Big 12 expansion gets a boost today.
- Thread starter Rootmaster
- Start date
A mixed bag and cellar dwellers are two different things. The Big Ten got the latter. Completely.
In TCU's first two seasons in the Big 12 they were 4 - 5 and 2 - 7 in conference games. Since then you are right. But if the Big 12 would have had 12 teams with eight conference games and a CCG in 2014 TCU and Baylor would have had a 50 - 50 chance of making the playoffs. Provided of course they had beaten a couple of power five teams in OOC games. I realize the ESPN contract requires nine conference games, but I'll bet they would wave that in exchange for a mandatory power five OOC game.
I still think it is possible they vote to expand because they can get 8 schools to agree on the concept. It may be more difficult to get 8 schools to agree on which schools get an invite. I think it is likely that Cincy would get a yes vote, but the conference will not expand with just 1 team. Getting a second team that 8 schools can agree on could be more of a challenge. BYU has issues, UCONN has issues, Memphis has issues, Houston has issues, USF and UCF have issues. Until it comes down to a vote, you will never know how those schools are viewed by the current members. I've thought all along that Colorado State could be a dark horse that most of the conference might agree on, State School, In the traditional footprint, Good School, high population state, athletics aren't great but would improve, they've made some investments. I wouldn't mind a frequent John Denver trophy matchup.
I wonder how nuanced their data analysis is. Will they have different projections for all the different permutations of potential invites? Could the analysis come back and say that the numbers don't actually support expansion with any of the available teams, or that there are only two teams that the numbers support? If the data is solid in favor of expansion, can they agree on who to invite? Will they have 3 teams dead set against inviting anybody, regardless of what the data says? Maybe it becomes clearer this summer. Or not.
I wonder how nuanced their data analysis is. Will they have different projections for all the different permutations of potential invites? Could the analysis come back and say that the numbers don't actually support expansion with any of the available teams, or that there are only two teams that the numbers support? If the data is solid in favor of expansion, can they agree on who to invite? Will they have 3 teams dead set against inviting anybody, regardless of what the data says? Maybe it becomes clearer this summer. Or not.
Interesting discussion from a panel-from the Iowa State camp. "Cyclone Insider" --long panel discussion about the decisions facing the conference and what they are hearing and believe is a likely timetable for adoption of comprehensive improvements.
Interesting tidbit--they had a discussion with Jake Trotter earlier in the day and his implication is that there may be other schools in play besides the so called "G5" schools.
Trotter let it be known that in the Pac 12 things are getting to a boiling point and there is a lot of unrest in that conference. The panel references that Kansas State with their online tier 3 network makes 3 times what Oregon made from the Pac nets as an example.
Good listen--at least first 15 minutes of the show:
Interesting tidbit--they had a discussion with Jake Trotter earlier in the day and his implication is that there may be other schools in play besides the so called "G5" schools.
Trotter let it be known that in the Pac 12 things are getting to a boiling point and there is a lot of unrest in that conference. The panel references that Kansas State with their online tier 3 network makes 3 times what Oregon made from the Pac nets as an example.
Good listen--at least first 15 minutes of the show:
Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what teams to choose maybe we need to think outside the box and come up with some new criteria
http://bustedcoverage.com/2009/04/10/hottest-girls-of-the-mid-major-colleges-non-bcs/
http://bustedcoverage.com/2009/04/10/hottest-girls-of-the-mid-major-colleges-non-bcs/
The reason the Big-12 plays 9 conference games is to give the TV package the best mix of opportunities to pull 23 games for broadcast annually. If the Big-12 expands to 12 teams then the number of conference games grows significantly even if each member only plays 8 conference games.
While no one can speak for what ESPN would consider acceptable in their contract, it is logical if the supply grows with 12 teams in the conference the need for 9 conference games for each of them would be reduced.
10 Teams, 9 games, Total 45 games. 12 Teams, 8 games, Total 48 games. I wouldn't call that a significant growth, particularly if you water down the strength of the conference as a whole.
It is that the number of games meet the requirement and with two additional teams the mix of games also expands and that is at the heart for a limit of conference games. Content is what the tv package is after, not a set number of games and the best mix comes from having more teams in the mix, especially if they do not meet every year.
Also, there is the 'new kid on the block' effect. Any team that joins the conference will have a large increase in attendance and viewership especially during the first couple of years. It will be up to them to maintain it. UC has expressed a willingness to expand newly remodeled Nippert Stadium from 40k to 58k if needed for the Big 12. Meanwhile they can move games to the Bengals stadium if needed. Other candidates have similar options. The last WVU at USF game drew 65k, now they average around 29k, I believe.
Regardless of whether the big 12 expands or not it won't make the conference any more stable. If Oklahoma gets an invite to the sec or big ten they will most likely jump on it when the Gor expires. If the big 12 is worried about getting left out of the college football playoff then the conference needs to start playing better football. It needs to stop getting smoked in bowl games the fact that the conference hasn't had a winning bowl season in 5 years and the outright conference champion hasn't won a bowl game in that time span doesn't help its case in front of the selection committee. The only people that should be happy with the Big 12's on field performance lately are fans in ACC country we have given them someone to point the finger at
Cincinnati (Ohio Big Ten area)
Houston ( Texas isolate SEC/ Texas A&M)
Memphis (Tennessee SEC area)
BYU (Utah Pac12 area)
Houston ( Texas isolate SEC/ Texas A&M)
Memphis (Tennessee SEC area)
BYU (Utah Pac12 area)
Last edited:
Houston is about to become 3rd largest city in America. Of course you add Houston University very good Football and Basketball tradition. This is actually the only guaranteed no brainier choice.
For the same reasons Texas likes the current conference size and strong arms TT and TCU into following suit in a ten-member league, Texas is never going to get the needed votes by any member not in Texas to add Houston just to be another Texas stooge. Houston is DOA.
The big 12 already has the Houston market and the schools like TCU, Baylor and TTech would not want them and BYU would make another outlier with a small television market
Oklahoma is the primary mover and shaker of expansion, network and CCG. If these are implemented they aren't going anywhere. The danger is in if nothing is done, or not enough to address the issues that must be taken care of.
Texas may not want to change their LHN deal-that isn't known, but when they see the details of what a conference network may bring who knows. Hard to imagine a strong conference, better revenues, better access to playoffs and a conference network extending your reach over a far greater area would not be a positive for them as well. They certainly won't maintain their influence anywhere else.
Texas may not want to change their LHN deal-that isn't known, but when they see the details of what a conference network may bring who knows. Hard to imagine a strong conference, better revenues, better access to playoffs and a conference network extending your reach over a far greater area would not be a positive for them as well. They certainly won't maintain their influence anywhere else.
More teams that start out in the middle of the pack will indeed make the conference more stable by giving additional opportunities to expand income, viewers and bowl odds. Oklahoma can't go anywhere without OSU and that is the albatross around their neck. Texas would currently be a cellar dweller in the SEC as well as nearly there in the B1G and would NOT have the LHN.
The playoff is a 'what have you done this year?' committee and does not consider past years. Every year everyone starts from scratch. It would help the image of the Big 12 if they would get out of the bakery shop during the beginning of the season. Having cupcakes to pad your record does not impress the selection committee. Games against FCS teams are nothing more than formal scrimmage games meant to buy an extra win. I'd like to see the conference require each member two play at least two OOC games against power 5 opponents.
The pac 12 is probably the biggest threat to the big 12 overall they tried to get to 16 once and with 4 spots available they could offer both ok and okie state
Maybe, but that's several years down the road. GOR for the Big 12 doesn't expire until June 30 2025 at 11:59 pm. Besides, how would membership in the PAC help any power 5 team? The biggest threat to the Big 12 that I see is the members of the Big 12 being stupid and doing nothing, choking on the dust of the B1G and SEC as they run off and leave them behind.
Agreed.
The Pac-12 is a non-entity in the Big-12's future. At best they run even on the money per school payout and that includes the Pac-12 having a CCG and the Big-12 minus one. The travel costs would substantial for a Big-12 school to have to move among the Pac-12 - ask Colorado.
Who would have ever predicted Stanford, Oregon and kind of Washington State would be the big dogs with USC and UCLA as also rans of the PAC?
They'd better not let Oregon and Stanford get uppity on them while they are kicking their ass! I realize USC and UCLA are the 'foundation' of that conference, but they had better get moving before the others forget it.
Well, the athletic directors and head coaches have finished their Spring meetings and received all the data regarding the issues in question. ESPN and CBS reporters seem to believe expansion will likely occur and Dennis Dodd was there interviewing everyone he could. His opinion is that the conference will expand to 12 and the prime candidates are Cincinnati and UCF.
The Big 12 staff in attendance were told the conference currently has a 62% chance of making the playoffs in any given year. That sounds pretty good until you find out that is the lowest chance of any power 5 conference. The only way to even the odds is with an expanded number of members and a CCG.
The consensus seemed to be that the financial gain of adding members would be small even with the Ohio and Florida markets. However I cannot imagine two additions going from a conference payout of $1.6 million to over $20 million overnight. I would expect them to receive incremental payouts much like WVU and TCU did. WVU is finally receiving a full share for 2016.
No one knows what the conference presidents will decide in late May and early June, but the odds at this time seem to favor being proactive in remaining competitive with the other power 5 conferences. In my opinion that means expansion as well as a CCG are likely. JMHO
The Big 12 staff in attendance were told the conference currently has a 62% chance of making the playoffs in any given year. That sounds pretty good until you find out that is the lowest chance of any power 5 conference. The only way to even the odds is with an expanded number of members and a CCG.
The consensus seemed to be that the financial gain of adding members would be small even with the Ohio and Florida markets. However I cannot imagine two additions going from a conference payout of $1.6 million to over $20 million overnight. I would expect them to receive incremental payouts much like WVU and TCU did. WVU is finally receiving a full share for 2016.
No one knows what the conference presidents will decide in late May and early June, but the odds at this time seem to favor being proactive in remaining competitive with the other power 5 conferences. In my opinion that means expansion as well as a CCG are likely. JMHO
Last edited:
Some interesting info--haven't seen some of this in articles or elsewhere--can you provide links to some of this such as the conference having a 62% chance and that being the lowest of any conference, and or Dennis Dodd giving a positive opinion on expansion and naming candidates? Thanks.
Watch the PAC 12 grab Houston, they have been looking to move East. That will start a chain reaction. Houston is a great get for the Big 12. People need to know that not everyone in Texas roots for Texas plus bringing in a school like Houston to the Big 12 makes sense
Last edited:
TexAss is strong arming TCU and TT to not vote, keeping them 1 vote short. We will see how things change with the new information. It will still come down to the $$ and LHN
Texas is the reason teams like Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri left the Big12. NEbraska used to be one of the Big boys with Texas and Oklahoma. They were tired of Texas being big greedy pieces of shit.
Guess what? Texas is still a big greedy piece of shit institution. They did that damn Longhorn network when the conference should have been doing a conference network.
Its like this, while Texas is at the head of the table, the Big12 will be kept down and Oklohama and Kansas arr likely targets of the Big 10.
Last edited:
Even as stubborn and self minded as officials at UT have a reputation for being, they have no incentive to sabotage the Big 12's odds of reaching the playoffs and falling further behind because of a small broadcast footprint.
If UT moved to any other conference they will lose the LHN and be a middle of the pack school at best. That sounds self destructive to me.
If UT moved to any other conference they will lose the LHN and be a middle of the pack school at best. That sounds self destructive to me.
The B12 could have 16 teams and two championship games with a super championship game and you would still have 5 conference champions seeking 4 slots.
There will never be a clear cut path to the playoff because one conference will always be left out.
There will never be a clear cut path to the playoff because one conference will always be left out.
Sixteen teams has been ruled out by the Big 12 commissioner. There will never be a guarantee to make the playoffs outside of a power 5 team going undefeated but a 62% chance which the Big 12 currently has means they get left out about 4 out of 10 years. That is what the studies show can by increased by 10 - 15 percent with an increase to 12, eight conference games and a CCG.
They actually do. Dennis Dodd also reported that expansion is not expected to bring in much money. (He said "minimal at best.") If that's true, then how does this solve anything? Money is the main reason for doing this in the first place. From the point of view of Texas, it really wouldn't make sense to add teams that don't bring in new revenue.
Although the short term monetary increase would be small, the long term effect of expanding the broadcast footprint to tens of millions of more TV sets could be substantial. As I pointed out earlier, any new teams would very likely receive incremental shares as WVU and TCU did. There is another strong incentive besides money which would strengthen the conference. Substantially increasing the odds of placing a team in the playoffs by 10 - 15 percent.
Tiger, it would actually benefit Texas to play games in Ohio and Florida. Although the games would not be part of the LHN, the exposure for recruiting would be there and the games would certainly be heavily attended. Texas would also benefit from the added TV audience on the LHN when the teams played in Austin.
This is all prefaced on Dodd's quotes being accurate. That said, it still doesn't make sense. I get what you are saying about the long term, but here's the thing. If ESPN and Fox aren't going to boost up the contract much now with the bigger footprint (again, taking Dodd's quotes as accurate), then it doesn't make sense that they would boost up the contract later, for the same footprint.
I also don't think a reduced share is going to make that big of an impact. West Virginia and TCU started out getting something like 85% (not sure of the exact figure) when they joined. That's not going to give that much of a boost to the other schools. Plus, that partial share will increase every year, and then become a permanent full share. You seem to indicate that the new teams will start out with a really low payout (like $3-4 million or something), but there isn't any indication that they will start out that low. The only evidence we have is what TCU and West Virginia got, which wasn't too far off the full payout to begin with. Also remember, TCU was a mid-major when they joined the Big 12, and they didn't get the super-low payouts. I don't think the evidence is there to suggest the new schools will get a different deal than TCU and West Virginia.
To some extent, but it's not that big of a benefit. Texas will always make its bread and butter recruiting in state. Maybe grab a few players from Ohio, but again not that big of a benefit. Attendance at away games doesn't help Texas. Not a factor. Expansion isn't really going to impact the TV audience for the LHN. The LNH doesn't work like a conference network. LHN doesn't get an increased subscription fee or more distribution in conference states, like a conference network would. You might argue that more people in Ohio who already have the LHN would start watching it, but that's again a minimal increase.
I get your points, but WVU started out with a 50% share and only reached 85% in 2015. As far as Texas playing in front of several tens of thousands of new people and on millions of TV sets, it gets the Longhorn brand (pun intended) out there. There are many younger fans who don't remember Texas being a national powerhouse. As far as the home games against presumably (according to Dodd's take) UC and UCF, is it not the nature of the 'Hook-em horns' fans to want to see UT put these newcomers in their place? They would certainly draw more fans for Texas home games than Kansas and Iowa State.
The per team increase likely barely covers the additional conference payout, but enhancing the opportunity for Big 12 teams to participate in the playoffs and possibly the NC game increases the opportunity for additional revenue for the entire conference.
That's my point. West Virginia and TCU were on a 4 year plan. They got 50% for one year. Then it went up to 67%, then 85%, and now a full share. That's not really benefiting the other schools. They will only see a significant increase for a couple of years, then it goes away. That's not going to entice Texas (or really anybody else). Texas playing in front of more fans for away games is a non factor. If they got onto more TV sets, yeah that's a decent benefit. More fans for away games isn't. Regarding home attendance for Texas, no Cincinnati and Central Florida aren't going to bring in more Texas fans than Kansas or Iowa St. That's really stretching it to suggest that UC and UCF are going to be big draws, just because Texas wants to "put them in their place." The truth is, Texas fans will look at UC and UCF they same way they do Kansas or Iowa St., low-level teams they should beat, and embarrassing losses if they lose. (Keep in mind, UCF was 0-12 last year. You think Texas fans are going to look at UCF any different that Iowa St after that?)
No, making the playoffs doesn't bring in big money. You get $6 million for putting a team in the playoffs. Right now, that's $600k per school. With expansion, it's 500k or less. We're talking about conference payouts of $30-40 million. $500k isn't factor at all. If you don't increase the revenue, I just don't see this as being beneficial, particularly to Texas. (Which would explain the reports that Texas is actively working against expansion.)
