Expansion

[Mountaineer Steve]

ESPN:
Would Arizona, Arizona State consider the Big 12?

excerpt:
The Big 12's presidents have plenty to discuss when they meet next week in Dallas, and David Boren and E. Gordon Gee have made it clear they want to talk about expansion. No matter how unrealistic Arizona and/or Arizona State might seem today, you do have to wonder if there are other fish in the Power 5 sea feeling wary or unsatisfied about the future and willing to listen to the Big 12.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/109247/would-arizona-arizona-state-consider-the-big-12

Any split that has all Texas teams in one division is a disaster, and would not be good for WVU's strength of schedule.
The AZ and ASU is interesting, but I think the only chance the BIG12 expands with P5 program is if and when the BIG goes after the ACC.

 

[TexasforevEER]

Let's not discuss expansion any more. I am going to leave this issue to the 'shiny shoes'. 500 responses to the issue puts it WAY over the top.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Let's not discuss expansion any more. I am going to leave this issue to the 'shiny shoes'. 500 responses to the issue puts it WAY over the top.

I have an idea just in case it has not crossed your mind. If you don't like the discussion, and you are sick of Buck, Myself and a few others hashing the same points over and over, don't read the post. In the mean time, until expansion happens (2025), this thread will grow into a board of it's own.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The chances of a vote being held next week on a Big 12 football championship game are “no better than 50-50,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told CBS Sports on Wednesday.

Translation, informal non binding votes will take place. A formal binding vote won't occur unless it passes informal vote 1st. Results of Informal votes won't be released to the public.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The chances of a vote being held next week on a Big 12 football championship game are “no better than 50-50,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told CBS Sports on Wednesday.

Translation, informal non binding votes will take place. A formal binding vote won't occur unless it passes informal vote 1st. Results of Informal votes won't be released to the public.

View embedded media

I hate trying to guess what someone really means when they are totally non-commital. But I take his remarks to mean, they either will or will not take a vote but if I know I'm not saying.

 

[Buckaineer]

I have an idea just in case it has not crossed your mind. If you don't like the discussion, and you are sick of Buck, Myself and a few others hashing the same points over and over, don't read the post. In the mean time, until expansion happens (2025), this thread will grow into a board of it's own.

Spot on - dont want to discuss then dont read- or discuss.

 

[Buckaineer]

Bowlsbys comments are straightforward. They are troubling in that a year has gone by with people not meeting.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Bowlsbys comments are straightforward. They are troubling in that a year has gone by with people not meeting.

“There are a lot of issues with hotel rooms and staging space,” Bowlsby said. “I wouldn't be surprised if they [the ADs and presidents] just said, ‘We're going to do this but we're not going to do this until '17.'" He talks out of both sides of his mouth. With today's technology I would find it nearly inconceivable that video conferences involving all presidents and AD's have not occurred at least monthly. I still see smoke and mirrors.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

From the same article:

A decision to implement a championship game would require only a simple majority (six schools), Bowlsby added, though it would be better if there were unanimity.
The conference has left a spot left on its schedule to play the game this year whether it be on campus or a neutral site. But logistical issues continue to mount for this year, Bowlsby said.

The conference has not reserved a venue. The most discussed site is AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

How would these have occurred without extensive communication? Is it just coincidence that every school has a spot open in their schedules 'just in case'?

 

[Buckaineer]

“There are a lot of issues with hotel rooms and staging space,” Bowlsby said. “I wouldn't be surprised if they [the ADs and presidents] just said, ‘We're going to do this but we're not going to do this until '17.'" He talks out of both sides of his mouth. With today's technology I would find it nearly inconceivable that video conferences involving all presidents and AD's have not occurred at least monthly. I still see smoke and mirrors.

There isnt any reason for smoke and mirrors though. Its not like he wont announce whichever eay the CCG vote goes. No reason to be misleading on the meetings. Not only have they not discussed things, they arent going to have presidents and ADs in the same room or at the same time at these meetings.

With serious issues on the table, that doesnt seem like the best way to go.

 

[Buckaineer]

From the same article:

A decision to implement a championship game would require only a simple majority (six schools), Bowlsby added, though it would be better if there were unanimity.
The conference has left a spot left on its schedule to play the game this year whether it be on campus or a neutral site. But logistical issues continue to mount for this year, Bowlsby said.

The conference has not reserved a venue. The most discussed site is AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

How would these have occurred without extensive communication? Is it just coincidence that every school has a spot open in their schedules 'just in case'?

The league previously stated they would schedule the season this way in case they chose to have a game. But they havent even negotiated for more money let alone picked a venue

 

[Buckaineer]

Mountaineer Steve, a question.

I have often seen you refer to 2025 as when the BIG 12 will expand. What candidates will be available in 2025 that are not now?

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The league previously stated they would schedule the seaon this way in case they chose to have a game. But they havent rven negotiated for more money let alone picked a venue

Bowlsby said, “I wouldn't be surprised if they [the ADs and presidents] just said, ‘We're going to do this but we're not going to do this until '17.'" I translate that to, "This is what I expect to happen." You seem so adamant that there has been no organized communication between the parties involved. I will not ask you how you know, but do you personally know this for a fact? I don't care much for Bowlsby either, but you state things as though you know them to be true, not simply logical conclusions.

 

[Buckaineer]

Oklahoma's president speaks up again:

Excerpt:
“I would emphasize: I don’t think the Big 12 Conference is in any danger of falling apart,” Boren said. “I don’t. There’s no imminent danger of that, nor is there anybody even considering that, I don’t think. Our first choice by far in every possibility for us is to stay in the Big 12 Conference and enhance it, make it stronger, make it better.”

Boren also said he doesn’t expect the Big 12 presidents to take a vote next week to add a conference championship game.....
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf...eady-for-conference-title-game-203357306.html

 

[Buckaineer]

On expansion:

Boren said he believes any talk of a conference title game also would come with talk of league expansion to 12 teams and the creation of a Big 12 Network.

However, Boren said there are a lot of differing opinions and interests holding up possible expansion.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

There isnt any reason for smoke and mirrors though. Its not like he wont announce whichever eay the CCG vote goes. No reason to be misleading on the meetings. Not only have they not discussed things, they arent going to have presidents and ADs in the same room or at the same time at these meetings.

With serious issues on the table, that doesnt seem like the best way to go.

You don't actually believe that do you? You think the BIG12 is going to meet and there are not going to be meeting where everyone is involved?

This is how it will go
There will be informal votes, most likely outcome is there are not enough votes to expand. It will be announced no vote has taken place.

Informal votes takes place, there are 8 or more yes votes. A formal vote will take place, it will pass, and we will hear about it

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

On expansion:

Boren said he believes any talk of a conference title game also would come with talk of league expansion to 12 teams and the creation of a Big 12 Network.

However, Boren said there are a lot of differing opinions and interests holding up possible expansion.

From your same source: While the Big 12 has been resistant to expansion in the past — mostly for financial reasons — Boren said he received binders full of information regarding possible expansion teams more than two weeks ago.

No communication? Even if the commissioner has his head up his a$$ or in the sand, schools are sharing information with each other about the future.

 

[Buckaineer]

From your same source: While the Big 12 has been resistant to expansion in the past — mostly for financial reasons — Boren said he received binders full of information regarding possible expansion teams more than two weeks ago.

No communication? Even if the commissioner has his head up his a$$ or in the sand, schools are sharing information with each other about the future.

Indeed

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Indeed

I promised you this before: http://wvmetronews.com/2015/05/29/big-12-payout-climbs-to-record-252-million/

For your entertainment, this also: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...t-financial-jackpot-in-third-tier-rights-deal (Note the writer, now retired)

 

[Buckaineer]

You don't actually believe that do you? You think the BIG12 is going to meet and there are not going to be meeting where everyone is involved?

This is how it will go
There will be informal votes, most likely outcome is there are not enough votes to expand. It will be announced no vote has taken place.

Informal votes takes place, there are 8 or more yes votes. A formal vote will take place, it will pass, and we will hear about it

No reason for them to pretend unless you believe they wont tell you if they decide not to do a CCG-which apparently you do.

Bowlsby has stated from the beginning that there may not be a CCG regardless of vote so no need to cover that now.

Boren doesnt expect a vote either.

 

[Buckaineer]

This important point for those expecting P5 schools--
David Boren wouldn't say which teams are candidates for Big 12 expansion, but did concede that they're probably the 6 or 7 we think they are

2:58 PM - 28 Jan 2016

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

This important point for those expecting P5 schools--
David Boren wouldn't say which teams are candidates for Big 12 expansion, but did concede that they're probably the 6 or 7 we think they are

2:58 PM - 28 Jan 2016

You're David Boren, aren't you? I knew it, you have too much inside info. (Just kidding, you are very knowledgeable)

 

[Charleston Mountie]

You don't actually believe that do you? You think the BIG12 is going to meet and there are not going to be meeting where everyone is involved?

This is how it will go
There will be informal votes, most likely outcome is there are not enough votes to expand. It will be announced no vote has taken place.

Informal votes takes place, there are 8 or more yes votes. A formal vote will take place, it will pass, and we will hear about it

You are 100% on target here. Going into the meeting it has to be reported that there is no vote planned. If they admit that they will vote and then nothing comes of it, that causes damage to the conference, even if the vote is narrowly defeated for passage. Politically, it must be no vote is planned, they go into the meeting, knock heads and swish drinks, smile and pretend to be open minded on the issue and give the appearance that they are each debating the topic from the point of neutrality.

Most schools will not vote positively for a hypothetical expansion to 12. They will need to know who the candidates are - those 6-7 viable institutions - and then they can vote. If it fails, they will discuss why and may hold a second vote after the votes form around a smaller number of candidates. All of these guys are already prepped for this meeting, knowing who those 6-7 are and have they stance already thought out.

If the informal is close they will haggle, if not we come back in a year and do it again. I suspect it is sitting at 5 for, 2 against and three in the middle. Texas and TCU are against. Baylor, Kansas and Texas Tech undecided. Everyone else is for it. Just my read.

I suspect that we hear that they have decided to expand and they will leave the issue of the network on the table for now. The 2017 year will see the new schools on the schedule and a CCG put into place. That will likely be a compromise Texas can live with and frankly, one that is better for WVU. WVU likely gets more from the current Tier 3 than it would in a pro rata network pay schedule.

 

[TexasforevEER]

I have an idea just in case it has not crossed your mind. If you don't like the discussion, and you are sick of Buck, Myself and a few others hashing the same points over and over, don't read the post. In the mean time, until expansion happens (2025), this thread will grow into a board of it's own.

You trying to strong arm ole Warez? Forget about it until 2025.

 

[Buckaineer]

More details from Boren

Excerpt:

As for expansion, Bowlsby said earlier this week during a Q&A session with Texas students, “We don’t have any imperative for getting larger. We haven’t really spent any time thinking about who the candidates are, if there are any candidates. But there has been media speculation about it. It doesn’t take any genius to look around and see where there may be prospects.”

Boren, though, said that Bowlsby created an expansion subcommittee about a year ago consisting of Boren, Baylor President Kenneth Starr and West Virginia President Gordon Gee.

“The idea is at some point we’ll give an official report to the board and probably recommendations,” Boren said.

Asked what schools the Big 12 is considering, Boren declined to say, but added, “You’re probably all thinking about the right six or seven schools.”

The third piece to Boren’s plan for enhancing the Big 12 is a conference television network. The Big 12 is the only Power Five league without one.

“We’re probably losing $4 or $5 million, $6 million — there are various estimates a year — by not having a Big 12 network,” Boren said. “Per school.”

http://newsok.com/article/5475314

 

[Buckaineer]

Here is essentially Borens entire interview- major details here:

Excerpt:


Boren, along with Baylor’s Ken Starr and West Virginia’s Gordon Gee, is part of the Big 12’s expansion committee. Their job includes studying potential candidates if the opportunity to expand arises.

Boren: “Not every school in America is available. They’re already in other Power 5 conferences and so on. There are some other schools around the country that are not in Power 5 conferences that have not given grants of rights that are fairly attractive. We’re doing in-depth looks at each one of them to get all the data. What’s their fan base? What economic impact would they be? If we added them, would it dilute the soup or would it make the soup thicker, so to speak, for all the remaining members of the conference?”

Even before Boren’s comments about expansion to the Tulsa World two weeks earlier, candidates were politicking to join the Big 12.

Boren: “Candidates have been politicking for three, four, five or six years. I get binders from other presidents I know, saying I want you to see what we’re doing athletically. I want you to see what we’re doing in academics and research. We’d be such a great fit with the Big 12. We definitely have schools that are constantly lobbying us. At one time, Louisville was a prime opportunity. I was all for it. But there weren’t the votes there to do it at the time. So they went elsewhere. “

However, Boren would not list any names. When asked if there were schools no one was talking about that could emerge, he said reporters probably were already speculating on the right six or seven schools.

Boren: “There are a lot of schools. The Big 12, for everything I’ve said about wanting to strengthen it and prove its long-range effectiveness and long-term effectiveness, the Big 12 is a very attractive conference. There are a lot of schools that want to be in the Big 12 that are in other conferences and other circumstances."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_58753a16-e88b-53be-85ed-fe25feee4577.html

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Here is essentially Borens entire interview- major details hers:

Excerpt:


Boren, along with Baylor’s Ken Starr and West Virginia’s Gordon Gee, is part of the Big 12’s expansion committee. Their job includes studying potential candidates if the opportunity to expand arises.

Boren: “Not every school in America is available. They’re already in other Power 5 conferences and so on. There are some other schools around the country that are not in Power 5 conferences that have not given grants of rights that are fairly attractive. We’re doing in-depth looks at each one of them to get all the data. What’s their fan base? What economic impact would they be? If we added them, would it dilute the soup or would it make the soup thicker, so to speak, for all the remaining members of the conference?”

Even before Boren’s comments about expansion to the Tulsa World two weeks earlier, candidates were politicking to join the Big 12.

Boren: “Candidates have been politicking for three, four, five or six years. I get binders from other presidents I know, saying I want you to see what we’re doing athletically. I want you to see what we’re doing in academics and research. We’d be such a great fit with the Big 12. We definitely have schools that are constantly lobbying us. At one time, Louisville was a prime opportunity. I was all for it. But there weren’t the votes there to do it at the time. So they went elsewhere. “

However, Boren would not list any names. When asked if there were schools no one was talking about that could emerge, he said reporters probably were already speculating on the right six or seven schools.

Boren: “There are a lot of schools. The Big 12, for everything I’ve said about wanting to strengthen it and prove its long-range effectiveness and long-term effectiveness, the Big 12 is a very attractive conference. There are a lot of schools that want to be in the Big 12 that are in other conferences and other circumstances."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_58753a16-e88b-53be-85ed-fe25feee4577.html

Good job.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Mountaineer Steve, a question.

I have often seen you refer to 2025 as when the BIG 12 will expand. What candidates will be available in 2025 that are not now?

I will get to your question at the end

I am not arguing for or against expansion now or in the future. It probably does not seem like it, but I agree with many of your points for expansion. My argument has always been that the BIG12 won't expand because in the short run the per team payout will be less (an areas we disagree strongly on).

My thoughts and where we agree and disagree

Money: You and I are in total disagreement here.

• I am positive, total revenue for each team is going to take a hit or be less (short term).
• Yes the TV revenue stays the same, but everything else is going to go down.
• Assuming a 10 team CCG is played my projects is 3-5 million less per team.
• Less money and LHN are the two main reason the conference won't expand now.

10 team CCG:

• We both agree having a 10 team CCG takes away the disadvantage of not having the 13 data point
• I believe the disadvantage of a 10 team CCG is less severe than you.
• Having a 10 team CCG makes more money per school per year

BIG12 Network Other area I think we totally disagree

• Expanding with G5 programs without BIG12 Network is pointless
• Creating a BIG12 Network without Texas isn't worth the effort
• Texas is not going to give up LHN, therefore a BIG12 Network isn't worth the effort, therefore expansion with G5 programs now is useless.

The votes are not there

• Again I am not for or against expansion, I just want it done for the right reasons. When I say the conference is not going to expand I mean there are not enough votes.
• Until something is done Everything said by ADs, presidents, or Commissioner is just smoke
• When Bowlsby talks about expansion you have to read between the lines.
  • When he says the 'conference does not want to expand', he is saying the votes are not there
  • When he says I have not spoken to programs about expansion, he means officially. He currently knows exactly how each program will vote and that the votes are not there.
• Boren, knows the votes are not thee and is why he presented his case in public.
• I believe the manner in which Boren presented his argument was major mistake and it backfired a bit.
• Even Gee who agrees with Boren, thinks his message was not presented well.
• Pressure from the league has Boren backing away from some of those comments.

Now to answer your question.

• The same G5 programs will be available now and in the future.
• Why add G5 now when there is the possibility the BIG will raid the ACC and better P5 programs are available. (We can discuss the larger reason why I think the ACC is more vulnerable to a raid then the BIG12, later.)
• I think the impact of waiting is minimal . There has always been a separation from what is now P5 programs and G5 and there have always been candidates that might be worth selecting.
• There has to be a super majority for the BIG12 to expand.
• The BIG12 as a whole is short sighted (meaning a super majority) or too selfish to understand that the long term benefits of expanding to 12.
• Texas is not giving up LHN, and for now that means more money per team to be made short term with just 10 teams.
• Just like the BIG12 waited to see the impact of not having a CCG game played out toin Playoff selection, so will they evaluate the impact of 10 team CCG.
• Evaluating the impact of a 10 team CCG will take several years for enough data to make a determination.
• I think it is safe to assume the CCG game does not start until 2017.
• It will be 2020 before enough data is gathered evaluate the situation.
• Assuming 10 team CCG is deemed a disadvantage, it will take at least a year to vote to for expansion and hash out which program to bring in. I believe agreeing on which program is going to be as difficult as agreeing to expand.
• It will take at least 1 year for for a program to leave current conference.
• So at the earliest we looking at 2022.
• At that point there is no reason to add teams until new deals (whatever format) is ready for bid. I am not saying you wait until the bidding is done, but that the bidding takes place knowing what programs are being added.

Long winded answer to a short question.

 

[Buckaineer]

I will get to your question at the end

I am not arguing for or against expansion now or in the future. It probably does not seem like it, but I agree with many of your points for expansion. My argument has always been that the BIG12 won't expand because in the short run the per team payout will be less (an areas we disagree strongly on).

B: No we dont agree. I am certain that the BIG 12 schools including Texas will fall behind the Big Ten and SEC by 2025 financially and competitively. Expansion is the only way to change that, and can put the BIG 12 ahead of both .

My thoughts and where we agree and disagree

Money: You and I are in total disagreement here.

• I am positive, total revenue for each team is going to take a hit or be less (short term).
• B: the opposite is true. Without expansion the BIG 12 will fall behind in revenues ans have a difficult time getting more in their next contract. With expansion member revenues will increase as high as anyone.
• Yes the TV revenue stays the same, but everything else is going to go down.
• B: TV revenue stays same unless they negotiate for increases. Even if not the other money isnt substantial. At worse the league would break even with a greater shot at playoff money and conference network money.
• Assuming a 10 team CCG is played my projects is 3-5 million less per team.
• B: I will do the numbers later, there will not be any loss per school.
• Less money and LHN are the two main reason the conference won't expand now.
• B:The reason some dont want to expand now is some dont want to not see others every year, some are afraid of a CCG, and some have their noses in the air over schools to be added. Money is not the reason- expansion is one of the only ways they can ensure more of that.

10 team CCG:

• We both agree having a 10 team CCG takes away the disadvantage of not having the 13 data point
• B: A 10 team CCG increases odds of knocking yourself out- that isnt good.
• I believe the disadvantage of a 10 team CCG is less severe than you.
• B: the conference understands a guaranteed rematch is dangerous and that is why Boren wants expansion first. Otherwise the conference is still disadvantaged. No disadvantage is acceptable if preventable.
• Having a 10 team CCG makes more money per school per year
• A CCG makes more money for everyone in an expanded conference and you have no disadvantage of more teams with more losses or a guaranteed rematch.

BIG12 Network Other area I think we totally disagree

• Expanding with G5 programs without BIG12 Network is pointless
• B:Not pointless at all. Expansion brings new revenues such as NCAA and new bowls and sponsorships. Makes it more likely to participate in playoffs and extra NY 6 bowls which means everything in cfb. Means more teams with fewer losses possible.
• Creating a BIG12 Network without Texas isn't worth the effort
• B: the league agrees
• Texas is not going to give up LHN, therefore a BIG12 Network isn't worth the effort, therefore expansion with G5 programs now is useless.
• B: Texas will be better off long term with a successful BIG 12. The plan as Boren stated includes making sure UT doesnt lose revenues. Conversely each year there isnt a conference network the other schools are missing out on $4-$6 million each per year. That is not sustainable

The votes are not there

• Again I am not for or against expansion, I just want it done for the right reasons. When I say the conference is not going to expand I mean there are not enough votes.
• B: the conference hasnt been thoroughly addressed by the expansion committee on what candidates will offer. No vote on schools has been taken because the conversation never gets that far. This is why Boren is speaking out- to unstall the situation snd get leaders discussing it from a scientific position rather than dismissing without consideration

• Until something is done Everything said by ADs, presidents, or Commissioner is just smoke
• B: not everything is smoke, some things are straightforward and orhers represent one side or the other.

• When Bowlsby talks about expansion you have to read between the lines.
  • When he says the 'conference does not want to expand', he is saying the votes are not there
  • B: he is putting forth one side only because without that side a vote isnt necessary. They havent gotten to the voting stage, they are down to the who will be in the running stage
  • When he says I have not spoken to programs about expansion, he means officially. He currently knows exactly how each program will vote and that the votes are not there.
  • B: the conference meeting structure is formal, they meet and vote based on their legal structure- He knows certain schools dont want expansion and until they do he states interest isnt there and he doesnt poll the rest because the "nays" are enough
• Boren, knows the votes are not thee and is why he presented his case in public.
• B: Boren presented his case because the conversation has stalled and he knows its time to restart it and take action. Without that bold move comprehensive action couldnt happen and the league might vote to play a damaging 10 team CCG which will hurt the conference maybe more than a 13 th data point
• I believe the manner in which Boren presented his argument was major mistake and it backfired a bit.
• B: Only thing that could be done. He sees the bigger picture- the future of the conference is at stake. Now things will be discussed and action taken
• Even Gee who agrees with Boren, thinks his message was not presented well.
• B: not sure where that came from but 100% incorrect. Its expected Gee will also address the members to push for pro active developments
• Pressure from the league has Boren backing away from some of those comments.
• B: Not only has Boren not backed off his comments, he has added details. He has clarified the situation and been frank about situations requiring action be taken

Now to answer your question.

• The same G5 programs will be available now and in the future.
• Why add G5 now when there is the possibility the BIG will raid the ACC and better P5 programs are available. (We can discuss the larger reason why I think the ACC is more vulnerable to a raid then the BIG12, later.)
• B: and there it is. Once again, whether people like it or not, the ACC has a grant of rights extending through 2027. That is 2 full years AFTER the BIG 12 will have renewed its contracts. The Big Ten will be under a new contract by that time and not be able financially in 2025 to add anyone under a grant of rights or with an enormous buyout of two full years conference operating costs. The BIG 12 isnt likely to acquire a good enough contract in 2024-when its redone- in order to attract a P5 school in 2027. In 2027 its unlikely theyll redo a contract just a couple of years old either. More importantly lack of success from lower viewers, diminishing recruiting, smaller footprint, less success in playoffs- none of that will be attractive to anyone to want to join the mess that may be if nothing is fone between now and then. If on the other hand a comprehensive plan is implemented now , theres a chance in 2027 you might lure bigger names
• I think the impact of waiting is minimal . There has always been a separation from what is now P5 programs and G5 and there have always been candidates that might be worth selecting.
• B: Impact of waiting is enormous. It means lack of increased finances for a decade while others grow. No change or even diminished fans and viewers. Continued recruiting drop off. Years of bad press and lack of political clout as the smallest league. Since a better tv deal is inlikely in 2025 and everyone will have fallen behind, departures are highly probable. As for the potential adds, by then the financial divide will have destroyed success for most and kept them from facility, coaching snd other improvements and success. Theyll be far less attractive as candidates to network partners by then

• There has to be a super majority for the BIG12 to expand.
• The BIG12 as a whole is short sighted (meaning a super majority) or too selfish to understand that the long term benefits of expanding to 12.
• B: they are only looking at emotion- mostly fear and misinformation dumped on them from the grass roots level and carried up the chain. Once they listen and understand the facts that will change. Some have no long range thinking
• Texas is not giving up LHN, and for now that means more money per team to be made short term with just 10 teams.
• B: this is not a done deal, talks havent begun on that
• Just like the BIG12 waited to see the impact of not having a CCG game played out toin Playoff selection, so will they evaluate the impact of 10 team CCG.
• B: they arent likely going to implement a damaging 10 team CCG
• Evaluating the impact of a 10 team CCG will take several years for enough data to make a determination.
• B: they arent likely to implement- the risk is too high
• I think it is safe to assume the CCG game does not start until 2017.
• B: theyve said this is most likely for logistics
• It will be 2020 before enough data is gathered evaluate the situation.
• By 2020 they will be feeling the effects of new contracts for others and years out of playoffs and be coming under threat of poaching as the grant of rights gets closer. Theyll also have missed bowl opportunities in 2019-renewal year
• Assuming 10 team CCG is deemed a disadvantage, it will take at least a year to vote to for expansion and hash out which program to bring in. I believe agreeing on which program is going to be as difficult as agreeing to expand.
• B: the committee has this information now. By 2020 they would need a new list and study of candidates as g5 schools will be everely feeling brunt of lack of revenues
• It will take at least 1 year for for a program to leave current conference.
• So at the earliest we looking at 2022.
• At that point there is no reason to add teams until new deals (whatever format) is ready for bid. I am not saying you wait until the bidding is done, but that the bidding takes place knowing what programs are being added.
• B: if they wait until thrn it would be too late. Candidates need years to get out of current situations and years to integrate into the league. No development on a network will see too many schools struggling to keep up financially and lead to departures before a new contract can be sought. lack of playoff success, recruiting declines, low viewership etc will not make a strong league by then

Long winded answer to a short question.

Expand for answers

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Good job Boren, this is how to handle public talks about expansion.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oklaho...nts-expansion-big-12-tv-205700523--ncaaf.html

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Expand for answers

I don't understand.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Maybe it's related to this, if you believe Gordon Gee is being straightforward. Personally I think President Gee just can't keep secrets.

When reached on Monday, WVU president E. Gordon Gee was anything but shocked at the comments. (of Boren)
“I think [the remarks] are fairly consistent with the thinking in the Big 12,” he said. “It’s nothing new. I’m in favor of expansion. I think he’s expressing what we’ve been thinking.”

Those words are significant. And so is this from Gee, a member of the Big 12’s expansion committee: “I think the notion of going to 12 [schools] is most likely.”
“Some of these issues will be discussed and resolved in February,” Gee added. “It’s all part of a package.”

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20160118/GZ02/160119481

 

[Buckaineer]

I don't understand.

B:Here you go-my answers are bold with B: in front-----

I will get to your question at the end

I am not arguing for or against expansion now or in the future. It probably does not seem like it, but I agree with many of your points for expansion. My argument has always been that the BIG12 won't expand because in the short run the per team payout will be less (an areas we disagree strongly on).

B: No we dont agree. I am certain that the BIG 12 schools including Texas will fall behind the Big Ten and SEC by 2025 financially and competitively. Expansion is the only way to change that, and can put the BIG 12 ahead of both . If not some may seek new homes at that time.

My thoughts and where we agree and disagree

Money: You and I are in total disagreement here.

• I am positive, total revenue for each team is going to take a hit or be less (short term).
• B: the opposite is true. Without expansion the BIG 12 will fall behind in revenues ans have a difficult time getting more in their next contract. With expansion member revenues will increase as high as anyone.
• Yes the TV revenue stays the same, but everything else is going to go down.
• B: TV revenue stays same unless they negotiate for increases. Even if not the other money isnt substantial. At worse the league would break even with a greater shot at playoff money and conference network money.
• Assuming a 10 team CCG is played my projects is 3-5 million less per team.
• B: I will do the numbers later, there will not be any loss per school.
• Less money and LHN are the two main reason the conference won't expand now.
• B:The reason some dont want to expand now is some dont want to not see others every year, some are afraid of a CCG, and some have their noses in the air over schools to be added. Money is not the reason- expansion is one of the only ways they can ensure more of that.

10 team CCG:

• We both agree having a 10 team CCG takes away the disadvantage of not having the 13 data point
• B: A 10 team CCG increases odds of knocking yourself out- that isnt good.
• I believe the disadvantage of a 10 team CCG is less severe than you.
• B: the conference understands a guaranteed rematch is dangerous and that is why Boren wants expansion first. Otherwise the conference is still disadvantaged. No disadvantage is acceptable if preventable.
• Having a 10 team CCG makes more money per school per year
• B: A CCG makes more money for everyone in an expanded conference and you have no disadvantage of more teams with more losses or a guaranteed rematch.

BIG12 Network Other area I think we totally disagree

• Expanding with G5 programs without BIG12 Network is pointless
• B:Not pointless at all. Expansion brings new revenues such as NCAA and new bowls and sponsorships. Makes it more likely to participate in playoffs and extra NY 6 bowls which means everything in cfb. Means more teams with fewer losses possible.
• Creating a BIG12 Network without Texas isn't worth the effort
• B: the league agrees
• Texas is not going to give up LHN, therefore a BIG12 Network isn't worth the effort, therefore expansion with G5 programs now is useless.
• B: Texas will be better off long term with a successful BIG 12. The plan as Boren stated includes making sure UT doesnt lose revenues. Conversely each year there isnt a conference network the other schools are missing out on $4-$6 million each per year. That is not sustainable

The votes are not there

• Again I am not for or against expansion, I just want it done for the right reasons. When I say the conference is not going to expand I mean there are not enough votes.
• B: the conference hasnt been thoroughly addressed by the expansion committee on what candidates will offer. No vote on schools has been taken because the conversation never gets that far. This is why Boren is speaking out- to unstall the situation and get leaders discussing it from a scientific position rather than dismissing without consideration based on emotion.

• Until something is done Everything said by ADs, presidents, or Commissioner is just smoke
• B: not everything is smoke, some things are straightforward and others represent one side or the other.

• When Bowlsby talks about expansion you have to read between the lines.
  • When he says the 'conference does not want to expand', he is saying the votes are not there
  • B: he is putting forth one side only because without that side a vote isn't necessary. They havent gotten to the voting stage, they are down to the "who will be in the running" stage.
  • When he says I have not spoken to programs about expansion, he means officially. He currently knows exactly how each program will vote and that the votes are not there.
  • B: the conference meeting structure is formal, they meet and vote based on their legal structure- He knows certain schools don't want expansion or aren't sure and until they do he states interest isn't there and he doesn/t poll the rest because the "nays" are more than enough to keep a vote from happening at this point
• Boren, knows the votes are not thee and is why he presented his case in public.
• B: Boren presented his case because the conversation has stalled and he knows it's time to restart it and take action. Without that bold move comprehensive action couldn't happen and the league might vote to play a damaging 10 team CCG which will hurt the conference maybe more than a 13th data point
• I believe the manner in which Boren presented his argument was major mistake and it backfired a bit.
• B: Only thing that could be done. He sees the bigger picture- the future of the conference is at stake. Now things will be discussed and action taken
• Even Gee who agrees with Boren, thinks his message was not presented well.
• B: not sure where that came from but 100% incorrect. It's expected Gee will also address the members to push for pro-active developments
• Pressure from the league has Boren backing away from some of those comments.
• B: Not only has Boren not backed off his comments, he has added details. He has clarified the situation for the conference and been frank about those things requiring action be taken by the BIG 12.

Now to answer your question.

• The same G5 programs will be available now and in the future.
• Why add G5 now when there is the possibility the BIG will raid the ACC and better P5 programs are available. (We can discuss the larger reason why I think the ACC is more vulnerable to a raid then the BIG12, later.)
• B: And there it is. Once again, whether people like it or not, the ACC has a grant of rights extending through 2027. That is 2 full years AFTER the BIG 12 will have renewed its contracts. The Big Ten will be under a new contract by that time and not be able financially in 2025 to add anyone under a grant of rights or with an enormous buyout of two full years conference operating costs. The BIG 12 isn't likely to acquire a good enough contract in 2024-when its redone- in order to attract a P5 school in 2027. In 2027 its unlikely they'll redo a contract just a couple of years old either. More importantly lack of success from lower viewers, diminishing recruiting, smaller footprint, less success in playoffs- none of that will be attractive to anyone to want to join what may be if nothing is done between now and then. If on the other hand a comprehensive plan is implemented now , there's a chance in 2027 you might lure bigger names
• I think the impact of waiting is minimal . There has always been a separation from what is now P5 programs and G5 and there have always been candidates that might be worth selecting.
• B: Impact of waiting is enormous. It means lack of increased finances for a decade while others grow. No change or even diminished fans and viewers. Continued recruiting drop off. Years of bad press and lack of political clout as the smallest league. Since a better tv deal is unlikely under those circumstances in 2025 and everyone in the BIG 12 will have fallen behind (the SEC and B10, departures are highly probable. As for the potential adds, by then the financial divide will have destroyed success for most and kept them from facility, coaching snd other improvements and success. They'll be far less attractive as candidates to network partners by then.

• There has to be a super majority for the BIG12 to expand.
• The BIG12 as a whole is short sighted (meaning a super majority) or too selfish to understand that the long term benefits of expanding to 12.
• B: they are only looking at emotion- mostly fear and misinformation dumped on them from the grass roots level and carried up the chain. Once they listen and understand the facts that will change. Some have no long range thinking.
• Texas is not giving up LHN, and for now that means more money per team to be made short term with just 10 teams.
• B: this is not a done deal, talks haven't begun on that.
• Just like the BIG12 waited to see the impact of not having a CCG game played out toin Playoff selection, so will they evaluate the impact of 10 team CCG.
• B: they aren't likely going to implement a damaging 10 team CCG
• Evaluating the impact of a 10 team CCG will take several years for enough data to make a determination.
• B: they aren't likely to implement- the risk is too high
• I think it is safe to assume the CCG game does not start until 2017.
• B: they've said this is most likely for logistics
• It will be 2020 before enough data is gathered evaluate the situation.
• By 2020 they will be feeling the effects of new contracts for others and years out of playoffs and be coming under threat of poaching as the grant of rights gets closer. Theyll also have missed bowl opportunities in 2019-renewal year
• Assuming 10 team CCG is deemed a disadvantage, it will take at least a year to vote to for expansion and hash out which program to bring in. I believe agreeing on which program is going to be as difficult as agreeing to expand.
• B: the committee has this information now. By 2020 they would need a new list and study of candidates as g5 schools will be severely feeling the brunt of lack of revenues
• It will take at least 1 year for for a program to leave current conference.
• So at the earliest we looking at 2022.
• At that point there is no reason to add teams until new deals (whatever format) is ready for bid. I am not saying you wait until the bidding is done, but that the bidding takes place knowing what programs are being added.
• B: if they wait until then it would be too late. Candidates need years to get out of current situations and years to integrate into the league. No development on a network will see too many schools struggling to keep up financially and lead to departures before a new contract can be sought. Lack of playoff success, recruiting declines, low viewership numbers, etc. will not make a strong league or one that could attract teams or get strong tv contracts compared to other major leagues.

Long winded answer to a short question.

 

[Buckaineer]

What Boren wants to happen in the upcoming meetings:

excerpt:
The 74-year-old Boren says it won't be a "shootout at the OK corral," and he doesn't expect any votes to take place on those issues.

"I'd like to plant the seeds for a resolution," Boren said. "I hope that resolution will not be a shootout. I hope that resolution will be one where everyone reaches a common goal as to what we're going to do."

Boren wants to accelerate the process without rushing it so the Big 12 can have some of the same opportunities as schools in other Power Five conferences.

"What I hope we'll do is do a lot of talking about it and hope that we get some kind of a timetable laid out in front of us, during which time we'll act," he said. "If not, it'll be 10 years from now that we decide whether or not we're going to do this. Let's hope this is going to be in the next few months to a year or whatever."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...oren-wants-expansion-big-12-tv-deal/79531256/http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...oren-wants-expansion-big-12-tv-deal/79531256/

 

[Buckaineer]

Some more info from Boren:

UT network impedes Boren’s view of conference

 

[Charleston Mountie]

B:Here you go-my answers are bold with B: in front-----

I will get to your question at the end

I am not arguing for or against expansion now or in the future. It probably does not seem like it, but I agree with many of your points for expansion. My argument has always been that the BIG12 won't expand because in the short run the per team payout will be less (an areas we disagree strongly on).

B: No we dont agree. I am certain that the BIG 12 schools including Texas will fall behind the Big Ten and SEC by 2025 financially and competitively. Expansion is the only way to change that, and can put the BIG 12 ahead of both . If not some may seek new homes at that time.

My thoughts and where we agree and disagree

Money: You and I are in total disagreement here.

• I am positive, total revenue for each team is going to take a hit or be less (short term).
• B: the opposite is true. Without expansion the BIG 12 will fall behind in revenues ans have a difficult time getting more in their next contract. With expansion member revenues will increase as high as anyone.
• Yes the TV revenue stays the same, but everything else is going to go down.
• B: TV revenue stays same unless they negotiate for increases. Even if not the other money isnt substantial. At worse the league would break even with a greater shot at playoff money and conference network money.
• Assuming a 10 team CCG is played my projects is 3-5 million less per team.
• B: I will do the numbers later, there will not be any loss per school.
• Less money and LHN are the two main reason the conference won't expand now.
• B:The reason some dont want to expand now is some dont want to not see others every year, some are afraid of a CCG, and some have their noses in the air over schools to be added. Money is not the reason- expansion is one of the only ways they can ensure more of that.

10 team CCG:

• We both agree having a 10 team CCG takes away the disadvantage of not having the 13 data point
• B: A 10 team CCG increases odds of knocking yourself out- that isnt good.
• I believe the disadvantage of a 10 team CCG is less severe than you.
• B: the conference understands a guaranteed rematch is dangerous and that is why Boren wants expansion first. Otherwise the conference is still disadvantaged. No disadvantage is acceptable if preventable.
• Having a 10 team CCG makes more money per school per year
• B: A CCG makes more money for everyone in an expanded conference and you have no disadvantage of more teams with more losses or a guaranteed rematch.

BIG12 Network Other area I think we totally disagree

• Expanding with G5 programs without BIG12 Network is pointless
• B:Not pointless at all. Expansion brings new revenues such as NCAA and new bowls and sponsorships. Makes it more likely to participate in playoffs and extra NY 6 bowls which means everything in cfb. Means more teams with fewer losses possible.
• Creating a BIG12 Network without Texas isn't worth the effort
• B: the league agrees
• Texas is not going to give up LHN, therefore a BIG12 Network isn't worth the effort, therefore expansion with G5 programs now is useless.
• B: Texas will be better off long term with a successful BIG 12. The plan as Boren stated includes making sure UT doesnt lose revenues. Conversely each year there isnt a conference network the other schools are missing out on $4-$6 million each per year. That is not sustainable

The votes are not there

• Again I am not for or against expansion, I just want it done for the right reasons. When I say the conference is not going to expand I mean there are not enough votes.
• B: the conference hasnt been thoroughly addressed by the expansion committee on what candidates will offer. No vote on schools has been taken because the conversation never gets that far. This is why Boren is speaking out- to unstall the situation and get leaders discussing it from a scientific position rather than dismissing without consideration based on emotion.

• Until something is done Everything said by ADs, presidents, or Commissioner is just smoke
• B: not everything is smoke, some things are straightforward and others represent one side or the other.

• When Bowlsby talks about expansion you have to read between the lines.
  • When he says the 'conference does not want to expand', he is saying the votes are not there
  • B: he is putting forth one side only because without that side a vote isn't necessary. They havent gotten to the voting stage, they are down to the "who will be in the running" stage.
  • When he says I have not spoken to programs about expansion, he means officially. He currently knows exactly how each program will vote and that the votes are not there.
  • B: the conference meeting structure is formal, they meet and vote based on their legal structure- He knows certain schools don't want expansion or aren't sure and until they do he states interest isn't there and he doesn/t poll the rest because the "nays" are more than enough to keep a vote from happening at this point
• Boren, knows the votes are not thee and is why he presented his case in public.
• B: Boren presented his case because the conversation has stalled and he knows it's time to restart it and take action. Without that bold move comprehensive action couldn't happen and the league might vote to play a damaging 10 team CCG which will hurt the conference maybe more than a 13th data point
• I believe the manner in which Boren presented his argument was major mistake and it backfired a bit.
• B: Only thing that could be done. He sees the bigger picture- the future of the conference is at stake. Now things will be discussed and action taken
• Even Gee who agrees with Boren, thinks his message was not presented well.
• B: not sure where that came from but 100% incorrect. It's expected Gee will also address the members to push for pro-active developments
• Pressure from the league has Boren backing away from some of those comments.
• B: Not only has Boren not backed off his comments, he has added details. He has clarified the situation for the conference and been frank about those things requiring action be taken by the BIG 12.

Now to answer your question.

• The same G5 programs will be available now and in the future.
• Why add G5 now when there is the possibility the BIG will raid the ACC and better P5 programs are available. (We can discuss the larger reason why I think the ACC is more vulnerable to a raid then the BIG12, later.)
• B: And there it is. Once again, whether people like it or not, the ACC has a grant of rights extending through 2027. That is 2 full years AFTER the BIG 12 will have renewed its contracts. The Big Ten will be under a new contract by that time and not be able financially in 2025 to add anyone under a grant of rights or with an enormous buyout of two full years conference operating costs. The BIG 12 isn't likely to acquire a good enough contract in 2024-when its redone- in order to attract a P5 school in 2027. In 2027 its unlikely they'll redo a contract just a couple of years old either. More importantly lack of success from lower viewers, diminishing recruiting, smaller footprint, less success in playoffs- none of that will be attractive to anyone to want to join what may be if nothing is done between now and then. If on the other hand a comprehensive plan is implemented now , there's a chance in 2027 you might lure bigger names
• I think the impact of waiting is minimal . There has always been a separation from what is now P5 programs and G5 and there have always been candidates that might be worth selecting.
• B: Impact of waiting is enormous. It means lack of increased finances for a decade while others grow. No change or even diminished fans and viewers. Continued recruiting drop off. Years of bad press and lack of political clout as the smallest league. Since a better tv deal is unlikely under those circumstances in 2025 and everyone in the BIG 12 will have fallen behind (the SEC and B10, departures are highly probable. As for the potential adds, by then the financial divide will have destroyed success for most and kept them from facility, coaching snd other improvements and success. They'll be far less attractive as candidates to network partners by then.

• There has to be a super majority for the BIG12 to expand.
• The BIG12 as a whole is short sighted (meaning a super majority) or too selfish to understand that the long term benefits of expanding to 12.
• B: they are only looking at emotion- mostly fear and misinformation dumped on them from the grass roots level and carried up the chain. Once they listen and understand the facts that will change. Some have no long range thinking.
• Texas is not giving up LHN, and for now that means more money per team to be made short term with just 10 teams.
• B: this is not a done deal, talks haven't begun on that.
• Just like the BIG12 waited to see the impact of not having a CCG game played out toin Playoff selection, so will they evaluate the impact of 10 team CCG.
• B: they aren't likely going to implement a damaging 10 team CCG
• Evaluating the impact of a 10 team CCG will take several years for enough data to make a determination.
• B: they aren't likely to implement- the risk is too high
• I think it is safe to assume the CCG game does not start until 2017.
• B: they've said this is most likely for logistics
• It will be 2020 before enough data is gathered evaluate the situation.
• By 2020 they will be feeling the effects of new contracts for others and years out of playoffs and be coming under threat of poaching as the grant of rights gets closer. Theyll also have missed bowl opportunities in 2019-renewal year
• Assuming 10 team CCG is deemed a disadvantage, it will take at least a year to vote to for expansion and hash out which program to bring in. I believe agreeing on which program is going to be as difficult as agreeing to expand.
• B: the committee has this information now. By 2020 they would need a new list and study of candidates as g5 schools will be severely feeling the brunt of lack of revenues
• It will take at least 1 year for for a program to leave current conference.
• So at the earliest we looking at 2022.
• At that point there is no reason to add teams until new deals (whatever format) is ready for bid. I am not saying you wait until the bidding is done, but that the bidding takes place knowing what programs are being added.
• B: if they wait until then it would be too late. Candidates need years to get out of current situations and years to integrate into the league. No development on a network will see too many schools struggling to keep up financially and lead to departures before a new contract can be sought. Lack of playoff success, recruiting declines, low viewership numbers, etc. will not make a strong league or one that could attract teams or get strong tv contracts compared to other major leagues.

Long winded answer to a short question.

Long winded, but probably necessary considering the amount of topic facets.

However, your view, like that of Steve is only an individual one, based as much as his on personal hope and belief. For those that bother with it, we read all of the same releases and documents and come to variables on the conclusion. You have hard lines in your belief that the GOR are ironbound and inviolate; I do not believe that. If they were ironbound, Boren's moaning about leaving would have zero teeth and he would have long ago found zero audience for his displeasure; the reverse has been true.

On most points I can go along with you and Steve and Michael and the few others that have bothered to wade into the deep of this pool, but see things a bit differently regarding the GOR because I do not believe in absolutes in anything of this nature. If the Big Ten and the SEC wanted to pluck a school under the Big-12 and/or ACC GOR, they will. It will be messy, pricey and brash, but those conferences operate that way - they both have a long track of such heavy handedness.

ESPN is big, the Big Ten and the SEC is bigger. I know our legal experts here poo-poo that idea but court cases are often about agreement and less about law in these areas. The first thing most any judge asks the defendant and plaintiff is if they can work things out and save the court the trouble - seen it many times.

The GOR is nothing more than an extreme entanglement, do not bolt yourself to those dates. As son as either the Big Ten or SEC find it in their best interest to expand, they will regardless of the presence of a GOR. When that happens, the conference under the bulls eye - in my process that is the ACC - falls apart like the Big East did.

This meeting coming up is going to end with a move to expand to 12 and a phased in solution for things like the network and the location of the CCG. Cincinnati is going to be one of the two schools but I cannot guess or that partner is. Within 3 years, the Big Ten and the SEC will raid the ACC and then FSU, GT, Louisville and Clemson will have to ask themselves do they stay and take on AAC and CUSA schools or do they join the Big-12. I think they will join the Big-12 and we all become the Big-16, which is already trademarked.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Buck, I do not think Gee is lying or misleading. I think they expand and do it sometime this year. I don't know about all 6 or 7 possibilities, I was intrigued by the facility improvements at Cincy that will be completed in about a year. These improvements bring them up to Big 12 standards in every sport. I don't think that is coincidence, maybe just excellent planning and posturing. I'm certain they are not the only one but I do not know enough about the other prospects to make a guess. I do know that Houston is light years behind facility wise and football is a token sport at U Conn.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Long winded, but probably necessary considering the amount of topic facets.

However, your view, like that of Steve is only an individual one, based as much as his on personal hope and belief. For those that bother with it, we read all of the same releases and documents and come to variables on the conclusion. You have hard lines in your belief that the GOR are ironbound and inviolate; I do not believe that. If they were ironbound, Boren's moaning about leaving would have zero teeth and he would have long ago found zero audience for his displeasure; the reverse has been true.

On most points I can go along with you and Steve and Michael and the few others that have bothered to wade into the deep of this pool, but see things a bit differently regarding the GOR because I do not believe in absolutes in anything of this nature. If the Big Ten and the SEC wanted to pluck a school under the Big-12 and/or ACC GOR, they will. It will be messy, pricey and brash, but those conferences operate that way - they both have a long track of such heavy handedness.

ESPN is big, the Big Ten and the SEC is bigger. I know our legal experts here poo-poo that idea but court cases are often about agreement and less about law in these areas. The first thing most any judge asks the defendant and plaintiff is if they can work things out and save the court the trouble - seen it many times.

The GOR is nothing more than an extreme entanglement, do not bolt yourself to those dates. As son as either the Big Ten or SEC find it in their best interest to expand, they will regardless of the presence of a GOR. When that happens, the conference under the bulls eye - in my process that is the ACC - falls apart like the Big East did.

This meeting coming up is going to end with a move to expand to 12 and a phased in solution for things like the network and the location of the CCG. Cincinnati is going to be one of the two schools but I cannot guess or that partner is. Within 3 years, the Big Ten and the SEC will raid the ACC and then FSU, GT, Louisville and Clemson will have to ask themselves do they stay and take on AAC and CUSA schools or do they join the Big-12. I think they will join the Big-12 and we all become the Big-16, which is already trademarked.

I wrote my previous thread before I read yours. I agree with most of your assessment and concur with counsel that nothing is absolute, especially in civil court. The $50 million dollar exit fee placed against Maryland by the ACC was indeed settled for $31 million. You are obviously well experienced in civil litigation and I respect your opinion. If the Big 10 became willing to throw enough money at it, they could likely break at least the ACC GOR as it only involves ESPN. An attack against The Big 12 brings FoxSports into the frey, which deepens the pockets of the defense. You choose your battles based upon the value of the winnings compared to the cost of the war.

 

[Buckaineer]

Long winded, but probably necessary considering the amount of topic facets.

However, your view, like that of Steve is only an individual one, based as much as his on personal hope and belief. For those that bother with it, we read all of the same releases and documents and come to variables on the conclusion. You have hard lines in your belief that the GOR are ironbound and inviolate; I do not believe that. If they were ironbound, Boren's moaning about leaving would have zero teeth and he would have long ago found zero audience for his displeasure; the reverse has been true.

On most points I can go along with you and Steve and Michael and the few others that have bothered to wade into the deep of this pool, but see things a bit differently regarding the GOR because I do not believe in absolutes in anything of this nature. If the Big Ten and the SEC wanted to pluck a school under the Big-12 and/or ACC GOR, they will. It will be messy, pricey and brash, but those conferences operate that way - they both have a long track of such heavy handedness.

ESPN is big, the Big Ten and the SEC is bigger. I know our legal experts here poo-poo that idea but court cases are often about agreement and less about law in these areas. The first thing most any judge asks the defendant and plaintiff is if they can work things out and save the court the trouble - seen it many times.

The GOR is nothing more than an extreme entanglement, do not bolt yourself to those dates. As son as either the Big Ten or SEC find it in their best interest to expand, they will regardless of the presence of a GOR. When that happens, the conference under the bulls eye - in my process that is the ACC - falls apart like the Big East did.

This meeting coming up is going to end with a move to expand to 12 and a phased in solution for things like the network and the location of the CCG. Cincinnati is going to be one of the two schools but I cannot guess or that partner is. Within 3 years, the Big Ten and the SEC will raid the ACC and then FSU, GT, Louisville and Clemson will have to ask themselves do they stay and take on AAC and CUSA schools or do they join the Big-12. I think they will join the Big-12 and we all become the Big-16, which is already trademarked.

The points made are based on what we know in my case however. There is real evidence to support that the BIG 12 is disadvantaged in not having a 13th data point. The commissioner and others have stated this themselves. There is real evidence to support that the BIG 12 has the smallest footprint, that its tv ratings are behind some of the other leagues. There is real evidence--including a recent direct quote from the commissioner that financially there are schools not doing as well as Texas, that in the future BIG 12 school will significantly fall behind other P5 conferences. None of those sorts of things are guesses as others are making here.

Other things likewise--we know for a fact that grants of rights were created and used by many conferences. Even Boren referenced that no one knows for certain what might occur if someone challenged one in court, but that they are believed to be solid and binding legally. No one is expected to take on the financial burden of challenging one--and Boren referenced the BIG 12 was advised not to go after schools under grants of rights.
So when I state a conference has a GOR for a period-that is a fact. When I state that schools won't be available to the end of those, I'm basing that on the belief of those that created and hold GORs that they are legally binding and won't be challenged.

When Boren implied he would need to look around if comprehensive action isn't taken, he isn't talking about tomorrow--he is talking about at the end of the current tv contract. That doesn't do WVU or anyone else much good because its going to take years to do everything you can to be prepared for that as best you can but it causes a very uncertain future that is going to impact you from this day forward.

You say if the Big Ten or SEC wants to pluck someone they will--based on what? How can you "pluck" someone if that someone doesn't want to be "plucked"? Are they magic? Seriously, they wanted to "pluck" schools before and the SEC ended up with an A&M whose pre Manziel status wasn't all that, and a Missouri that was even less so. They wanted Texas and Oklahoma but couldn't get them. Rutgers and Maryland subbed in ok for the schools the Big Ten really coveted in Virginia and North Carolina, but that is what they settled for. The schools they wanted like Texas, UNC and UVA they were unable to interest in leaving their current situations. Financially when one looks at the facts there is evidence to support that a school will pay a hefty price when they leave a conference. Maryland paid over $30 million and WVU paid over $20 million for a league that didn't pay them half that per year. The Big Ten had to give Maryland a $30million "gift" to entice them and no P5 team is in the dire situation that Rutgers was in a defunct conference being moved down to the also ran ranks. There is also the real situation of years of litigation that especially getting free of a grant of rights would require--costly litigation , and in the meantime you won't receive any pay from your conference. We are talking many tens of millions of $$ here--perhaps well over $100 million lost when all is said and done. So no, they can't just "pluck" anyone they want, they aren't superpowered.

Besides-if its 2025, why would an ACC team try to challenge a GOR legally when they only have two years and they'll be completely free of a contract and owe nothing if they leave?

Also, you are hoping the BIG 12 takes a huge gamble that if four schools leave the ACC, the rest will scatter to the BIG 12. Based on what? The schools in that conference didn't come before-the ACC was able to cobble together last minute "saves", there's 0 guarantee they would even have interest down the road. Its just as likely and actually moreso that schools like FSU, GT, Clemson, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and Louisville stick together, perhaps even adding Notre Dame and UConn or Cincinnati or someone else to maintain their own P5 league. You don't gamble the future of your own conference on idle poorly thought out speculation of what someone else might do a decade from now.

You are basing your thoughts on these matters on what you want to be true and nothing more.

Boren is on the expansion committee and has verified the candidates to choose from are not under a grant of rights.

 

[Buckaineer]

Buck, I do not think Gee is lying or misleading. I think they expand and do it sometime this year. I don't know about all 6 or 7 possibilities, I was intrigued by the facility improvements at Cincy that will be completed in about a year. These improvements bring them up to Big 12 standards in every sport. I don't think that is coincidence, maybe just excellent planning and posturing. I'm certain they are not the only one but I do not know enough about the other prospects to make a guess. I do know that Houston is light years behind facility wise and football is a token sport at U Conn.

UH's new football stadium 'a game-changer'
Houston just built an entirely new football stadium that is very nice, great coaching and recruiting territory, but being in Texas they aren't as likely to be selected by a league requiring an expanded footprint.

Boren stated he hopes the league will begin the process of expansion in the next several months to a year along with the other comprehensive changes. If not he doesn't see them reconsidering until a decade from now.

Of course in 2025 it will be too late, but he is more than likely correct.