Gee: Big 12 puts expansion on hold
- Thread starter Mountaineer Steve
- Start date
Yet the question remains.
Which 4 (P5) schools will the Pac-12 go after to get their conference up to the required 16 teams per conference that most people are talking about.
It won't be from the ACC, SEC or B1G Conferences.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
16 isn't a requirement. Stability is the requirement. Nobody is going to come after any PAC-12 schools, they are safe on an island no matter what the other conferences do. They are firmly in control of the entire west coast and will remain so. They don't need to expand and if they can't get Texas and/or Oklahoma, probably don't want anyone else from the BIG12. They aren't the only ones interested in Texas and Oklahoma however. The BIG10 and the SEC are going to be the ones that force the issue. They could go to 20 each easily and leave the PAC at 12 and a fourth conference at 12 (probably either the Big12 or the ACC, whoever is the least damaged) and there would be 64 teams in the money. At this point it is a waiting game to see what the BIG and the SEC do, who they want and whether Texas or Oklahoma do anything unilaterally. I assume that Texas and Oklahoma have standing offers for just about any conference they would choose. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Most speculation articles talk about 4 (16 team/two 8 member divisions) conferences so I am addressing that point.
It seems highly unlikely that you will have one conference with 20 schools and another with just 12 schools.
When you want to get large financial TV contracts for your Conference you have to be able to supply content to the marketplace.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
I don't know that unlikely has anything to do with it. Who would have thought that the Big10 would have 14 schools and the Big12 would have 10, that WVU would be in the Big12 and Rutgers would be in the Big10, that Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and Boston College would be in the ACC? Crazy. Don't get too hung up on the numbers from talking heads, numerology isn't a science. Nobody is going to stop the Big10, the SEC, Texas, Notre Dame, or Oklahoma from doing whatever they want to do if they can make it work. If Texas and Oklahoma ever want to go they will be entertaining offers from the Big10 and the SEC. They would not only likely outbid the PAC but have better regional and natural rivalries. No, I'm not worried about the PAC12, but then again I wouldn't care to predict what Texas or Oklahoma might do. The PAC12, the BIG12 and the ACC are bystanders at this point waiting for the next domino to fall.
Last edited:
If the PAC expands, I doubt it will be with current P5 program. The BIG12 is making as much or more per program for its T1, T2 vs the PAC T1, T2, and T3 and the PACN is a total bust. There is no reason for a BIG12 program to move that direction becoming an outlier for no extra money. Options for PAC might be BYU, BOISE, Co State, NM, and a few others willing to make the investment to move to P5
Those schools you mentioned financially bring nothing to the PAC.
If the PAC expanded it would be with current P5 schools.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
Well then the PAC is not going to expand because no other P5 program wants to play out west for less or the same money
In all honesty, the same could be said other way around. A lot of people are constructing scenarios just because they want to see the ACC implode. Realistically, nobody is going to expand to 18-20 teams. At some point, you come up against the law of diminishing returns. The Pitt poster brings up a good point. These leagues aren't going to expand to 16, just to get to 16. You have to consider that every addition doesn't bring about the same increase in revenue. Plus, at some point scheduling is going to have to be a consideration.
Respect your post but not sure you really looked at mine. Regarding Big10 I don't see UVA because of Maryland. Duke to small and zero football brand. Only Northwestern would like that. Plus Duke will never leave ACC so they aren't even worth talking about. We agree on UNC and GTech. The Big10 would kill for Texas. As all canferences would. I also included OU as a legit option for Big 10. I saw that right? We basically agree on the SEC. FSU has a huge brand name so that's why they would be a player in any talks probably. Concerning my main point, any discussion that talks ACC death is a complete waste of time. I'm not say that the Big 12 is going anywhere. I'm just saying that the TVs in the ACC footprint will never be silenced.
Makes me sad and mad thinking about what you just posted. Pitt/WVU/PSU is what I grew up with.
You might be right about UVA, but I am not sure you are correct about Duke. Although it is all about football and TV footprint, adding (and I throw up in my mouth when I say this), the UNC/DUKE bb which is by all accounts the biggest BB game each year, would be a huge win for the B1G.
I still disagree with you on Texas. Without AAU status it is a dead issue. If I am not mistaken, OU is an AAU program it would be a candidate. I am sure it would not hurt to bring back the OU/Nebraska, rival.
To your last point. The ACC TV footprint is an over lap of the the B1G and the SEC making their it not as relevant as you believe. In fact is all the more reason for those two conference to take out the ACC
So basically Big12 puts expansion on hold until Big12 meetings next month to discuss Big12 expansion.
I'm not buying a new car right now and I'm never going to buy a new car are two different things
I'm not buying a new car right now and I'm never going to buy a new car are two different things
I think you just nailed it. President Gee is oftentimes coy like that. I hope he is following this thread!
You mean to say "most fan boy" speculation articles talk about 4 conferences with 16/8. No conference is officially talking about adding one member any time in the near future. All of them obviously explore it but none of them give it any press time and that is what matters. What bulletin board posters think or do not think has zero bearing on all of it.
On the other hand, there are concerns in all of the conferences concerning long term fiscal and membership stability. The SEC could even lose a school because Missouri took the SEC invitation as a consolation prize; it really wanted in the Big Ten. There are those in Nebraska that say perhaps leaving the Big-12 was not the best move.
As it sits right now though, The Big Ten, SEC are stable and doing superb. The Pac-12 is stable by default of its isolated position. The ACC and the Big-12 are both unstable conferences, but for different reasons. There is pressure on the Big-12 to look like everyone else meaning a network and 12 members. Both are workable fixes but the Big-12 is also not being courted for its members. Much as Oklahoma whines about it, she has no place to go and no one wants her with her baggage and Texas plays the Prima Dona but she knows what side of the bread has butter on it and she would be extremely stupid to go any where else.
The ACC on the other hand has some series issues. It has poor leadership - on the scale of Big East bad leadership and is in fact a bastard love child between the Old BE and Old ACC with all of the problems that go with that including having a bloodsucking leach on its face in the name of Notre Dame. It has members that want to leave, it has fans that want to leave and it has empty promise of an ACCN that will never come to pass.
Now if the Big Ten and SEC ever do decide to jump back into expansion, the fruit hangs lowest in the ACC. But it is just as likely that everyone is happy how they are now and no one expands for the next 15 to 20 years.
I won't deny that but it isn't going to happen. thats like saying if the acc comes out unscaited but texas/oklahoma leave they can take whoever they want from the big 12, though other than wvu i dont see who they would want after that.
but thats not the point, both are pipe drea
it looks like the b1g is going to go big, and the sec will have to follow and the pac will have to also.
ND and texass will probalby end up in the big 10, mostly because i can't stand the big 10 and it would piss me off lol..but seirously thats the likely outcome.
pa doen't have any option oklahomas i guess or the leftovers from texas/kansas st i dont really know they are kind of in a bad situation on the 'run for 20'
theres no way around the future being big 12 and acc leftovers merging, the best case is SEC holds firm on the 'no double dipping. so clemson stays...rumors even have fsu to the b1g unfortunately as one of the first, which is kind of weird to me..
its not a matter of people being left out of that 4th frankenstein conference its a matter of getting enough teams in and till hopefully leaving wake forest out.
While the Big Ten can obviously take anyone it wants, its track record says that it is very selective. The two primary criteria for the Big Ten have been AAU membership and residing an existing state in the footprint on in a state currently on its border. It has not once chosen a school that did not meet both of those conditions, even though the conference has stated that they are not absolutes. As a caveat, Nebraska was an AAU member leading up to and during the admission process but dropped out after entering the Big Ten.
Only one school can claim that the Big Ten would void its standards for admission and that is Notre Dame.
Notre Dame is never going to join a conference. It would take multiple refusals of entry to the NC before the alumnus would even consider that notion of merging into a conference and Notre Dame is always going to have the exception.
Many of the schools being "rumored" to the Big Ten are pure bullshit.
The next domino may never fall. Texas and Oklahoma could very easily do what they have done in the past, keep the golden goose alive and stay together. If the Big12 or the PAC were to add a non-power five school or two, no dominoes would fall. Neither one is going to steal another P5 school the way things stand. As Gee suggested, the data may not support inviting any non P5 schools. The ACC isn't likely to expand anymore either, they already have too many mouths to feed and they aren't going to steal any P5 school either. The BIG and the SEC could stand pat at 14, that format has been very good for them. They have constant meetings as well and review the data. If further expansion brings more money and domination of the college landscape, they will do it.
Someone ought to ask the Las Vegas oddsmakers to pick the P5 schools that are most likely to switch conferences and which conference they would join. I know lots of people are thinking it is Oklahoma because of all of Boren's public whining, but that could have less substance to it than everyone thinks. Who IS the unhappiest school in the P5? Maybe nobody is THAT unhappy.
Someone ought to ask the Las Vegas oddsmakers to pick the P5 schools that are most likely to switch conferences and which conference they would join. I know lots of people are thinking it is Oklahoma because of all of Boren's public whining, but that could have less substance to it than everyone thinks. Who IS the unhappiest school in the P5? Maybe nobody is THAT unhappy.
lol. i hope you didn't say something great after that because everyone except rutgers fans and maryland fans quit reading.
Who is going to survive this stuff? A program with a 90 million dollar + budget with a fan base and tv base proven to follow its team. A top fanbase for IMG and many other metrics, or Pitt with one of the smallest budgets in the current p5, a horrible fanbase who cannot even crack the chart in their home town?
While Pitt definitely sucks right up there with rutgers and maryland they dont havr the tv markets of those two and Pitts tv market is already dominated by Penn State and Ohio State. If tv market drives expansion Pitt has a shot to outpace Youngstown State.
if the first is wvu the answer is both. and neither. neither has a prayer of going sec or big 10, im not a big enough homer to think thats a possibilit and neither is going to be left out of the 4th conference. they are going to need uconn and cincy and byu and probably others to fill it out ftlog.
and the big 10 is going bigger its just a matter of how soon.. probably 20 big. its no secret bigger = more money when you get either big names or big markets. sec will follow and pac will have to. acc will initially have more teams poached because they have more desirable teams/markets.
your posts, no offense, are why these conversations always turn useless. you hate pitt i get it . but your fandom is what is spurning your arguments, not reality. im a fan of both teams and want whats best for both, but nowhere do i put a scenario where against logic, either magically lands in an awesome spot.
Ok Omar. If you had a clue what was going on I would bother, but you don't so I wont waste my time here anymore.
Although they may not be great football schools Rutgers and Maryland are very good universities, have decent sports but not good enough to probably ever contend for a championship, are consistent with the BIG10's policy of growing into adjacent states and are in the middle of huge populations, which to a conference that already has a well thought out TV network, is very selective indeed. If they add more schools they are going to follow the same selective strategy. WVU will likely remain encircled by states with teams in conferences which don't want WVU as a member due mostly to low population and the perception of our academics.
Yet, both Maryland and Rutgers meet the Big Ten criteria. As for others not reading what I post, I learned long ago that I could only lead the horses to the water, I can't make them drink.
"Nobody is THAT unhappy - now."
Fixed it for you.
That Big Ten deal though is going to give the SEC fits. The SEC cannot afford the impression it has been beat at this game after trying so hard in collusion with ESPN to outdo the Big Ten and Fox. The SEC is going to have to politically (not because they financially need it) counter the Big Ten deal. When those two conferences get more, the Pac-12, Big-12 and ACC are lucky to get any increase and might have to settle for the current contracts until they expire in 8-10 years.
I disagree that Pitt has no hope of going to the Big Ten. Pitt fits both criteria. Does the Big Ten need Pitt? Does Pitt bring a new market? Is Pitt ready to play with the big boys? The answers are no, no and not until they figure out all of the big boys have their own damn stadiums.
I have actually projected in previous posts that I think the Big Ten would be wise to grab Pitt and UVA to fill out their hold on the Mid-Atlantic and bring the conference to 16. Neither Pitt or UVA are sexy but the Big Ten already has sexy schools and they like being sexy so they want no competition. Pitt and UVA are just well-known enough to be middle of the pack teams in an eastern division of a 16-team Big Ten.
Things to consider.
ESPN has lost $48 million so far on the LHN.
ESPN is not in the business of losing money so it is highly likely that the LHN will not be renewed.
The Big 12 footprint is too limited for a Big 12 network or at best will not pay Texas anywhere near the $15 million they were receiving from the LHN.
As you stated Oklahoma is not happy with the current situation in the Big 12 and are exploring their options.
Similar to the discontent that Nebraska, Texas a&m, Missouri and Colorado expressed prior to leaving.
There are only two Conferences that have ESPN as the sole distributor of their product (no Fox Sports). The two Conferences are the SEC and the ACC. These two Conferences are extremely important to ESPN for market content. ESPN does not want instability in either Conference. I do not anticipate the SEC will go after any ACC school.
ESPN recommended Pitt and Syracuse be added to the ACC Conference and was willing to pay for the additions because it brought the ACC Coference into New York and Pennsylvania.
You can mock Pitt but the fact remains that Pennsylvania has a state population of 12.7 million and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV market is ranked #23 in the Nation. I think ESPN took this into consideration before recommending Pitt.
Where there is smoke.
Rutgers and Maryland were not invited into the B1G for their football and basketball prowess.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
ESPN has lost $48 million so far on the LHN.
ESPN is not in the business of losing money so it is highly likely that the LHN will not be renewed.
The Big 12 footprint is too limited for a Big 12 network or at best will not pay Texas anywhere near the $15 million they were receiving from the LHN.
As you stated Oklahoma is not happy with the current situation in the Big 12 and are exploring their options.
Similar to the discontent that Nebraska, Texas a&m, Missouri and Colorado expressed prior to leaving.
There are only two Conferences that have ESPN as the sole distributor of their product (no Fox Sports). The two Conferences are the SEC and the ACC. These two Conferences are extremely important to ESPN for market content. ESPN does not want instability in either Conference. I do not anticipate the SEC will go after any ACC school.
ESPN recommended Pitt and Syracuse be added to the ACC Conference and was willing to pay for the additions because it brought the ACC Coference into New York and Pennsylvania.
You can mock Pitt but the fact remains that Pennsylvania has a state population of 12.7 million and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV market is ranked #23 in the Nation. I think ESPN took this into consideration before recommending Pitt.
Where there is smoke.
Rutgers and Maryland were not invited into the B1G for their football and basketball prowess.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Fair points but the SEC really can't or won't bring and expansion team in from same member state except maybe FSU. I hear ya on the AAU issue. That's the wvu problem right(not sure)? But I think Texas overwhelms that issue with their brand and state.
How much money has ESPN lost via the ACC contract? The reasons espn looked at Pitt once wont be the same the next time. The next round of tv deals will be based on actual viewers and not tv markets. Pitt wont survive.
"Panthergrowl13, post: 1012734, member: 6294"]Things to consider.
ESPN has lost $48 million so far on the LHN.
Source Please
ESPN is not in the business of losing money so it is highly likely that the LHN will not be renewed.
Unfounded speculation. There is more to money being spent to keep Texas inside ESPN. Think bigger. ESPN is getting more than a single school network for their money.
The Big 12 footprint is too limited for a Big 12 network or at best will not pay Texas anywhere near the $15 million they were receiving from the LHN.
You do know a single school has a network, right? They call it Notre Dame and NBC is their network. Notre Dame's footprint is not its geography, it is the vast sea of alumnus. All of the current schools in the Big-12 surpass Notre Dame in the number of alumnus spread around. But, networks are not totally based on such things.
The ACC likes to tout it has the most populous states in their footprint in comparison to the other conferences. That logically implies that the ACC has the best and biggest paying network right? Oh wait, you mean it doesn't have the highest paid network...er...you mean it doesn't even have a network?!?! Well, that is just not logical. See, the argument about a limited base has nothing to do with this, but you ACC guys keep trying.
As you stated Oklahoma is not happy with the current situation in the Big 12 and are exploring their options.
All schools explore their options ALL of the time. Nothing to see here. For Oklahoma's bitching and whining to have any meaning it has to be credible and Oklahoma has no way to go anywhere and no one that wants it with its politically charged baggage. The Sooners can moan about life but they have to play the cards in their hand.
Similar to the discontent that Nebraska, Texas a&m, Missouri and Colorado expressed prior to leaving.
Missouri has Identity issues that border on clinical, who knows why they did anything. Their school has been on the front page of the Dumbest Things to Read Gazette all year.
Colorado just got tired of being nobody in the current group of schools and they thought it might be nice to be nobody in a new group of schools.
Nebraska, had some legitimate gripes and the thinking from those people there is that they pulled the trigger too soon and there is some decent amount of regret in the choice.
Texas a&m was just made that their junk was not as big as Texas and no one wanted to play doctor with them.
There are only two Conferences that have ESPN as the sole distributor of their product (no Fox Sports). The two Conferences are the SEC and the ACC. These two Conferences are extremely important to ESPN for market content. ESPN does not want instability in either Conference. I do not anticipate the SEC will go after any ACC school.
Trying to equate the deal the SEC has with ESPN to the one that ACC has is laughable. The SEC and ESPN did everything under the sun to create a network that would make them both money and be the best in the business. They coerced carriers and subscribers in every way they could to sell that setup. The told the ACC we can cover you games for the smallest package out there of the 5 biggest conferences, even though you have more schools and more population numbers and oh you have to toss in your tier 3 rights, which we wont use because your commission wants to backdoor his relative in Raycom. The SEC has been handled with satin gloves and the ACC got a dirty backhand by ESPN.
ESPN does not want anything infringing on its SEC footprint and that is fully half of the ACC potential footprint. Guess who is going to lose that decision.
ESPN recommended Pitt and Syracuse be added to the ACC Conference and was willing to pay for the additions because it brought the ACC Coference into New York and Pennsylvania.
Pitt and Syracuse were touted by ESPN to the ACC to keep them out of the Big Ten/Fox relationship. Is that not obvious at all?
You can mock Pitt but the fact remains that Pennsylvania has a state population of 12.7 million and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV market is ranked #23 in the Nation. I think ESPN took this into consideration before recommending Pitt.
Pitt has marketability, but it's substance is tissue paper and everyone knows it. Pitt does not bring Pennsylvania to the TV screen, Penn State does that. Even in Pittsburgh, Penn State and WVU get programing nods over Pitt. Pitt can't even deliver it's hometown.
Where there is smoke.
Rutgers and Maryland were not invited into the B1G for their football and basketball prowess.
They were invited in for reason that someone like Swafford can't figure out because if he did he would never have let Maryland leave and he would have grabbed Rutgers. Better yet he would have taken UConn over BC. The ACC is run nearly as bad as the Old Big East, don't be so happy morons pick you for their team. It is not a grace.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
ESPN has lost $48 million so far on the LHN.
Source Please
ESPN is not in the business of losing money so it is highly likely that the LHN will not be renewed.
Unfounded speculation. There is more to money being spent to keep Texas inside ESPN. Think bigger. ESPN is getting more than a single school network for their money.
The Big 12 footprint is too limited for a Big 12 network or at best will not pay Texas anywhere near the $15 million they were receiving from the LHN.
You do know a single school has a network, right? They call it Notre Dame and NBC is their network. Notre Dame's footprint is not its geography, it is the vast sea of alumnus. All of the current schools in the Big-12 surpass Notre Dame in the number of alumnus spread around. But, networks are not totally based on such things.
The ACC likes to tout it has the most populous states in their footprint in comparison to the other conferences. That logically implies that the ACC has the best and biggest paying network right? Oh wait, you mean it doesn't have the highest paid network...er...you mean it doesn't even have a network?!?! Well, that is just not logical. See, the argument about a limited base has nothing to do with this, but you ACC guys keep trying.
As you stated Oklahoma is not happy with the current situation in the Big 12 and are exploring their options.
All schools explore their options ALL of the time. Nothing to see here. For Oklahoma's bitching and whining to have any meaning it has to be credible and Oklahoma has no way to go anywhere and no one that wants it with its politically charged baggage. The Sooners can moan about life but they have to play the cards in their hand.
Similar to the discontent that Nebraska, Texas a&m, Missouri and Colorado expressed prior to leaving.
Missouri has Identity issues that border on clinical, who knows why they did anything. Their school has been on the front page of the Dumbest Things to Read Gazette all year.
Colorado just got tired of being nobody in the current group of schools and they thought it might be nice to be nobody in a new group of schools.
Nebraska, had some legitimate gripes and the thinking from those people there is that they pulled the trigger too soon and there is some decent amount of regret in the choice.
Texas a&m was just made that their junk was not as big as Texas and no one wanted to play doctor with them.
There are only two Conferences that have ESPN as the sole distributor of their product (no Fox Sports). The two Conferences are the SEC and the ACC. These two Conferences are extremely important to ESPN for market content. ESPN does not want instability in either Conference. I do not anticipate the SEC will go after any ACC school.
Trying to equate the deal the SEC has with ESPN to the one that ACC has is laughable. The SEC and ESPN did everything under the sun to create a network that would make them both money and be the best in the business. They coerced carriers and subscribers in every way they could to sell that setup. The told the ACC we can cover you games for the smallest package out there of the 5 biggest conferences, even though you have more schools and more population numbers and oh you have to toss in your tier 3 rights, which we wont use because your commission wants to backdoor his relative in Raycom. The SEC has been handled with satin gloves and the ACC got a dirty backhand by ESPN.
ESPN does not want anything infringing on its SEC footprint and that is fully half of the ACC potential footprint. Guess who is going to lose that decision.
ESPN recommended Pitt and Syracuse be added to the ACC Conference and was willing to pay for the additions because it brought the ACC Coference into New York and Pennsylvania.
Pitt and Syracuse were touted by ESPN to the ACC to keep them out of the Big Ten/Fox relationship. Is that not obvious at all?
You can mock Pitt but the fact remains that Pennsylvania has a state population of 12.7 million and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV market is ranked #23 in the Nation. I think ESPN took this into consideration before recommending Pitt.
Pitt has marketability, but it's substance is tissue paper and everyone knows it. Pitt does not bring Pennsylvania to the TV screen, Penn State does that. Even in Pittsburgh, Penn State and WVU get programing nods over Pitt. Pitt can't even deliver it's hometown.
Where there is smoke.
Rutgers and Maryland were not invited into the B1G for their football and basketball prowess.
They were invited in for reason that someone like Swafford can't figure out because if he did he would never have let Maryland leave and he would have grabbed Rutgers. Better yet he would have taken UConn over BC. The ACC is run nearly as bad as the Old Big East, don't be so happy morons pick you for their team. It is not a grace.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
To be clear Texas is an AAU member university.
They were admitted to the AAU in 1929.
The B1G,SEC,PAC and ACC Conferences would all want Texas to join.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Read it again.
What I said: " It is highly likely that the LHN will not be renewed."
Your other comments are just comments with no substance.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
There are so many articles detailing how financially bad the Longhorn Network is doing I'll let you read many of them for yourself.
Google: ESPN loses from the Long Horn Network.
The top 3 articles of many.
1.0 Costliest College Network in the Country has lost millions(Dec.26,2015)
2.0 Report: Longhorn Network Bleeding money in first five years. (Dec. 28, 2015)
3.0 In its first five years the Longhorn Network isn't the success that(Dec 28,2015)
There are many more articles on how bad the LHN is doing that I did not list but you might enjoy reading.
I'm assuming you can use Google.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
lol..you're spot on..I get 5 LHN channels that I never watch, yet I pay for them..what would Jesus do?
I do give the Pitt fans credit for beleiving that a program that nobody outside of 3k homers cares about can survive as a big boy.
