ACC a better fit than Big 12?

[Buckaineer]

Like you said above, the only reason for the ACC to expand is more money per school. Same reason the BIG12 isn't expanding, no more money per school, unless they can renegotiate a TV package. BYU would probably look a lot better in terms of future negotiated contracts. As you say, the pool of available teams is limited but some teams have to project out better than others for future dollars. The idea of specific schools is simple. Right now there is a pool of 6-8 potentials. At some point, they are going to have to choose specific schools. If there is no difference between BYU and Appy State in terms of future money then you have your answer as to why they are not expanding with the current available pool, if ever. I view the CCG as comprehensive improvement, apparently the conference does too. Tell me again why anyone thought Texas would give up 15 million a year and also vote to bring in schools that nobody else wants and would not enhance the prestige of the league or result in a future TV package worth more money per school and which also would dilute the power of Texas in any future decisions? It would be Texas thinking about leaving if that came to pass. Like sane people, the BIG12 presidents compromised, improved their situation and are moving forward. As long as there are 4 slots for 5 conferences someone is going to be left out. Wah. You are going to have to show your work as far as your contention that if all 3 of those things had come to pass, that these actions would have put the BIG12 financially on par with the other conferences. What does financially on par even mean? I'd say that the presidents looked at the ramifications of doing what you want and not only said no but hell no. Yeah, I bet Texas had a big say in things, just like the North Carolina schools had a big say in WVU never being included in an ACC invite. Power is wielded by the powerful and it is always easy to spend someone else's money.

The conference has stated recently that if they expand with the available schools there will be increases for everyone. They just won't be as good as if there were also a network.

The conference isn't expanding because UT doesn't want to and they've gotten others to buy in that they should hold out for future realignment rather than be proactive. Fan bases have had an impact and with people from outside convincing BIG 12 fans there's no one worth adding--without looking at any evidence, their voices have been heard at the top.

Comprehensive means
complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something

so if you think adding only one thing when they were in need of multiple improvements as a comprehensive improvement, when Boren stated clearly that it was necessary for all items to be addressed and implemented, then you have a comprehension problem.

Boren looked at the financial bonus of a conference network and saw that there was enough revenue to make Texas whole and make lots more money for everyone else.

Boren stated that adding all three would put the BIG 12 on par with the BIG 12 and SEC--I don't have to show anything, but if you get available numbers then it certainly adds up.
Financially on par means that while there are going to be exact dollar for dollar amounts you will be equal or close to it--not millions behind as the conference is going to be now by the end of contracts.

Texas made its declarations before anyone even sat down and went over the data-and quickly everyone bit rather than examine the data and move forward.

If Ohio State, Alabama and FSU--which actually perform on the field--had the same attitude as UT, the B10, SEC and ACC would cease to exist.

 

[skygusty]

I think I see the problem now.

 

[Lvste.Nole]

Nole the answer to your question is a complicated one, however I will try to simplify the answer for you. History is why they wouldn't vote for WVU. Pitt doesn't like us...UL doesn't like us and still have a bad taste in their mouth over the big12 invite...VT doesn't like us...Cuse and Miami think they are above us. Unless the ACC breaks apart WVU will not be invited and it doesn't even matter what our academic ranking is, or if an earthquake creates a coastline on our eastern panhandle, or if WV somehow has a population boom. It is what it is.

Interesting. I could be wrong, but I do believe the power is shifting a bit in the ACC. I believe Miami, UL and VT would stand behind FSU and Clemson in champion a WV invite. I'm surprised to learn about the animosity you feel would emanate from Cuse, Pitt and some of the others. But then again, I don't know the subtleties of your relationships with those schools.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Interesting. I could be wrong, but I do believe the power is shifting a bit in the ACC. I believe Miami, UL and VT would stand behind FSU and Clemson in champion a WV invite. I'm surprised to learn about the animosity you feel would emanate from Cuse, Pitt and some of the others. But then again, I don't know the subtleties of your relationships with those schools.

Generally only those 55 and over would like to move to the ACC and in general those under 35 do not see Pitt as anything but some school in Pittsburgh and certainly not a rival. Times change.

Presently WVU has no rival, but we don't have a lot of the things we are used too. The time for the ACC + WVU to marry has passed. I for one am glad WVU is not in the ACC; the only school in the ACC that understands college athletics is FSU.

 

[Monroeer]

Its not necessarily true that 40% of the time the BIG 12 had rematches, the team that won the first matchup lost?

Yes it is true. Its also true that when you have a guaranteed rematch its a 50-50 proposition as to who is going to win.

That would mean missing out on the playoffs 3 or 4 more years between 2017 and 2026. ...

Reread my post - this underlined/highlighted statement by you is what I disagree with. I gave you two scenarios why I don't believe that the upset winner of the B12 championship game would be kept out of the playoffs. One example was the upset winner in your 40% (50-50) had defeated a previously undefeated B12 team for the conference championship - which would mean that they still only had the one regular season defeat on their record and they had just beaten a highly ranked undefeated regular season B12 champion. You are stating above that they would automatically be left out of the playoffs - I don't agree.

 

[IowaCityCy]

The conference has stated recently that if they expand with the available schools there will be increases for everyone. They just won't be as good as if there were also a network.

The conference isn't expanding because UT doesn't want to and they've gotten others to buy in that they should hold out for future realignment rather than be proactive. Fan bases have had an impact and with people from outside convincing BIG 12 fans there's no one worth adding--without looking at any evidence, their voices have been heard at the top.

Comprehensive means
complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something

so if you think adding only one thing when they were in need of multiple improvements as a comprehensive improvement, when Boren stated clearly that it was necessary for all items to be addressed and implemented, then you have a comprehension problem.

Boren looked at the financial bonus of a conference network and saw that there was enough revenue to make Texas whole and make lots more money for everyone else.

Boren stated that adding all three would put the BIG 12 on par with the BIG 12 and SEC--I don't have to show anything, but if you get available numbers then it certainly adds up.
Financially on par means that while there are going to be exact dollar for dollar amounts you will be equal or close to it--not millions behind as the conference is going to be now by the end of contracts.

Texas made its declarations before anyone even sat down and went over the data-and quickly everyone bit rather than examine the data and move forward.

If Ohio State, Alabama and FSU--which actually perform on the field--had the same attitude as UT, the B10, SEC and ACC would cease to exist.

You haven't responded to my previous post about TV viewership:

"The bottom line:

Average TV Viewership per Conference game:

SEC 5,597,143
B10 5,013,964
B12 4,524,800
P12 2,711,750
ACC 2,113,357
AAC 752,667

Would you really want to be in a conference with 40% the viewership per game of the B12?"

Isn't that a concern? The ACC does not get as much money at the B12 by about 7 or 8 million per team when the Tier III money is considered but there is a real reason why they aren't paid.... They don't get the same ratings.

 

[Buckaineer]

Reread my post - this underlined/highlighted statement by you is what I disagree with. I gave you two scenarios why I don't believe that the upset winner of the B12 championship game would be kept out of the playoffs. One example was the upset winner in your 40% (50-50) had defeated a previously undefeated B12 team for the conference championship - which would mean that they still only had the one regular season defeat on their record and they had just beaten a highly ranked undefeated regular season B12 champion. You are stating above that they would automatically be left out of the playoffs - I don't agree.

The upset winner is more than likely the lower ranked in the eyes of the committee. So you are pitting a lower ranked team against other conference champs. No guarantee that team gets in no matter what starting from a lower position.

With fewer teams the Big 12 is less likely to have 1 loss teams than others so its likely a team winning a second game they lost in the first go around in the conference will have more than one loss going into the CCG anyway.

Since the BIG 12 has been at 10 teams:

2011-- one 11 win school (reg. season)
2012-- one 11 win school
2013-- one 11 win school in regular season play
2014-- two 11 win schools
2015-- one 11 win school in regular season play

That's not good odds to have the lower ranked team winning a rematch get into the playoff. That team is very likely going to have two losses or more.

 

[Buckaineer]

You haven't responded to my previous post about TV viewership:

"The bottom line:

Average TV Viewership per Conference game:

SEC 5,597,143
B10 5,013,964
B12 4,524,800
P12 2,711,750
ACC 2,113,357
AAC 752,667

Would you really want to be in a conference with 40% the viewership per game of the B12?"

Isn't that a concern? The ACC does not get as much money at the B12 by about 7 or 8 million per team when the Tier III money is considered but there is a real reason why they aren't paid.... They don't get the same ratings.

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but would be interested to see that.

Looking at the past two seasons, here were the top ten rated cfb games

2015
No. 1: Michigan State at Ohio State7.0 3:30 p.m./Nov. 21 ABC
No. 2: Ohio State at Virginia Tech 6.6 8 p.m./Sept. 7 ESPN
No. 3: LSU at Alabama 6.3 3:30 p.m./Nov. 7 CBS
No. 4: Florida State at Clemson 5.5 3:30 p.m./Nov.7 ABC
No. 5: Michigan State at Michigan 5.1 3:30 p.m./Oct. 17 ESPN
No. 6: Oregon at Michigan State 5.0 8 p.m./Sept. 12 ABC
No. 7: Notre Dame at Clemson 4.8 8 p.m./Oct. 3 ABC
No. 8: Ole Miss at Alabama 4.6 9:15 p.m./Sept. 19 ESPN
No. 9: Ohio State vs. Indiana
OR Texas Tech vs. Baylor 4.5 3:30 p.m./Oct. 3 ABC
No. 10: Wisconsin vs. Alabama 4.3 8 p.m./Sept. 5 ABC


2014
#1 Auburn at Alabama (13.5 million views; 11/30/14) ESPN
#2 Notre Dame at Florida State (13.25 million viewers; 10/18/14) ABC
#3 Alabama vs. Missouri (12.8 million viewers; 12/6/14; SEC Championship) CBS
#4 Mississippi State at Alabama (10.3 million viewers; 11/15/14) CBS
#5 FSU vs. Georgia Tech 10.1 million views; 12/6/14; ACC title game) ABC
#6 Alabama at LSU (9.2 million viewers; 11/8/14) CBS
#7 FSU at Miami (8.74 million viewers 11/15/14) ABC
#8 Clemson at FSU (8.1 million viewers 9/20/14) ABC
#9 Florida at Alabama (8.0 million viewers; 9/20/14) CBS
#10 Texas A&M at Auburn (7.2 million viewers; 11/8/14) CBS

Looking at that-and its been that way for awhile, the ACC probably isn't all that worried about their tv ratings as they are up--and the schools that some covet are getting better ratings than BIG 12 schools in their big contests.

Either way I've never heard anyone who switched conferences mention tv ratings as a reason to change conferences. Money is what it is about, and if the ACC gets a network, their money will increase significantly.
They'll all still be in their conference through 2027 under their grant of rights either way. That is as much as a problem for the BIG 12 luring teams away as simple geography. Its too far out to matter.

The BIG 12 had a chance but failed to act once again.

 

[IowaCityCy]

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but would be interested to see that.

Looking at the past two seasons, here were the top ten rated cfb games

2015
No. 1: Michigan State at Ohio State7.0 3:30 p.m./Nov. 21 ABC
No. 2: Ohio State at Virginia Tech 6.6 8 p.m./Sept. 7 ESPN
No. 3: LSU at Alabama 6.3 3:30 p.m./Nov. 7 CBS
No. 4: Florida State at Clemson 5.5 3:30 p.m./Nov.7 ABC
No. 5: Michigan State at Michigan 5.1 3:30 p.m./Oct. 17 ESPN
No. 6: Oregon at Michigan State 5.0 8 p.m./Sept. 12 ABC
No. 7: Notre Dame at Clemson 4.8 8 p.m./Oct. 3 ABC
No. 8: Ole Miss at Alabama 4.6 9:15 p.m./Sept. 19 ESPN
No. 9: Ohio State vs. Indiana
OR Texas Tech vs. Baylor 4.5 3:30 p.m./Oct. 3 ABC
No. 10: Wisconsin vs. Alabama 4.3 8 p.m./Sept. 5 ABC


2014
#1 Auburn at Alabama (13.5 million views; 11/30/14) ESPN
#2 Notre Dame at Florida State (13.25 million viewers; 10/18/14) ABC
#3 Alabama vs. Missouri (12.8 million viewers; 12/6/14; SEC Championship) CBS
#4 Mississippi State at Alabama (10.3 million viewers; 11/15/14) CBS
#5 FSU vs. Georgia Tech 10.1 million views; 12/6/14; ACC title game) ABC
#6 Alabama at LSU (9.2 million viewers; 11/8/14) CBS
#7 FSU at Miami (8.74 million viewers 11/15/14) ABC
#8 Clemson at FSU (8.1 million viewers 9/20/14) ABC
#9 Florida at Alabama (8.0 million viewers; 9/20/14) CBS
#10 Texas A&M at Auburn (7.2 million viewers; 11/8/14) CBS

Looking at that-and its been that way for awhile, the ACC probably isn't all that worried about their tv ratings as they are up--and the schools that some covet are getting better ratings than BIG 12 schools in their big contests.

Either way I've never heard anyone who switched conferences mention tv ratings as a reason to change conferences. Money is what it is about, and if the ACC gets a network, their money will increase significantly.
They'll all still be in their conference through 2027 under their grant of rights either way. That is as much as a problem for the BIG 12 luring teams away as simple geography. Its too far out to matter.

The BIG 12 had a chance but failed to act once again.

Here is the link that I used....



I agree that the B12 missed it's chance to be the first conference to have a network but I don't agree that we will fail because we don't have one now. The ACC can't get a network going because the numbers look bad for one. The P12 might lose their network because it is losing huge money and may be a real millstone around their neck.

If we do have a network eventually, I hope it is something that runs in conjunction with the existing networks that each of the B12 teams have for their Tier III programing. I could watch the ISU softball team on TV for every one of their home games and many of their away games this year on Cyclones.tv.... My Hawkeye friends could only watch their team about 3 times all year on the BTN because they have 13 other teams that they also have to show on a regular basis. The BTN is not that fun of a network and is only useful when they play conference games on it regionally that the B12 would have on ESPN or ESPN2 or ESPNU nationally.

Does WVA not have a statewide network that plays Tier III Mountaineer stuff 24/7 with some archived football and basketball games also? I think it might be fun to keep the Cyclones.tv network just the way that it is but maybe add some programing for about 2 or 3 hours a day that would be produced by a Big 12 Network that shows an overview of the whole conference but I don't know if I would like a B12 Network if it is done like the BTN.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Here is the link that I used....

View embedded media

I agree that the B12 missed it's chance to be the first conference to have a network but I don't agree that we will fail because we don't have one now. The ACC can't get a network going because the numbers look bad for one. The P12 might lose their network because it is losing huge money and may be a real millstone around their neck.

If we do have a network eventually, I hope it is something that runs in conjunction with the existing networks that each of the B12 teams have for their Tier III programing. I could watch the ISU softball team on TV for every one of their home games and many of their away games this year on Cyclones.tv.... My Hawkeye friends could only watch their team about 3 times all year on the BTN because they have 13 other teams that they also have to show on a regular basis. The BTN is not that fun of a network and is only useful when they play conference games on it regionally that the B12 would have on ESPN or ESPN2 or ESPNU nationally.

Does WVA not have a statewide network that plays Tier III Mountaineer stuff 24/7 with some archived football and basketball games also? I think it might be fun to keep the Cyclones.tv network just the way that it is but maybe add some programing for about 2 or 3 hours a day that would be produced by a Big 12 Network that shows an overview of the whole conference but I don't know if I would like a B12 Network if it is done like the BTN.

I appreciate your thoughtful and informative posts here. I am a displaced Mountaineer living in South Carolina and the only WVU broadcasts I can get are the national ones except for medium quality streaming video packed with ads. I have no interest in a B12 Network in the traditional sense, but would love to see IMG or someone offer all events on a pay per view and quality streaming video basis. I believe that's where the profitable future may lie for many teams.

You are fortunate to have Cyclones.TV. Is that available nationwide?

 

[Pitt4Life34]

You are a halfwit, who has no clue. I take that back, saying you are a halfwit is giving you way too much credit. I have no agenda, I only want what the leaders thinks is best for the conference. I just follow, evaluate, and present the latest facts. You on the other hand says that everything said that does not match your tiny box is a lie, while all else is factual. You on the other hand want only what you think is best for the conference.

You can’t predict what the F is going to happen down the road. This is what we do know.

1. BIG12 payout rose 20% which was far more than most people predicted especially from the idiots like yourself.

2. Starting in 2017, the BIG12 will have a CCG, providing another 3 million per program a year.

3. BIG12 Network is dead. Why is that? PAY CLOSE ATTENTION MARKET CONDITIONS. After all the data was presented to BIG12 about a conference network they killed the idea.

Please read what Boren had to say about starting a network in today’s market place with an open mind especially in paragraph 2 and 3.

"The conference always has to be open about moving forward and looking at other things," Boren said. "But the marketplace has taken the Big 12 Network, in the traditional sense, off the marketplace.

"That would be true for the SEC or the Big Ten or anybody else coming up for the first time trying to create a network at this particular time. There's no reason for us to have a quarrel with anybody over whether their network is going to continue or not when there isno possibility for a marketplace for creating a traditional Big 12 Network."

"I think it was kind of a watershed meeting," he said. "What we saw happen, I think the members put aside their previous inclinations. I've certainly had mine, and I've not been shy about expressing them."

This isn’t just Kumbaya talk, it is reality in today’s day of cutting off the networks.

4. ESPN keeps delaying any effort to launch the ACCN. Why, is this? I will type very slowly so you might understand, so please PAY CLOSE ATTENTION AGAIN) MARKET CONDITIONS.

5. Expansion is not a closed issue. Quotes from Boren

"I would say at this time, we still feel like we need more information," Boren said. "We are certainly continuing to consider possible expansion and what that might do in terms of how it might impact the conference, both positively and negatively. We're looking at the whole picture. We'll continue to very seriously look at that possibility."

Last: I don’t give a flying leap what some stupid OU board posters thinks about the BIG12. They probably know just a little bit more than what you know about the whole process. The important factor is what the President and BOR thinks about the BIG12, and for now they are very happy with how things shook out from the BIG12 meeting. And why should they be? They got a 20% increase in revenue; they got the title game they wanted, providing another 10% increase in revenue. And the entire BIG12 is on the same page.

You're 4th point is of course not accurate. The ACC and ESPN are waiting for ND. Timing depends on what, if any, cooperation the conference and network can get from ND. Now I assume you'll widen the definition of market conditions to include everything under the sun. However, by you throwing market conditions around doesn't mean you figured out why no Big12 or ACC network. It's actually pretty simple. There's enough access to football and basketball. Not enough people give a crap about watching all of the other college sports. So it's really product driven and content driven. Not your go to market condition narrative. Who in there right mind would waste 2 or 3 hours watching WVU play Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., Texas Tech in anything other than hoops or football. The Big12s future is all about Texas and Oklahoma. Period! That's the fundamental problem with the conference. The conference depends solely on the relationship between those two universities. And, with Texas being one of the most self serving and arogant universities in America the Big12 will always be a soap opera.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

Sorry but that is true.

Again because you say it doesn't make it true.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The upset winner is more than likely the lower ranked in the eyes of the committee. So you are pitting a lower ranked team against other conference champs. No guarantee that team gets in no matter what starting from a lower position.

With fewer teams the Big 12 is less likely to have 1 loss teams than others so its likely a team winning a second game they lost in the first go around in the conference will have more than one loss going into the CCG anyway.

Since the BIG 12 has been at 10 teams:

2011-- one 11 win school (reg. season)
2012-- one 11 win school
2013-- one 11 win school in regular season play
2014-- two 11 win schools
2015-- one 11 win school in regular season play

That's not good odds to have the lower ranked team winning a rematch get into the playoff. That team is very likely going to have two losses or more.

Had the BIG12 had a CCG game pitting Baylor and TCU 2 year ago, there would have been the 13th data point everyone has be clamoring and the winner would most likly made the CCG

 

[LowFatMilk]

There's enough access to football and basketball. Not enough people give a crap about watching all of the other college sports. So it's really product driven and content driven. Not your go to market condition narrative. Who in there right mind would waste 2 or 3 hours watching WVU play Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., Texas Tech in anything other than hoops or football.

You say it's not about market conditions....then list reasons that there won't be a Big 12 network that CLEARLY fall under the umbrella of.. ....wait for it....

.....market conditions.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

You say it's not about market conditions....then list reasons that there won't be a Big 12 network that CLEARLY fall under the umbrella of.. ....wait for it....

.....market conditions.

Market conditions are great for products and content that people want to watch. People watch TV in record numbers. That's because market conditions are excelent. Big10 and SEC..........no problem with market conditions. There's one main reason why there won't be a Big12 network. Ready......wait for it.......no one gives a crap about watching anything related to the states Iowa, Kansas, West Virginia, and Oklahoma. That might hurt but it's true.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Market conditions are great for products and content that people want to watch. People watch TV in record numbers. That's because market conditions are excelent. Big10 and SEC..........no problem with market conditions. There's one main reason why there won't be a Big12 network. Ready......wait for it.......no one gives a crap about watching anything related to the states Iowa, Kansas, West Virginia, and Oklahoma. That might hurt but it's true.

It doesn't hurt at all.

You again explained that the market conditions are not good for a Big 12 network(with errors, but not the point of my posts)... ...after saying to another poster, '(It's) Not your go to market condition narrative'.

It's fun to watch you unwittingly debate yourself and the icing on the cake is when you do it after it's been pointed out to you.

 

[Buckaineer]

Had the BIG12 had a CCG game pitting Baylor and TCU 2 year ago, there would have been the 13th data point everyone has be clamoring and the winner would most likly made the CCG

Thats two top fifteen or top ten 11-1 teams going at it. They would have been in a better position for certain.

As I showed however, only once has the BIg 12 managed to get two 11-1 teams at seasons end under the ten team conference lineup. That's because everyone plays everyone in the regular season and it's a tough conference.

Usually it will be 11-1 vs. 10-2 or worse-- and if the 10-2 team wins? No playoff.

And it's a 50-50 shot every year worth millions. If it doesn't work out multiple times the reputation of the conference and its decision makers is mud by 2025.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Thats two top fifteen or top ten 11-1 teams going at it. They would have been in a better position for certain.

As I showed however, only once has the BIg 12 managed to get two 11-1 teams at seasons end under the ten team conference lineup. That's because everyone plays everyone in the regular season and it's a tough conference.

Usually it will be 11-1 vs. 10-2 or worse-- and if the 10-2 team wins? No playoff.

And it's a 50-50 shot every year worth millions. If it doesn't work out multiple times the reputation of the conference and its decision makers is mud by 2025.

First off I don't understand your 50-50 shot; If that was the case every CCG would have a 50-50 shot. Every year is different and you can't predict what will happen based on the past. Last year the PAC had a 10-2 Stanford team against 8-4 USC team. Even with a Stanford win, the PAC was not getting in without help from teams in front of them. So here you have a conference with 12 teams and CCG and they were out of it from the before the CCG started

 

[Orlaco]

I think a championship game in the Big 12 completely eliminates the chance of two of our teams making the playoffs.

I guess it was such a long shot anyway that nothing is really lost.

 

[IowaCityCy]

You are fortunate to have Cyclones.TV. Is that available nationwide?

Yes, Cyclones.TV has available nationwide streaming that can be watched on a phone, computer or smart TV for monthly fee. In Iowa, we also get Cyclones.TV as part of the Mediacom basic cable channel line up. Mediacom is by far the largest cable provider in Iowa.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Yes, Cyclones.TV has available nationwide streaming that can be watched on a phone, computer or smart TV for monthly fee. In Iowa, we also get Cyclones.TV as part of the Mediacom basic cable channel line up. Mediacom is by far the largest cable provider in Iowa.

What does Iowa State currently earn for that?

 

[Buckaineer]

First off I don't understand your 50-50 shot; If that was the case every CCG would have a 50-50 shot. Every year is different and you can't predict what will happen based on the past. Last year the PAC had a 10-2 Stanford team against 8-4 USC team. Even with a Stanford win, the PAC was not getting in without help from teams in front of them. So here you have a conference with 12 teams and CCG and they were out of it from the before the CCG started

Its a 50-50 shot because in the BIG 12 there is much more often than not only going to be ONE playoff worthy team in the conference. That team will play a rematch with a team they already beat. That team doesn't have better than a 50% chance of beating the same team twice. It's one game and anyone can win it.

Last year the Pac didn't get in as you state yourself--because the best team lost twice.

With a guaranteed rematch, theres a high possibility the best team is going to lose twice. As mentioned, in the BIG 12 when the five rematches happened--the team that lost the first game won the second 40% of the time.

It can happen in a 12 team conference but in a 12 team conference several teams won't play each other every year and that minimizes the chances of losses for the best programs. Last year the Pac 12 ran out of luck and the champ had two losses---one of those losses was an OOC loss though.

 

[IowaCityCy]

What does Iowa State currently earn for that?

We think the Cyclones.TV revenue is at around $6 million per year. That number is from insiders and has never been verified by the AD.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

We think the Cyclones.TV revenue is at around $6 million per year. That number is from insiders and has never been verified by the AD.

Thank you. If they initiated limited pay per view I'll bet it would go to $8 million.

 

[Orlaco]

Its a 50-50 shot because in the BIG 12 there is much more often than not only going to be ONE playoff worthy team in the conference. That team will play a rematch with a team they already beat. That team doesn't have better than a 50% chance of beating the same team twice. It's one game and anyone can win it.

.

Fifty percent huh ? You pulled that number out of your ass.

Plus, it's very possible the higher ranked team already lost to their counterpart participating in the championship game. ....and that's using your 'anyone can win' logic.

Maybe the representative for the Big 12 should be picked before the season and all conference teams should be required to forfeit their games against them. .....wouldn't want to risk a loss....right ?

 

[Buckaineer]

We think the Cyclones.TV revenue is at around $6 million per year. That number is from insiders and has never been verified by the AD.

ISU proposed budget for multi-media rights earnings was $3,553,000 for fiscal year 2015.

https://collegeathleticsclips.com/news/thegrittyoniowasfy2015athleticsbudget.html

 

[dogeered_again]

P.S. the only way I am wrong about this is if ND joins as a full conference member.

I may be wrong and I understand that it's extremely unlikely, but I hate those rat bastards and don't want them in our conference. It would be driveable and I'd love to beat up on them each year, but the smell would be overwhelmning.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Its a 50-50 shot because in the BIG 12 there is much more often than not only going to be ONE playoff worthy team in the conference. That team will play a rematch with a team they already beat. That team doesn't have better than a 50% chance of beating the same team twice. It's one game and anyone can win it.

Last year the Pac didn't get in as you state yourself--because the best team lost twice.

With a guaranteed rematch, theres a high possibility the best team is going to lose twice. As mentioned, in the BIG 12 when the five rematches happened--the team that lost the first game won the second 40% of the time.

It can happen in a 12 team conference but in a 12 team conference several teams won't play each other every year and that minimizes the chances of losses for the best programs. Last year the Pac 12 ran out of luck and the champ had two losses---one of those losses was an OOC loss though.

In a 12 team conference that plays a 9 game in conference schedule, you play all but 2 teams. While not a guaranteed rematch, percentage wise you are more likely to have rematch than not.

BTW, where are you getting that 50-50 number, is it something you researched it just throwing out there to make a point? I would be very interested in seeing the numbers if it is from research.

 

[Buckaineer]

Fifty percent huh ? You pulled that number out of your ass.

Plus, it's very possible the higher ranked team already lost to their counterpart participating in the championship game. ....and that's using your 'anyone can win' logic.

Maybe the representative for the Big 12 should be picked before the season and all conference teams should be required to forfeit their games against them. .....wouldn't want to risk a loss....right ?

You simply like to argue baseless points. Its a 50-50 shot. If you think its not-explain how its not.
It is difficult to beat the same team twice. In five previous years when the conference had a rematch, the team that lost the first game won the second game 40% of the time. In your world that didn't happen? It did and its in the history books.

If a team lost to its counterpart already in conference play, then its probably not going to be the higher ranked team unless the counterpart LOST another game or more. If that happened, then winning in a CCG against a team with multiple losses isn't going to be as impressive as beating an undefeated or one loss opponent in another conference anyway.

As to your last asinine statement, what should be happening is the league should have two divisions of six teams with the winners facing off in a CCG. There'd still be a slight disadvantage to 14 team conferences--but It would be a much higher chance of getting into the playoff than a 10 team conference playing a round robin schedule with a CCG.

 

[Buckaineer]

In a 12 team conference that plays a 9 game in conference schedule, you play all but 2 teams. While not a guaranteed rematch, percentage wise you are more likely to have rematch than not.

BTW, where are you getting that 50-50 number, is it something you researched it just throwing out there to make a point? I would be very interested in seeing the numbers if it is from research.

Where are you getting that in a 12 team conference that plays a 9 game conference schedule you are more likely to have a rematch than not?

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

With a 12 team conference, you are better off playing an eight game conference schedule. If the networks require you to play against a power 5 team for the missing conference game they still come out ahead.

Even if you can't find a home and home against a worthy opponent, a single 'neutral' site game not only seems easy to get but it pays well also. I believe the networks would like to see more power 5 inter-conference games. If it's drive-able, the fans like it too. It's like an in season bowl game.

 

[Orlaco]

You simply like to argue baseless points. Its a 50-50 shot. If you think its not-explain how its not.
It is difficult to beat the same team twice. In five previous years when the conference had a rematch, the team that lost the first game won the second game 40% of the time. In your world that didn't happen? It did and its in the history books.
.

I barely challenged you with a single post... ...and you're already down to 40% (using a very small sample pool) .

Good stuff.

 

[Buckaineer]

With a 12 team conference, you are better off playing an eight game conference schedule. If the networks require you to play against a power 5 team for the missing conference game they still come out ahead.

Even if you can't find a home and home against a worthy opponent, a single 'neutral' site game not only seems easy to get but it pays well also. I believe the networks would like to see more power 5 inter-conference games. If it's drive-able, the fans like it too. It's like an in season bowl game.

Which is what the consultants determined--the best shot for the BIG 12 to make playoffs is a 12 team league playing an 8 game schedule.

Agree the networks would like to see more P5 inter league matchups. The BIG 12 would be better off with likely more heavily promoted games.

Its tricky, but these games need to be played

Texas-A&M
WVU-Pitt
OU-Nebraska

some would probably make an argument for Kansas-Missouri since it was a rivalry at some point.

The networks don't want to see Baylor's OOC schedule of the last few years for certain.

 

[Buckaineer]

I barely challenged you with a single post... ...and you're already down to 40% (using a very small sample pool) .

Good stuff.

I'm not "down" to anything. And you haven't provided anything to show what I stated is incorrect.
It's a 50-50 shot. So far the BIG 12 has beaten those odds by around 1 game--but it remains a 50-50 shot.

 

[skygusty]

i love the CCG scenario. Can't wait to experience how the next 8 years unfold. Glad the Big12 brain trust has the facts in hand.

 

[Monroeer]

In a 12 team conference that plays a 9 game in conference schedule, you play all but 2 teams. While not a guaranteed rematch, percentage wise you are more likely to have rematch than not.

Where are you getting that in a 12 team conference that plays a 9 game conference schedule you are more likely to have a rematch than not?

He explains it in his post - you play all (4) but 2 teams. (6 teams in a division, you play 4 but not the other 2; therefore 4 is greater than 2.

 

[Buckaineer]

He explains it in his post - you play all (4) but 2 teams. (6 teams in a division, you play 4 but not the other 2; therefore 4 is greater than 2.

How does that make a rematch more likely than not?

 

[Buckaineer]

Here's an article from Berry Tramel of the Oklahoma in 2012 that paints the picture from college football history at that time (from when WVU just joined the conference):

excerpt:

Rematches, often as not, provide a different winner.

Of the 41 rematches that I found in college football history, the loser of Game 1 is 21-20 in Game 2.

http://newsok.com/article/3636904

 

[Buckaineer]

i love the CCG scenario. Can't wait to experience how the next 8 years unfold. Glad the Big12 brain trust has the facts in hand.

Too bad the facts weren't used in the decision making process-the decisions were made before they got to that point.

 

[skygusty]

The people at Texas seem to be smarter than the people at Oklahoma. To the victors go the spoils. WVU is in good shape.