Expansion

[GetYaNumbersUp]

So now recruits are concerned about the toilets and concession stands in the stadium? lol.

The Big 12 isn't going to invite UConn and Cincy. As incompetent as Bowlsby is, he's not THAT stupid.

Buck, you are a real piece of work.

 

[steeleer]

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

So now recruits are concerned about the toilets and concession stands in the stadium? lol.

The Big 12 isn't going to invite UConn and Cincy. As incompetent as Bowlsby is, he's not THAT stupid.

Buck, you are a real piece of work.

This should be fun
opcorn:

 

[Buckaineer]

So people don't believe that the BIG 12 is really having their consultants look at G5 programs as they have told us they are for expansion. They think I made it up. Oh, and they think universities spend $100 million on stadium upgrades just for the hell of it.

And people pretend that I'm crazy-LOL!!!!

 

[LowFatMilk]

Oh, and they think universities spend $100 million on stadium upgrades just for the hell of it.

And people pretend that I'm crazy-LOL!!!!

Hopefully that wasn't an attempt to take a shot toward me.

 

[Buckaineer]

Cincinnati looking at expanding their stadium again and hoping for a BIG 12 bid-from FOX:

Cincinnati really wants to be part of the Big 12, and university president Santa Ono says there is reason to believe that could happen.



The latest details about the school's push to move up in the college sports hierarchy comes from The Cincinnati Enquirer:

"I do know (Big 12 leaders) think extremely highly of the University of Cincinnati," Ono said. "I would not say there was a reason to be optimistic if I didn't feel that way."



And why does he feel that way?



The school is getting set to unveil the newest version of football stadium and hopes to soon be able to give its aging basketball arena a significant upgrade, too.



Ono told the hometown paper even though Nippert Stadium just received an $86 million update, it could grow again if the Big 12 came calling.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...on-cincinnati-bearcats-nippert-stadium-021516

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

What they have done to Nippert Stadium is awesome. It's easy to see where an additional 10k seats would go, giving it more of a 'bowl' effect. They are not doing this for the AAC, to spend that kind of money without a pre-engagement ring to a power 5 conference would be folly. If not the Big 12, then the ACC. 15 schools is not a viable number, even with ND part time.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

What they have done to Nippert Stadium is awesome. It's easy to see where an additional 10k seats would go, giving it more of a 'bowl' effect. They are not doing this for the AAC, to spend that kind of money without a pre-engagement ring to a power 5 conference would be folly. If not the Big 12, then the ACC. 15 schools is not a viable number, even with ND part time.

They may not be building it to be in the AAC, but they have to build it (without any agreement in place) if they even want to be considered for a seat at a P5 conference. The number of G5 colleges that want to be a member of P5 conference is far greater than slots available making the process very competitive.

CSU is building a brand new stadium at 240 million
The university of Houston just completed building a new stadium
Memphis is spending 40 million for new football and men’s basketball practice facilities
UCONN recently completed construction of a 40 million dollar werth family Uconn Basketball Champions center training facilities.

Any G5 program that wants to have a shot at being a P5, has to make the investments now, without any guarantee expansion will occur or being invited if it does

 

[Buckaineer]

Interesting SB Nation write up:

Excerpt:

Is the Big 12 making the Louisville mistake again with Cincinnati?
....
Is the Big 12 going to make another near Louisville-sized mistake in saying "no thanks" to Cincinnati?
The Big 12 has found itself in a situation somewhat similar to 2013, where expansion talk seemed to be bubbling up, and a handful of schools were rumored to be interested in joining the conference. Of course, in 2013, the leader in the clubhouse to join the Big 12 ranks was Louisville, and the Big 12 kindly said "we're good."

That, in my opinion, was a gigantic mistake. Louisville had just won the Sugar Bowl over Florida, and their basketball team had just won a National Championship. The Cardinals' stock was at an all-time high, and could have delivered a big jolt to the league from a competition standpoint.

Not to mention, Louisville was (and still is) a Top 50 TV market in the US (comparable to Austin), their alumni base was (and still is) 134,000+ strong, and their athletic budget was around $77 million, according to the New York Times.

Cincinnati's TV market is currently the 34th largest market in the country, three spots behind Kansas City and 11 spots ahead of Oklahoma City. The Bearcats' alumni website claims that there are over 285,000 living alumni. While Cincinnati isn't where Louisville was athletically in 2013, five consecutive bowl appearances and three conference championships since 2011 (never finishing worse than third) isn't something to scoff at.


http://www.frogsowar.com/2016/2/15/...-the-louisville-mistake-again-with-cincinnati

 

[topdecktiger]

What they have done to Nippert Stadium is awesome. It's easy to see where an additional 10k seats would go, giving it more of a 'bowl' effect. They are not doing this for the AAC, to spend that kind of money without a pre-engagement ring to a power 5 conference would be folly. If not the Big 12, then the ACC. 15 schools is not a viable number, even with ND part time.

Teams still want to win games, even if they aren't in a P5 conference. The implication from you statement that the only reason a school would invest into new facilities is if there was a chance to get into a P5 conference. Schools have a vested interest in upgrading facilities, even if they aren't getting into a P5 conference. They can't just sit around with their thumbs up their butts and do nothing, or they won't even win in their current conferences.

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren discusses BIG 12 expansion again from a Barry Tramel article:

excerpt:
In fact, Boren said Tuesday that in the same way he favors letting the data determine whether the Big 12 adds new members, a title game and network, he favors letting the data determine who the new members would be.


“I think people are being very sincere about trying to look at the figures and the facts,” Boren said. “Not be emotional about it or ‘I want this school' or ‘I want that.'


“Well, what are their academics? What's their research base? How well do they fit our academic profile? How well do they fit our fan base profile? How many dollars in their market do they bring to the table? We're looking at all that. In terms of the network and those dollars, we're looking with our TV consultants to tell us.”
http://newsok.com/article/5479305
http://newsok.com/article/5479305

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren from ESPN:

"We're in a fact-finding mode, we're in a data-gathering mode," Boren said. "In other words, what will it mean to the stability of the conference? What will it mean financially to the conference?

"We've sort of said to ourselves: Come this summer, we're going to have to finally make a decision about what we do. We cannot indefinitely postpone decisions. That's what I had gotten frustrated about. I thought we were spinning our wheels."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...t-says-vote-major-big-12-issues-likely-summer

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Looks like fat mouth Boren is at it again. So much for one voice, he can't stand being the center of attention.

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

Boren just likes to hear himself talk. Total blowhard.

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren was asked specific pertinent questions and anwered them. He didn't offer information counter to what Bowlsby stated, just reiterated where things stand with the conference in a very positive manner.

Lots of good information from a strong leader. The BIG 12 is lucky to have him.

As he stated about the conference from the link above:
"We cannot indefinitely postpone decisions."

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Quote from Boren
"that in the same way he favors letting the data determine whether the Big 12 adds new members, a title game and network, he favors letting the data determine who the new members would be.'

I am willing to bet my house, if expansion is voted down because data comes back indicating more money can be made per program staying at 10, Boren will go crying to the media like the little B1T(3# he is

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren represents his school first of course so has a right to let those people know what is happening with their school as he should. No reason for basic information to be hidden-we already know the conference is finally doing its due diligence on the issues.

If the BIG 12 doesn't do anything despite data that shows the best steps for the conference are to adopt his comprehensive plan then it would be a problem down the road. The membership is making its determinations based on the facts however, rather than emotion, so there's no reason to think they'll make any decisions counter to what is best for the future success of the conference. Boren sees the data as well so if the facts stated the best course of action for the BIG 12 would be to do nothing and everything will be great then that is what he'd see as well.

It's highly unlikely that the data will suggest doing nothing and everything will be better in the future.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Teams still want to win games, even if they aren't in a P5 conference. The implication from you statement that the only reason a school would invest into new facilities is if there was a chance to get into a P5 conference. Schools have a vested interest in upgrading facilities, even if they aren't getting into a P5 conference. They can't just sit around with their thumbs up their butts and do nothing, or they won't even win in their current conferences.

That is generally true, but the cost and scope of the upgrades while actively pursuing membership in the Big 12 makes the difference. The Cincinnati Enquirer busted them on that.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Full data has not been collected and certainly not distributed. Opinions about data that has not been gathered is one thing but to make assumption (be it pro or anti expansion) is ludicrous at best.

 

[Buckaineer]

Full data has not been collected and certainly not distributed. Opinions about data that has not been gathered is one thing but to make assumption (be it pro or anti expansion) is ludicrous at best.

Boren has certainly collected and seen data, as has Gee and Baylors president. They have determined from that information that for their schools and the conference as a whole, the best course of action will be to expand, add a conference network and add a CCG after expansion. They haven't released the information publicly, but they've seen it and Boren let us know that each school is losing $4 to $6 million per school per year right now just from the lack of network, and the the conference as a whole is losing out on $25 to $35 million from lack of a CCG. That's alot of information to base "assumptions" on.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Boren has certainly collected and seen data, as have Gee. They have determined from that information that for their schools and the conference as a whole, the best course of action will be to expand, add a conference network and add a CCG after expansion. They haven't released the information publicly, but they've seen it and Boren let us know that each school is losing $4 to $6 million per school per year right now just from the lack of network, and the the conference as a whole is losing out on $25 to $35 million from lack of a CCG. That's alot of information to base "assumptions" on.

If the data was all in there would be no need for the additional fact finding. It will be interesting to see what comes from this task and how each side which I call (OU vs Texas) will spin it.

 

[topdecktiger]

Boren has certainly collected and seen data, as have Gee. They have determined from that information that for their schools and the conference as a whole, the best course of action will be to expand, add a conference network and add a CCG after expansion. They haven't released the information publicly, but they've seen it and Boren let us know that each school is losing $4 to $6 million per school per year right now just from the lack of network, and the the conference as a whole is losing out on $25 to $35 million from lack of a CCG. That's alot of information to base "assumptions" on.

From you own link earlier, the fact-finding process is still ongoing. It's not completed. Boren has been saying he wants expansion for close to a year now. In other words, Boren has been promoting expansion before there was data to say how beneficial it would be. He simply wants expansion. There's nothing wrong with that. It just means that Boren's statements don't indicate expansion is ultimately profitable, or a foregone conclusion.

That is generally true, but the cost and scope of the upgrades while actively pursuing membership in the Big 12 makes the difference. The Cincinnati Enquirer busted them on that.

It doesn't make the difference. I'm sure Cincinnati wants into the P5, and I'm sure they are using the upgrades to promote their cause. However, that doesn't imply expansion is imminent. It doesn't suggest that Cincinnati "knows something." Keep in mind, Cincinnati has Ohio St in their back yard. They have to keep their facilities top notch to even have a prayer to compete for in-state recruits.

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren's comments on expansion are based on direct knowledge of the benefits of expansion for the BIG 12 and OU. They aren't just wishes for no reason--they are based on need and outcome. To suggest that Boren just wants to expand to expand is baseless. He has clearly stated that he has, as a member of the composition committee-been studying these issues for over a year along with consultants. The rest of the conference is now being filled in on that detail along with additional studies from consultants responding to specific questions on earlier data. The data is there--there were composition committees prior to the current one.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

From you own link earlier, the fact-finding process is still ongoing. It's not completed. Boren has been saying he wants expansion for close to a year now. In other words, Boren has been promoting expansion before there was data to say how beneficial it would be. He simply wants expansion. There's nothing wrong with that. It just means that Boren's statements don't indicate expansion is ultimately profitable, or a foregone conclusion.



It doesn't make the difference. I'm sure Cincinnati wants into the P5, and I'm sure they are using the upgrades to promote their cause. However, that doesn't imply expansion is imminent. It doesn't suggest that Cincinnati "knows something." Keep in mind, Cincinnati has Ohio St in their back yard. They have to keep their facilities top notch to even have a prayer to compete for in-state recruits.

See, you are not playing fair. Throwing up his previous post and providing facts only confuses certain people

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Boren's comments on expansion are based on direct knowledge of the benefits of expansion for the BIG 12 and OU. They aren't just wishes for no reason--they are based on need and outcome. To suggest that Boren just wants to expand to expand is baseless. He has clearly stated that he has, as a member of the composition committee-been studying these issues for over a year along with consultants. The rest of the conference is now being filled in on that detail along with additional studies from consultants responding to specific questions on earlier data. The data is there--there were composition committees prior to the current one.

OK so let me understand what you are saying. The conference committee has gathered all the facts and presented to the rest of the BIG12. Armed with all this data the BIG12 conference is paying who knows how many thousands of dollars more to regather the same facts? You seriously can't believe this

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

OK so let me understand what you are saying. The conference committee has gathered all the facts and presented to the rest of the BIG12. Armed with all this data the BIG12 conference is paying who knows how many thousands of dollars more to regather the same facts? You seriously can't believe this

I'm probably going to regret this and neither of you needs my help. But Boren made it clear that he has received volumes of material relating to the questions at hand. I understood (partly from following you two) that the new studies are simply relating to which schools would be the most profitable for the network if the conference decided to go that route.

 

[Buckaineer]

I'm probably going to regret this and neither of you needs my help. But Boren made it clear that he has received volumes of material relating to the questions at hand. I understood (partly from following you two) that the new studies are simply relating to which schools would be the most profitable for the network if the conference decided to go that route.

In one of the recent articles, I believe it was Bowlsby who stated the new studies are directly related to questions people asked about information they were presented with--i.e. they wanted to see specific configurations of divisions with one, two and three crossover opponents on a permanent basis. Much of the information such as the actual candidates was already in hand--Boren mentioned long ago that they've been studying schools for a long while and have all that pertinent info. They've had presentations on conference networks and new media and other things before, and Boren referenced that they had identified 6 or 7 schools that would be additive. This was all well before the most current meetings. Many things were known to the relevant committee members, and as Boren stated, they then take that info to the entire membership where decisisons are made. Bowlsby stated that before the recent meetings they had hired consultants to collect and present more data on each of the relevant items.

Boren isn't just making things up he's speaking from a place of knowledge on the matter. When he states each school is losing $4 to $6 million per year per school--those are numbers he has been shown by consultants, not wishful guesses based on nothing.

 

[Buckaineer]

If the data was all in there would be no need for the additional fact finding. It will be interesting to see what comes from this task and how each side which I call (OU vs Texas) will spin it.

Bowlsby stated that when the membership was shown data, they had more questions and/or wanted to see certain data in more detail. So yes, there would be a need for additional fact finding and that is what they are doing.

 

[Buckaineer]

OK so let me understand what you are saying. The conference committee has gathered all the facts and presented to the rest of the BIG12. Armed with all this data the BIG12 conference is paying who knows how many thousands of dollars more to regather the same facts? You seriously can't believe this

Not at all what I stated, and not what the conference told anyone either-you've concocted that yourself.

The composition committee has collected data on candidates, CCGs, etc. over the past year or more. They collect the data according to Boren's public comments and then must disseminate that to the full membership. They collected some data directly and other data came from hired consultants.

When the larger membership was presented with data--Bowlsby stated that they had more questions and or wanted to see more detail on the data provided and so additional information is being gathered. Information like divisional makeup, scenarios with one, two, or three permanent rivals. Boren just referenced more specific studies on each school and monies their specific market would provide the league (i.e. sponsorships). One would expect that when the entire group got together and is now looking at a comprehensive plan that some would have additional questions and they are being as thorough as possible.

All of this is in the articles about the subject--you should go back and reread some for more detail since you don't comprehend what is occurring.

 

[topdecktiger]

Boren's comments on expansion are based on direct knowledge of the benefits of expansion for the BIG 12 and OU. They aren't just wishes for no reason--they are based on need and outcome. To suggest that Boren just wants to expand to expand is baseless. He has clearly stated that he has, as a member of the composition committee-been studying these issues for over a year along with consultants. The rest of the conference is now being filled in on that detail along with additional studies from consultants responding to specific questions on earlier data. The data is there--there were composition committees prior to the current one.

The point is, the data isn't 100% complete. The data so far warrants further study, which is being done. Nobody is claiming Boren wants to expand just to expand. The issue is, what Boren thinks is beneficial is not necessarily what Texas, TCU, Kansas, etc. deem beneficial. That's the crux of the matter. For example, Texas might not feel that the compensation they receive from a Big 12 network is worth giving up the LHN. Boren's opinion on what is acceptable compensation is not the deciding factor. It's whether Texas agrees to it. That issue is still up in the air.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The point is, the data isn't 100% complete. The data so far warrants further study, which is being done. Nobody is claiming Boren wants to expand just to expand. The issue is, what Boren thinks is beneficial is not necessarily what Texas, TCU, Kansas, etc. deem beneficial. That's the crux of the matter. For example, Texas might not feel that the compensation they receive from a Big 12 network is worth giving up the LHN. Boren's opinion on what is acceptable compensation is not the deciding factor. It's whether Texas agrees to it. That issue is still up in the air.

Great points. If the data was \there, the BIG12 would have voted a few weeks ago to expand.

As for expansion, If we assume the data comes back positive for expansion for a majority of the programs, the key is still the LHN. The BIG12 can vote unanimously to expand, but it is pointless unless TexA$$ is willing to give up the LHN. You can't have a successful BIG12N for as long as Texas 3 tier rights are tied up.

What is the benefit to ESPN of shutting down LHN and will they help pay Texas to to do so. And is ESPN willing and able to put pressure on Texa$$ to move foward

 

[topdecktiger]

Great points. If the data was \there, the BIG12 would have voted a few weeks ago to expand.

As for expansion, If we assume the data comes back positive for expansion for a majority of the programs, the key is still the LHN. The BIG12 can vote unanimously to expand, but it is pointless unless TexA$$ is willing to give up the LHN. You can't have a successful BIG12N for as long as Texas 3 tier rights are tied up.

What is the benefit to ESPN of shutting down LHN and will they help pay Texas to to do so. And is ESPN willing and able to put pressure on Texa$$ to move foward

That's also another question. There are two approaches on a conference network: go it alone, or find a partner. Going it alone is pretty tough, as the Pac 12 has shown. The realistic partners would be Fox or ESPN. Are either of them interested in another conference network? That's a significant question, because even if the data is favorable to the Big 12, is it favorable to ESPN or Fox? The ultimate outcome rests on a lot more than data, despite what some people are saying.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Great points. If the data was \there, the BIG12 would have voted a few weeks ago to expand.

As for expansion, If we assume the data comes back positive for expansion for a majority of the programs, the key is still the LHN. The BIG12 can vote unanimously to expand, but it is pointless unless TexA$$ is willing to give up the LHN. You can't have a successful BIG12N for as long as Texas 3 tier rights are tied up.

What is the benefit to ESPN of shutting down LHN and will they help pay Texas to to do so. And is ESPN willing and able to put pressure on Texa$$ to move foward

Steve, I understand Buck's point of origin here and he is an excellent researcher that backs up his beliefs and predictions with data that appears to corroborate his viewpoint. You seem to be the 'show me' skeptic as far as the future of the Big 12. I understand your points and many of them are well taken. But what I'm not sure about is your core belief in this matter. Do you believe the Big 12 will simply sit on their hands and do nothing until the buzzards arrive in 2025 to feast upon a dead conference? I'm sure it doesn't matter to you what I think, but I believe others here share my curiosity. What do you believe is actually going to happen to the Big 12 based upon the facts and circumstances as you see them?

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

That's also another question. There are two approaches on a conference network: go it alone, or find a partner. Going it alone is pretty tough, as the Pac 12 has shown. The realistic partners would be Fox or ESPN. Are either of them interested in another conference network? That's a significant question, because even if the data is favorable to the Big 12, is it favorable to ESPN or Fox? The ultimate outcome rests on a lot more than data, despite what some people are saying.

Yep, with all the cord cutting, this is not the best time to launch a network assuming BIG12 is using traditional model of ESPN, FOX or other nework

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

That's also another question. There are two approaches on a conference network: go it alone, or find a partner. Going it alone is pretty tough, as the Pac 12 has shown. The realistic partners would be Fox or ESPN. Are either of them interested in another conference network? That's a significant question, because even if the data is favorable to the Big 12, is it favorable to ESPN or Fox? The ultimate outcome rests on a lot more than data, despite what some people are saying.

Tiger, I agree with your basic issue. Whatever all of the studies and analysis concludes, it has to be financially beneficial to both ESPN and FoxSports or it is not going to happen. They are the ones writing the checks. ESPN/FoxSports will only absorb the LHN into a Big 12 Network if it improves their bottom line.

 

[topdecktiger]

Tiger, I agree with your basic issue. Whatever all of the studies and analysis concludes, it has to be financially beneficial to both ESPN and FoxSports or it is not going to happen. They are the ones writing the checks. ESPN/FoxSports will only absorb the LHN into a Big 12 Network if it improves their bottom line.

There is actually another problem on top of that. ESPN owns the LHN. Problem there is, if the Big 12 decided to partner with Fox, that means ESPN still has the rights to the LHN. How much compensation would it take to get ESPN to relinquish LHN? Would ESPN even be willing to do that at all? That makes the prospects of partnering with Fox questionable.

Along those lines, it's questionable whether ESPN is interested in starting a new network. ESPN's financial difficulties have been well documented. ESPN recently backed off of an ACCN. Unless you are just being a die hard fan playing the "my conference is better than your conference game," that doesn't look promising for ESPN's involvement in another network.

There is also yet another problem. IMG also owns part of the LHN. Even if ESPN was inclined to sell or roll over the LHN, they can't unilaterally do that without IMG. So now, best case scenario, you have two entities, Texas and IMG, which have to be compensated.

 

[Buckaineer]

Obviously, if the conference has gotten this far with suggestions of a conference network and are considering working with network partners on it rather than self owning, then some discussions at some level with the networks have occurred already about merging the LHN into a BIG 12 network. Obviously also, if ESPN is not making revenue like they hoped with the LHN, and they must continue to reduce expenses, eliminating something not making revenues for something that would is going to go into their determinations as well.

Its not out of the question both FOX and ESPN could end up with some ownership in a BIG 12 network. We'll have to wait and see what develops. But conference leaders obviously believe that its something that could be worked out.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The LHN is jointly owned and operated by UT, IMG and ESPN. Compromises and agreements would have to be made to incorporate it into a Big 12 Network with the permission of those entities. I'm not saying it cannot be done, it is just one of the barriers to overcome.

 

[Buckaineer]

The conference is aware that UT's and the other school's have tier 3 rights that would need to be acquired to move to a conference network instead. No one is surprised by that information and the conference is considering all of that.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The conference is aware that UT's and the other school's have tier 3 rights that would need to be acquired to move to a conference network instead. No one is surprised by that information and the conference is considering all of that.

Buck, that was just rude and unnecessary. Period. And for the record, the current GOR contract is with a joint venture of ESPN/FoxSports.