Byu upset about oklahoma
- Thread starter ColoradoMountaineer
- Start date
BYUs dreams of a P5 conference were probably a pipe dream anyway. The BIG 12 commissioner and others have stated the conference will look east in any expansion.
Living out here in Morman land, any BYU fan that sees my WVU attire is so nice to me. They dream and get excited about the hopes they get a call from the conference to be a part of the B12 family. I tell them that they aren't looking to expand and it's like talking to an addict about their addiction... complete denial.
Personally, I don't think the Big should expand except in the unlikely event it could poach a team from another Power 5 league.
BYU, or any of the non-Power 5 schools will not make the league stronger on the field nor would they add monetary value equal to the amount that would be shared with them.
The Big 12 actually has the smallest amount of TV revenue. The reason the per team payout is above the ACC is we share it in fewer slices. The TV partners would have to agree to pay more than $50 million extra per year for adding teams to be a break even proposition.
The league would almost certainly not go to a 10 game conference schedule, so expanding to 12 would add only 9 games a year. Not only would the vast majority of those added games not be "big games," in at least some years the number of big games would decline because, if every team did not play every other, there would be years where two or more of the top teams did not play each other. TV would pay something more for 9 additional TV spots, but likely nowhere near $50 million, so the current members would pay for the expansion.
Diluted conference strength and less money is a lose/lose proposition. Only if it were true the lack of a championship game kept our 1 loss teams out of the playoff nearly per se, would those losses be worth it. We now know that isn't true. The answer for teams like Baylor and OSU (or any team that wants true respect) is to play better OOC schedules.
BYU, or any of the non-Power 5 schools will not make the league stronger on the field nor would they add monetary value equal to the amount that would be shared with them.
The Big 12 actually has the smallest amount of TV revenue. The reason the per team payout is above the ACC is we share it in fewer slices. The TV partners would have to agree to pay more than $50 million extra per year for adding teams to be a break even proposition.
The league would almost certainly not go to a 10 game conference schedule, so expanding to 12 would add only 9 games a year. Not only would the vast majority of those added games not be "big games," in at least some years the number of big games would decline because, if every team did not play every other, there would be years where two or more of the top teams did not play each other. TV would pay something more for 9 additional TV spots, but likely nowhere near $50 million, so the current members would pay for the expansion.
Diluted conference strength and less money is a lose/lose proposition. Only if it were true the lack of a championship game kept our 1 loss teams out of the playoff nearly per se, would those losses be worth it. We now know that isn't true. The answer for teams like Baylor and OSU (or any team that wants true respect) is to play better OOC schedules.
Last edited:
The money issue for BIG 12 expansion is more fairy tale than anything.
Schools added will be given pro rata shares per the BIG 12s contracts. This means that everything Texas gets from the tv contracts--so would the new schools.
There could be some much smaller loss of revenues through further distribution of monies from bowls, etc. around to two more new members, but with the addition of a CCG that would wipe out any losses from those things and if they added good basketball and football schools the league would earn more each year in NCAA and bowl revenues to distribute.
The real reasons for holding back on expansion are the desire to add a certain level of school that is not available to add, with some believing that miraculously years from now they'll be available or desire to join without any changes to the current BIG 12. Some can't come to grips with adding successful G5 schools. Great plan if P5 schools were going to be available or knocking on the door prior to the next round of negotiations, but they aren't.
Another and maybe more important situation is that next year the Big Ten negotiates its tv contracts which will set the bar for where media rights will go for the next couple of decades. The BIG 12 has to know what these numbers are before doing anything. Now that OU has a strong shot at the playoffs, they have more time to wait for that desired time period.
Conference strength wouldn't be altered with the addition of certain schools from the G5 ranks--it would remain ahead of everything but the SEC west and neck and neck with the Pac 12.
For certain, before 2025 the BIG 12 must expand, because without doing that they may very well be in a weak position relative to negotiating new tv contracts. Viewership and fanbase needs to be improved between now and then, more markets need to be in the fold, and better recruits need to be in play for the conference.
BYU though, while a decent football program, doesn't really fit the needs of the BIG 12 and brings a slew of demands counter to a unified conference.
Schools added will be given pro rata shares per the BIG 12s contracts. This means that everything Texas gets from the tv contracts--so would the new schools.
There could be some much smaller loss of revenues through further distribution of monies from bowls, etc. around to two more new members, but with the addition of a CCG that would wipe out any losses from those things and if they added good basketball and football schools the league would earn more each year in NCAA and bowl revenues to distribute.
The real reasons for holding back on expansion are the desire to add a certain level of school that is not available to add, with some believing that miraculously years from now they'll be available or desire to join without any changes to the current BIG 12. Some can't come to grips with adding successful G5 schools. Great plan if P5 schools were going to be available or knocking on the door prior to the next round of negotiations, but they aren't.
Another and maybe more important situation is that next year the Big Ten negotiates its tv contracts which will set the bar for where media rights will go for the next couple of decades. The BIG 12 has to know what these numbers are before doing anything. Now that OU has a strong shot at the playoffs, they have more time to wait for that desired time period.
Conference strength wouldn't be altered with the addition of certain schools from the G5 ranks--it would remain ahead of everything but the SEC west and neck and neck with the Pac 12.
For certain, before 2025 the BIG 12 must expand, because without doing that they may very well be in a weak position relative to negotiating new tv contracts. Viewership and fanbase needs to be improved between now and then, more markets need to be in the fold, and better recruits need to be in play for the conference.
BYU though, while a decent football program, doesn't really fit the needs of the BIG 12 and brings a slew of demands counter to a unified conference.
The commissioner of the B12 has stated more than once that adding teams will not diminish the TV payout per team. The conference will receive more total money than the current contract calls for with 10 teams. If the Big 12 goes to 12, the payout per team will not decrease. Also, we will find out in person next season if BYU would diminish the strength of the league. I certainly think they would be in the middle of the league in football and basketball.
I'm happy with ten and certainly am not pushing for BYU. The main point is that it's not true that expansion will decrease the per team payout according to Bowlsby. Also, Iowa has played a couple of "big" games this year with one real big one coming this Saturday. They haven't played the three best teams in the Big 10, but they are attracting national attention (may even make the playoff even though I doubt they are one of the top 4 teams) and their fans are enjoying a dream season. The B1G actually had more "big" games this year due to not having a round-robin schedule. It helped them this year. Next year, it might hurt. The same is true of the Big 12's round-robin schedule. It is possible for conference's with two divisions to have two undefeated teams after the regular season. That's not possible in the Big 12.
I'm happy with ten and certainly am not pushing for BYU. The main point is that it's not true that expansion will decrease the per team payout according to Bowlsby. Also, Iowa has played a couple of "big" games this year with one real big one coming this Saturday. They haven't played the three best teams in the Big 10, but they are attracting national attention (may even make the playoff even though I doubt they are one of the top 4 teams) and their fans are enjoying a dream season. The B1G actually had more "big" games this year due to not having a round-robin schedule. It helped them this year. Next year, it might hurt. The same is true of the Big 12's round-robin schedule. It is possible for conference's with two divisions to have two undefeated teams after the regular season. That's not possible in the Big 12.
I have had a change of heart about BYU... They get to winning a bunch and the fans start to become very annoying. They beat us next September and I won't hear the end of it.
I tolerate Utah and U State fans much more than the BYU fans.
I tolerate Utah and U State fans much more than the BYU fans.
Math is not a fairy tale. Here is how it works using very round numbers to make it easy for the impaired to follow.
If 10 teams evenly split 300 million they each get 30 million.
For 12 teams to each get 30 million they would need to be splitting 360 million (20% more).
The total number of games would increase 20%, but the average ratings for those 9 "new" games would not equal the average ratings for the current 45 games because those new games would necessarily involve a lesser team often 2 lesser teams. Additionally scheduling the new games would cause currently played games to be omitted every year and in many years those omitted games would be ones that would get the highest ratings if played.
If this year, for example, Baylor did not play Oklahoma and TCU did not play OSU, very good games would not be played in order to accommodate games involving weaker less attractive teams. Fewer people would watch those games. In fact, more than twice as many people might watch a late season showdown than either a game between also-rans or a mismatch.
TV executives understand such obvious things. It's kind of their jobs not to be clueless about such things. Therefore, they would tell the Big 12 there is not a chance in Hell we are going to pay you 20% more if you expand by 2 because there is not a chance in hell we will get 20% more advertising revenue.
The only fairy tale is to think there is something magical about adding two teams to the bottom of league that would cause either other conferences to be less interested n our strongest schools or those strongest schools to be less interested in other conferences.
Texas or Oklahoma will not feel somehow more attached to a league that includes some current Gof5 schools than they feel to the current configuration.
If 10 teams evenly split 300 million they each get 30 million.
For 12 teams to each get 30 million they would need to be splitting 360 million (20% more).
The total number of games would increase 20%, but the average ratings for those 9 "new" games would not equal the average ratings for the current 45 games because those new games would necessarily involve a lesser team often 2 lesser teams. Additionally scheduling the new games would cause currently played games to be omitted every year and in many years those omitted games would be ones that would get the highest ratings if played.
If this year, for example, Baylor did not play Oklahoma and TCU did not play OSU, very good games would not be played in order to accommodate games involving weaker less attractive teams. Fewer people would watch those games. In fact, more than twice as many people might watch a late season showdown than either a game between also-rans or a mismatch.
TV executives understand such obvious things. It's kind of their jobs not to be clueless about such things. Therefore, they would tell the Big 12 there is not a chance in Hell we are going to pay you 20% more if you expand by 2 because there is not a chance in hell we will get 20% more advertising revenue.
The only fairy tale is to think there is something magical about adding two teams to the bottom of league that would cause either other conferences to be less interested n our strongest schools or those strongest schools to be less interested in other conferences.
Texas or Oklahoma will not feel somehow more attached to a league that includes some current Gof5 schools than they feel to the current configuration.
The only advantage of adding a G5 now would be that it would give the non-Texas/Oklahoma schools some leverage in 10 years if the new teams can get stronger in that time period.
Right now, if no expansion occurs and UT gets better (they will), they will be able to chose where they want to go and the rest of the schools would either be:
1) Begging UT/OU for a ride to wherever they're going. (TTech, OKSt)
2) Beg another P5 conference to take them in. (WVU, Kansas, Kansas St, Baylor, TCU)
3) Be exiled to a G5 conference (Iowa State, maybe KSU)
Now if we picked up UCF (IMO the best option) and Cinci (close for WVU and Ohio is pretty good recruiting grounds/TV sets) and they become perennial Top 20 teams, then you have a league that would be excellent with UT/OU. More importantly, it would not be totally screwed if they left. Also...It's not like we couldn't go to 14 or 16 in 10 years when all the GORs open up again.
Right now, if no expansion occurs and UT gets better (they will), they will be able to chose where they want to go and the rest of the schools would either be:
1) Begging UT/OU for a ride to wherever they're going. (TTech, OKSt)
2) Beg another P5 conference to take them in. (WVU, Kansas, Kansas St, Baylor, TCU)
3) Be exiled to a G5 conference (Iowa State, maybe KSU)
Now if we picked up UCF (IMO the best option) and Cinci (close for WVU and Ohio is pretty good recruiting grounds/TV sets) and they become perennial Top 20 teams, then you have a league that would be excellent with UT/OU. More importantly, it would not be totally screwed if they left. Also...It's not like we couldn't go to 14 or 16 in 10 years when all the GORs open up again.
With the BIG 12's tv contracts, new schools added will get a pro rata share-as confirmed by the president of Oklahoma and the conference commissioner.
So if WVU or anyone else gets $30 million from tv, so will the new schools.
What the networks might not add to (might because everything is negotiated) would be the increased split of bowl, NCAA and playoff monies distributed to the BIG 12. That however isn't the end of that. New schools almost guarantees more teams making bowls=more money to distribute. Good basketball schools=more NCAA monies to distribute to existing and new members. A CCG according to the commissioner will add around $25 to $30 million per year to the conference and that would make up for the losses with a slight revenue increase per school.
TV ratings for BIG 12 matchups big and small would almost certainly increase if the right markets were added.
Adding a Florida school or Ohio school for example, immediately opens the BIG 12 up to millions of potential new viewers and fans of the league and its schools. You certainly don't see other conferences ignoring their footprint--the ACC is always making wild claims about their supposed "footprint" even though others are more popular in many states they exist in. The BIG 12 needs help in the footprint area, and having teams in an area is going to draw fans that otherwise have little to no interest.
There is a strong likelihood that new members could be very good in the league also---i.e. this year several AAC schools had great seasons and beat numerous P5 opponents and had highly rated tv games in doing so. This would only benefit the BIG 12--its a misleading assumption to pretend all the games would be lesser games when in reality adding schools would almost guarantee more teams with better records. That in turn = more compelling tv matchups.
As for Texas and OU, when the next tv negotiations come around they certainly aren't going to be pleased to get less revenue than Big Ten and SEC schools as their contracts continue to escalate into the 2030s. Without expansion its not likely the BIG 12 will improve their circumstances in that regard, but could very well fall behind. With expansion many new revenue and exposure opportunities come into play.
So if WVU or anyone else gets $30 million from tv, so will the new schools.
What the networks might not add to (might because everything is negotiated) would be the increased split of bowl, NCAA and playoff monies distributed to the BIG 12. That however isn't the end of that. New schools almost guarantees more teams making bowls=more money to distribute. Good basketball schools=more NCAA monies to distribute to existing and new members. A CCG according to the commissioner will add around $25 to $30 million per year to the conference and that would make up for the losses with a slight revenue increase per school.
TV ratings for BIG 12 matchups big and small would almost certainly increase if the right markets were added.
Adding a Florida school or Ohio school for example, immediately opens the BIG 12 up to millions of potential new viewers and fans of the league and its schools. You certainly don't see other conferences ignoring their footprint--the ACC is always making wild claims about their supposed "footprint" even though others are more popular in many states they exist in. The BIG 12 needs help in the footprint area, and having teams in an area is going to draw fans that otherwise have little to no interest.
There is a strong likelihood that new members could be very good in the league also---i.e. this year several AAC schools had great seasons and beat numerous P5 opponents and had highly rated tv games in doing so. This would only benefit the BIG 12--its a misleading assumption to pretend all the games would be lesser games when in reality adding schools would almost guarantee more teams with better records. That in turn = more compelling tv matchups.
As for Texas and OU, when the next tv negotiations come around they certainly aren't going to be pleased to get less revenue than Big Ten and SEC schools as their contracts continue to escalate into the 2030s. Without expansion its not likely the BIG 12 will improve their circumstances in that regard, but could very well fall behind. With expansion many new revenue and exposure opportunities come into play.
Your entire premise is completely flawed.
You make the assumption Texas or OU would desire to go somewhere else ever.
Why would they? They are the top dogs in this conference whether good or not and they won't have that in any other conference certainly. They would also lose revenues in several of them. The members of this conference have demonstrated over and over that they are quite happy with the makeup of the BIG 12 and the circumstances they find themselves in in the conference. Even OU's Boren spoke recently of things to improve the conference long term for his school and the others, not ways that his team could leave the conference.
Adding schools benefits Texas and OU the same as anyone else because it increases the chances they themselves can be successful athletically and financially long term and it strengthen's other members of the conference as well, which again will benefit them.
We see the benefits in the other conferences of playing a weaker conference schedule--nearly guaranteed slots in the playoff and more teams with fewer losses for most.
Maybe you should pull a Hedgeman and assure them they are a dead-cinch lock, then invite them to buy a round or two while you explain the reasons for your confidence.
They do buy beer, don't they?
I'm not saying they are looking to leave. What I am saying is that if the line-up stays as-is, it gives them the nuclear powered trump card in any negotiations once the GOR is up....whether the threat is legit or not.
People in those positions allow pride to dictate decisions just like anyone else. If OU felt wronged in some way, they could talk themselves into a position where they would almost have to leave rather than swallow some pride and talk it out. It has happened before in all kinds of business deals and it will happen again.
I'm also not saying.."let's get a G5 program" either. I'm just saying that if the B12 is going to do it they should either do it within the next 2 years or don't bother. IMO it will take at least 6-7 years to get those teams "B12 ready" on a yearly basis (facilities, coaching, depth,etc).
The Big 12 will add
Memphis- turning into a good team with a ton of $$$$ being dumped into the new facilities. This is now a desirable job and should continue to grow.
Cincinnati- Solid program with a solid recruiting base. Solid bowl team
Houston- Might be the best team in Texas right now, has $$$ talent and a top coach. huge upside here.
BYU- great fan base, lots of tradition, wins more often than loses.
I see the Big 12 going to 14 teams to be like everyone else, so your divisions might look like this'
Big 12 (North)
WVU
Cincy
Memphis
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Houston
Big 12 (South)
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
BYU
You could switch the two Kansas schools with the Oklahoma Schools
Memphis- turning into a good team with a ton of $$$$ being dumped into the new facilities. This is now a desirable job and should continue to grow.
Cincinnati- Solid program with a solid recruiting base. Solid bowl team
Houston- Might be the best team in Texas right now, has $$$ talent and a top coach. huge upside here.
BYU- great fan base, lots of tradition, wins more often than loses.
I see the Big 12 going to 14 teams to be like everyone else, so your divisions might look like this'
Big 12 (North)
WVU
Cincy
Memphis
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Houston
Big 12 (South)
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
BYU
You could switch the two Kansas schools with the Oklahoma Schools
Not sure... They do have alcohol stores out here regulated by the state of Utah, so I think they do partake. They just don't talk about it IF they do. I know they are against Caffeine and refuse to drink caffeinated drinks as part of the requirements of the LDS church.
If the rates of extra-martial affairs are high as they say they are for the SLC area, methinks the LDS are not as innocent as they claim to be. But that is another topic for another forum.
Why would Texas or Oklahoma get less money? What circumstances need improving? These two schools have the best conference arrangement in college athletics. They would be crazy to leave the Big 12. If Oklahoma wins a national championship, you will never hear Oklahoma's President talk about expansion ever again.
The Big 12 needs out of Texas. Adding Houston would not help.
Memphis does have Fed Ex money behind it and essentially a decent mid-tier bowl game in it's pocket. It has merit in the discussion depending on how they recover from their coaching change.
BYU...too stretched out and in the wrong direction. Move all the mormons to Kentucky and you have a chance.
The BIG 12s per school payouts plus tier 3 revenues keep the BIG 12 members Texas and OU as two of the highest paid in college football.
Texas is number one.
If these schools joined other conferences they would lose their tier 3 deals and some conferences pay out less than the BIG 12. The conferences on par financially would have to distribute money more ways. The SEC already has a contract locked in until 2035 and the Big Ten will soon--expanding after that means pro rata shares and more distribution of the same money, much like the BIG 12s situation.
Circumstances that need improving in the BIG 12 are tv viewership, footprint, recruiting and recruiting grounds, positive press, exposure and future revenue streams to keep the conference on par or better financially--not just Texas and OU, but everyone for a more cohesive conference.
Oklahoma is in a good spot so far at this point, but the BIG 12 was left out last year on the final vote, and its not over this year yet. Just because they get in one year, doesn't change that all through this season the exact same problem that left them out last year was there--lack of a CCG to boost the champion. Also everyone playing everyone else, therefore more losses. These issues aren't going away--its just as everyone expected they may not kill the league every year--the conference just has to wait for what happens with everyone else.
The conference will have to eventually address expansion. One year in the playoffs doesn't change that they will have to negotiate for a better tv deal down the road and tv ratings/fanbase will be crucial to that, and need to keep recruiting better to make sure they have on field success--not to mention the negative BIG 12 press has to be ended sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
One things for certain--there will never be a BIG 12 division with all the Texas and OK schools in the same division when/if the conference expands.
The conference wouldn't want that and neither would the networks.
The conference wouldn't want that and neither would the networks.
UCF looked good a few years ago too. Now they are 0-12.
No idea why everyone is ready to jump on the Memphis bandwagon. 2-3 good seasons prior to decades of misery.
No idea why everyone is ready to jump on the Memphis bandwagon. 2-3 good seasons prior to decades of misery.
UCF had been great for the past 4-5 years. They can get back there again easier than most since they are in Florida.
Memphis needs to show sustained success.
And didn't Fuente just sign with the Turkeys?....yes he did....welcome back to mid pack AAC football Memphis...
Memphis makes sense largely for geographical purposes. They also have very good to excellent basketball and have demonstrated the ability to have excellent football. They have strong financial backing.
People overeact to teams current record or a coach leaving though. Any school brought into the P5 is going to be able to attract good coaching and will draw more fans because of the opponents coming to town and the excitement of the matchups and affiliation.
Basically--what's the worst that could happen? If a team were Kansas bad, that means everyone else in the conference that plays them is going to get an extra win. Kansas State would be bowl eligible, or Texas would need just one win now to be. WVU would have 8 wins rather than 7. Maybe Iowa State becomes a regular bowl participant since they have opponents they can beat in conference. Or the flipside happens and a Memphis is as good as they were this year and finishes high in the BIG 12 rankings and brings another bowl invite themselves--and meanwhile all the other good schools aren't knocking themselves out of contention because they won't all play, but will still have a better schedule than a Clemson or Ohio State or Iowa, or several SEC schools and Pac 12 schools.
People overeact to teams current record or a coach leaving though. Any school brought into the P5 is going to be able to attract good coaching and will draw more fans because of the opponents coming to town and the excitement of the matchups and affiliation.
Basically--what's the worst that could happen? If a team were Kansas bad, that means everyone else in the conference that plays them is going to get an extra win. Kansas State would be bowl eligible, or Texas would need just one win now to be. WVU would have 8 wins rather than 7. Maybe Iowa State becomes a regular bowl participant since they have opponents they can beat in conference. Or the flipside happens and a Memphis is as good as they were this year and finishes high in the BIG 12 rankings and brings another bowl invite themselves--and meanwhile all the other good schools aren't knocking themselves out of contention because they won't all play, but will still have a better schedule than a Clemson or Ohio State or Iowa, or several SEC schools and Pac 12 schools.
I have to think the Big 12 will bring in more $$$ per team than any other league this year. At some point will other leagues (like the Big 10 and Sec) start to see themselves as bloated with too many non-competitive teams? I suspect they might.
Lgm!
Lgm!
I think that the worst that could happen is that we give up home and home games with Texas and Oklahoma for home and home games with Cincy and Memphis. Maybe Texas and Oklahoma would agree to different divisions so we get at least one of them home and home, and the other could rotate in every third or fourth years but I don't think the tradeoff is clearly better. I think if the Big 12 can win 2 or 3 national championships over the next 10 years they will do fine in negotiating new contracts.
WVU or anyone in the current league is going to be playing one or the other of Texas or Oklahoma every year--no chance in any expansion that doesn't happen because Texas and OU like playing other schools and certainly the other schools would demand they play one of those schools every year home-home. So what you'll have is that the other team will rotate--either playing them home-home every other year, or playing them home-home skipping two seasons (playing 1st and 4th year).
That doesn't mean a WVU or KSU or Texas Tech won't play them--they could always meet them in a CCG after all.
Its why the conference will have balanced divisions. No way is WVU going to end up in a division where they have no guaranteed yearly game with OU or Texas. With teams like Baylor, TCU, Kansas State and Oklahoma State however, there's no reason that a great home slate can't be had each year. In the year you don't have a Texas or OU on the docket you schedule some OOC desirable team--Pitt, VT, Tennessee-whoever for a home game to make up for the lack of one conference high powered game.
As for contracts winning helps for sure, but if the BIG 12 continues with the anti BIG 12 bias in the media for the next decade because not enough people are in the footprint to counter the attacks from other regions, that isn't going to help bring in recruits that can win championships. It isn't going to drive up TV ratings if your games aren't promoted as other conferences are.
If every year the BIG 12 has to go through what it did last and this year to try and make the playoffs, getting bashed and having people go out of their way to downrate everything the conference does-that isn't going to help anything. There has to be press around the country writing positive articles and fans around the country caring and correcting misinformation when its put out there on message boards, blogs, articles, tv etc.
Maybe most important is tv viewing--the conference needs to rate better and they need more eyeballs watching. Strong tv ratings will bring more tv dollars and to get more viewers you must create more fans that want to watch the conference and care about conference results in the BIG 12.
The conference is going to have to fend off poaching attacks which will surely come as they did before and WVU can't rest its hat on the way things are now or a one year playoff appearance by Oklahoma (which isn't a done deal yet). If nothing changes for the BIG 12 over the next decade--as OU's Boren stated--the long term future could be in jeopardy--meaning beyond the current contracts. If that occurs WVU will have much more to worry about than if they can play both Texas and OU every year.
Last edited:
To see who Mountaineer fans are really interested in watching in person, take a look at the top attended games at Mountaineer field the past two seasons (from Wikipedia):
Date Opponent# Attendance
20-Sep2014 #4 Oklahoma 61,908
1-Nov2014 #10 TCU 61,190
26-Sep2015 Maryland* 61,174
18-Oct2014 #4 Baylor 60,758
10-Oct 2015 #21 Oklahoma State 60,410
This shows that it isn't critical for WVU to have both OU and UT on the docket every year or the world comes to an end. There are other conference foes in any given year equally or more appealing to the paying public.
Date Opponent# Attendance
20-Sep2014 #4 Oklahoma 61,908
1-Nov2014 #10 TCU 61,190
26-Sep2015 Maryland* 61,174
18-Oct2014 #4 Baylor 60,758
10-Oct 2015 #21 Oklahoma State 60,410
This shows that it isn't critical for WVU to have both OU and UT on the docket every year or the world comes to an end. There are other conference foes in any given year equally or more appealing to the paying public.
BIG12 expansion is dead, long live 10 team conference. That is until BIG10 poaches ACC teams leaving FSU and Clemson open to a move.
The Big Ten isn't poaching any teams from the ACC--all ACC teams are locked into that conference until 2027. You may also have noticed that other than the SEC, ESPN champions that conference more than any other. They have pushed for ACC teams to be #1 the past several years now despite playing in the weakest of the P5 conferences.
The thought process is flawed anyway--FSU and Clemson would simply reconstitute the ACC with ten teams( or more) if your fantasy scenario of UVA and UNC to the Big Ten (and NC State and VT to the SEC) ever happened.
*Notre Dame
FSU
Clemson
Duke
Wake
Pitt
BC
Syracuse
Miami
Georgia Tech
Louisville
*UConn?
Those teams aren't going away--stop deluding yourself.
and a BIG 12 that continues on the same path wont be in a position of strength to lure anyone by that time.
Last edited:
The BIG 12s payouts should be comparable to the Big Ten's and SEC's this year--when you add in the tier 3 deals of BIG 12 schools. Some will be ahead and some behind.
Next year though the Big Ten renegotiates, and they are going to have an increase which for the first several years of their new contract will extend them beyond the BIG 12s revenues--except for Texas and maybe OU. By 2025 things will balance out again--some BIG 12 ahead and some a bit behind depending on their new tier 3 deals (or a BIG 12 network coming into play). The SEC and BIG 12 should remain around the same.
But after 2025 is the key and the BIG 12 must position itself to be in a great spot then as well.
Latest posts
-
Why did you choose to attend WVU for undergrad/masters? (Top reason)
- Latest: ButterWVU1977
-
-
-
-