 could really drop the hammer on the Big XII if they can get a deal lined up and steal a Big XII market. There's actually talk of the ACC and Pac 10 becoming joint partners in a national TV network for their two conferences.

Let's say that happens. They'd definitely want Denver and it's 2.5 million people (#21 market) to get the biggest TV coverage possible.

Then, in theory, it would be between UNLV (#30 Las Vegas, 1.8 mil) or Utah (#49 Salt Lake, 1.1), with Utah probably getting the nod because so many Las Vegans are transplants and Utah would bring almost the whole state making them a wash.

Of course, there is absolutely ZERO reason why the should not take a shot at the big dog. Someone who could bring in
over 14 million households to their network, including the #4, #6 and #36 markets. That's of course, Texas.

Would Texas listen? I think they could

There's also the caveat of ESPN's new LA branch. Does anyone think that an ESPN West channel is out of the question?

Imagine ESPN launching a new Pacific time zone channel. If the Pac 10 were smart, they'd be calling ESPN and advocating it left and right. The Pac 10 could cash in on that, and Colorado/Texas would really help that channel spread a bit east to the Central time zone. Texas might jump because of the new TV deal bringing in much higher revenues for the next five years, being the marquee member of the league TV wise (their home games could also be on ESPN/ABC's East stations) and

Then the domino would be what the Big 12 does. I'd think they'd have to target Notre Dame/Illinois first, then look at Utah, Colorado State, etc.



Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.

I wonder if UC ever did move to the Pac 10, if the WCC would try to capitalize on that as well by adding Denver. You'd have more TV eyes used to west coast games with the Colorado exposure and Denver could likely get in front of the next tier of eyeballs.


I don't think the WCC has any desire to add Denver. They are not on the coast and the WCC seems to take their name seriously. I think Denver would have to greatly improve their program (paticularily men's basketball but improving all of them would help) before they would become a desirable pick for the WCC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
Quinn wrote:
Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.


While both Colorado and Texas "turned down" the Pac-10, the world was quite different.

Texas didn't so much turn down the the Pac-10, as much as they flirted and nothing ever came about. They looked at it, and thought it desirable. However, Stanford was opposed to Texas, and the Pac-10 needed unanimous approval, so there was never an invite from the Pac-10.

The Southwest Conference featured all the Texas teams except UTEP; and Texas' impending departure from the SWC turned political. The upper echelon of the state governors office and legislature were mostly Baylor/Tech grads, including a state senator on the finance committee. They threatened to slash funding for Texas and A&M if they left the SWC without Baylor and Tech.

One difference is that now Baylor & Tech would have their future still secure. The Big XII would not be in danger of dying like the SWC was without Arkansas, Texas and A&M. Don't get me wrong, there'd definitely be flack. But not the same political flack as before. Of the Texas State legislature, seven Texas alums equal the number of alums of Tech, A&M and Baylor combined. And those 14 are less than number of members who attended other schools. The head of the finance committee now is a Pan Am grad.


The dollar value for a Texas/Pac-12 TV deal is too great for the Pac 12 not to TRY (if they felt additional teams were necessary for TV).

Texas would be a GREAT way to give the Pac-10 an "eastern television" tie. The Big XII's main advantage over the Pac-10 in TV revenue is the fact that the time zones make it difficult for the Pac-10 be a national product for ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/ESPN. Texas would give them potentially four football and eight men's basketball CONFERENCE games that can easily on East Coast Prime Time TV.

But basically, Texas and the Pac-12 can work, and help the Pac-10 rise above the Big XII and closer to the SEC/Big Ten in terms of revenue.

The big question is "does Texas need the Pac-10?"

Well, quite honestly, Texas is doing quite well because the Big XII has a TV revenue sharing policy that distributes money to the teams on TV the most. That's Texas. However, as a whole, the Big XII TV picture is neck and neck with the Pac-10 for third place. The Big Ten/SEC TV deals have created a substantial gap between those two and the other four "power conferences."

The SEC is at about $15-17 million per school in their new billion dollar deal with ESPN/CBS
The Big Ten is at about $14 million per school with their new deals with ESPN/CBS/Big Ten Network
Notre Dame is at $11-13 million between NBC and their Big East hoops deal.
The ACC checks in at $7 million or so.
The Pac 10, Big 12 and Big East are all at about $4-7 million

That's got the ACC and Pac 10 considering a Joint TV network so they can get the channel on both coasts and the time zones will allow plenty of coverage.

The ACC and Pac 10's TV deals are up after 2010-11. The Big XII has to wait until 2016.

So basically, now is the pretty much the ideal time for the Pac 10 to pounce. Do I think Colorado would go to the Pac-10? Maybe. Do I think they go if Texas is ready, willing and able? Heck yeah.

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


Last edited by JPSchmack on Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:25 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
Article out of Austin regarding Texas athletic finances.Apparently,Texas is doing "great" in the Big 12.Not looking for them to move at this time.If Texas were ever interested in leaving the Big 12 I would expect them to look at the SEC first.Link at http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... xfoot.html

Also,some posted tv revenue numbers and info appear to be "off".USAToday reprint article(previously posted in another thread) in this regard at http://www.freep.com/article/20091112/S ... o-TV-deals


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:39 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Penn St was 1992. I'm saying if the Pac 10 Expands then the Big will go to 12. If they don't they still might. I believe I added Colorado St. w/ Texas. My point is the Big 8/SWC made the B12 if not Houston, TCU, Colorado St. then who They won't get all crazy with the footprint like the WAC. What do they add? How bout schools that can play football better than most of the B-12 north and Baylor, Texas A&M. Why argue for a school like BYU who you say isn't in the pic because of religion? That's like me saying Boise St. belongs in the Big East. they're good enough but it aint gonna happen why waste time posting it. Big 10 forever down? They aren't bottom but they aren't near the top. No I don't see it changing for a while. Yeah yeah USC plays UCLA in dec. is that really equal to Alabama vs Florida, NO. If you have the top 2 play at end it really helps give the winner a shot at the title. Not just blind hope that UCLA will be in 2nd to USC in Dec. Ohio St. vs. Michigan in Dec would have helped them none last year.


I missed this before and not that it matters at this point but PSU was invited by the Big 10 in Dec 1989 and accepted in April or May of 1990. They didn't move their sports into the Big 10 until Fall 1992 for basketball and such and 1993 for FB. IIRC, they were invited and accepted was BEFORE the SEC expanded (Ark and SC accepted in 1991 with athletics starting in 1992).


Last edited by panthersc97 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
JPSchmack wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.


While both Colorado and Texas "turned down" the Pac-10, the world was quite different.

Texas didn't so much turn down the the Pac-10, as much as they flirted and nothing ever came about. They looked at it, and thought it desirable. However, Stanford was opposed to Texas, and the Pac-10 needed unanimous approval, so there was never an invite from the Pac-10.

The Southwest Conference featured all the Texas teams except UTEP; and Texas' impending departure from the SWC turned political. The upper echelon of the state governors office and legislature were mostly Baylor/Tech grads, including a state senator on the finance committee. They threatened to slash funding for Texas and A&M if they left the SWC without Baylor and Tech.

One difference is that now Baylor & Tech would have their future still secure. The Big XII would not be in danger of dying like the SWC was without Arkansas, Texas and A&M. Don't get me wrong, there'd definitely be flack. But not the same political flack as before. Of the Texas State legislature, seven Texas alums equal the number of alums of Tech, A&M and Baylor combined. And those 14 are less than number of members who attended other schools. The head of the finance committee now is a Pan Am grad.


The dollar value for a Texas/Pac-12 TV deal is too great for the Pac 12 not to TRY (if they felt additional teams were necessary for TV).

Texas would be a GREAT way to give the Pac-10 an "eastern television" tie. The Big XII's main advantage over the Pac-10 in TV revenue is the fact that the time zones make it difficult for the Pac-10 be a national product for ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/ESPN. Texas would give them potentially four football and eight men's basketball CONFERENCE games that can easily on East Coast Prime Time TV.

But basically, Texas and the Pac-12 can work, and help the Pac-10 rise above the Big XII and closer to the SEC/Big Ten in terms of revenue.

The big question is "does Texas need the Pac-10?"

Well, quite honestly, Texas is doing quite well because the Big XII has a TV revenue sharing policy that distributes money to the teams on TV the most. That's Texas. However, as a whole, the Big XII TV picture is neck and neck with the Pac-10 for third place. The Big Ten/SEC TV deals have created a substantial gap between those two and the other four "power conferences."

The SEC is at about $15-17 million per school in their new billion dollar deal with ESPN/CBS
The Big Ten is at about $14 million per school with their new deals with ESPN/CBS/Big Ten Network
Notre Dame is at $11-13 million between NBC and their Big East hoops deal.
The ACC checks in at $7 million or so.
The Pac 10, Big 12 and Big East are all at about $4-7 million

That's got the ACC and Pac 10 considering a Joint TV network so they can get the channel on both coasts and the time zones will allow plenty of coverage.

The ACC and Pac 10's TV deals are up after 2010-11. The Big XII has to wait until 2016.

So basically, now is the pretty much the ideal time for the Pac 10 to pounce. Do I think Colorado would go to the Pac-10? Maybe. Do I think they go if Texas is ready, willing and able? Heck yeah.
Quinn wrote:
Great breakdown on the Colorado situation. Makes sense. I'm not sure Texas would jump ship this time either (both Colorado and texas turned down the Pac 10 in the 90s). But Colorado makes so much sense for the Pac 10. Finding a #12 is the problem and Utah is the best pick...they just aren't all that sexy. But if moving west with Colorado, Utah makes sense. The Big East brought in USF and that was a longershot and has been a solid move for them.


While both Colorado and Texas "turned down" the Pac-10, the world was quite different.

Texas didn't so much turn down the the Pac-10, as much as they flirted and nothing ever came about. They looked at it, and thought it desirable. However, Stanford was opposed to Texas, and the Pac-10 needed unanimous approval, so there was never an invite from the Pac-10.

The Southwest Conference featured all the Texas teams except UTEP; and Texas' impending departure from the SWC turned political. The upper echelon of the state governors office and legislature were mostly Baylor/Tech grads, including a state senator on the finance committee. They threatened to slash funding for Texas and A&M if they left the SWC without Baylor and Tech.

One difference is that now Baylor & Tech would have their future still secure. The Big XII would not be in danger of dying like the SWC was without Arkansas, Texas and A&M. Don't get me wrong, there'd definitely be flack. But not the same political flack as before. Of the Texas State legislature, seven Texas alums equal the number of alums of Tech, A&M and Baylor combined. And those 14 are less than number of members who attended other schools. The head of the finance committee now is a Pan Am grad.


The dollar value for a Texas/Pac-12 TV deal is too great for the Pac 12 not to TRY (if they felt additional teams were necessary for TV).

Texas would be a GREAT way to give the Pac-10 an "eastern television" tie. The Big XII's main advantage over the Pac-10 in TV revenue is the fact that the time zones make it difficult for the Pac-10 be a national product for ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/ESPN. Texas would give them potentially four football and eight men's basketball CONFERENCE games that can easily on East Coast Prime Time TV.

But basically, Texas and the Pac-12 can work, and help the Pac-10 rise above the Big XII and closer to the SEC/Big Ten in terms of revenue.

The big question is "does Texas need the Pac-10?"

Well, quite honestly, Texas is doing quite well because the Big XII has a TV revenue sharing policy that distributes money to the teams on TV the most. That's Texas. However, as a whole, the Big XII TV picture is neck and neck with the Pac-10 for third place. The Big Ten/SEC TV deals have created a substantial gap between those two and the other four "power conferences."

The SEC is at about $15-17 million per school in their new billion dollar deal with ESPN/CBS
The Big Ten is at about $14 million per school with their new deals with ESPN/CBS/Big Ten Network
Notre Dame is at $11-13 million between NBC and their Big East hoops deal.
The ACC checks in at $7 million or so.
The Pac 10, Big 12 and Big East are all at about $4-7 million

That's got the ACC and Pac 10 considering a Joint TV network so they can get the channel on both coasts and the time zones will allow plenty of coverage.

The ACC and Pac 10's TV deals are up after 2010-11. The Big XII has to wait until 2016.

So basically, now is the pretty much the ideal time for the Pac 10 to pounce. Do I think Colorado would go to the Pac-10? Maybe. Do I think they go if Texas is ready, willing and able? Heck yeah.


Conference networks are the way to go to make up revenue. I'm not sure if Texas BY ITSELF would be able to get any newly created Pac 12 network in Texas for the REVENUE that they want. Texas has a huge state and national following. I'm sure the Pac 10 would have done their homework in order to determine this. If the Big 12 loses the state of Texas, they are in big trouble as they lose 33% of the conferences TV sets. They would only have KC, St. Louis and possibly Denver (if TA&M is invited over Colorado) as big media markets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:29 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
panthersc97 wrote:

Conference networks are the way to go to make up revenue. I'm not sure if Texas BY ITSELF would be able to get any newly created Pac 12 network in Texas for the REVENUE that they want. Texas has a huge state and national following. I'm sure the Pac 10 would have done their homework in order to determine this. If the Big 12 loses the state of Texas, they are in big trouble as they lose 33% of the conferences TV sets. They would only have KC, St. Louis and possibly Denver (if TA&M is invited over Colorado) as big media markets.



Which is why I don't see Texas as an option for the Pac 10. It would take a drastic move for it to make sense. A drastic move that might do it would be a 4 team expansion with Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M and a 4th Big 12 school. The problem (beyond that 14 teams is too many, huge geo footprint, etc) is WHAT team would be #4? Texas Tech? Not strong enough market or program. Oklahoma? Doubt they'd want to leave the regional B12. Kansas? Hoops would be great but that's only a benefit for the conference, not the school. Utah comes back into play as the logical option as a 4th but again, they are no benefit to Texas.

_________________
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  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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