League Expansion
- Thread starter Soaring Eagle 74
- Start date
I understand and appreciate the writer's sentiments, but the article does have factual errors. The current Big 12 GOR expires on June 30, 2025. That would be a little over nine years.
"Oklahoma egomaniac David Boren"
I dont think Boren is very liked by some members of the BIG XII. Even if the majority of the time Boren speaks the truth.
I dont think Boren is very liked by some members of the BIG XII. Even if the majority of the time Boren speaks the truth.
This guy is brilliant or has been reading all of my posts
- Boren is an egomaniac blowhard that is causing disstabilization in the league.
- Now that Dodds is gone at TexA$$, Boren has to show his A$$ in public forum. This might be the best quote from the story. Other leagues do their fighting behind closed doors, because they don’t have a 74-year-old president at a legacy university drunk on his own power, without understanding or care for the collective good, and intent on being remembered as an agent of change in athletics — whether the change is ultimately good or bad.
- Another gere is a great point - If the league is “psychologically disadvantaged,” as Boren famously said, it’s because he’s aired the same problems and uncertainties that exist in every league as something unique to the Big 12.
- Outside of myself, this is the first time I seen anyone point out that, The focus is typically on how far the Big 12 is behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenue distribution, which ignores the Big 12’s lead on the Pac-12 and ACC. This lead is not going away anytime soon
- Surprisingly however he did get this wrong, The league would not be able to renegotiate existing TV contracts through expansion, meaning the difference would have to be made up for by some combination of creating a championship football game or a conference TV network. As we all know now, adding 2 teams will give BIG12 prorata share increase. I believe adding 4 teams allows a look in into TV contracts. However and too his point unless the ACC implodes and the BIG12 ends up with a FSU/Clemson pair, TV contracts won't go up Prorata for 14 teams. This diffence however might be made up with BIG12N. My issue with adding teams is split of other revenue sources such as CCG (if one is added) 10 vs 14 teams, CFP split 10 vs 14 teams, and NCAA BB revenue
Long term however I believe there will be 4 P5 conferences, with either ACC or BIG12 surviving. The first between the ACC and BIG12 to create a network will be the winner.
The BIG12 has a HUGE advantage in that:
- They have a ton of content not already owned by ESPN or FOX
- They can convert LHN to BIG12N that would save 10's of millions on startup cost.
- Except in small cases the BIG12's current footprint does not overlay other P5 conferences.
- All content is already owned by ESPN.
- It would cost ESPN millions to start a ACCN
- With all the cord cutting and ESPN slashing 100's of millions from budget they are not going to pay more for something they already own. And this my friend is why the ACCN has not taken off, and is not likely to take off until current TV deal ends.
- Current footprint overlaps the SEC and BIG. and again with cord cutting, I doubt ESPN wants to go back to the same CABLE companies and try to strong arm them into picking up another network, and I doubt the cable companies want to add more cost to their customers. It would be better and more cost effective for ESPN to let ACC die and allow the BIG, SEC, and BIG12 pick up the relevant programs.
I'd be very happy to see a CCG in a 10 team league BEFORE expanding.
I'd be very happy to see the LHN turned into a B12 network BEFORE expanding.
I'd be very happy to see a National Championship won by a a BIG12 team BEFORE expanding.(Although there is some merit to having a weak conference schedule.)
I'd be happy to see the Big12 talk about expanding from a position of strength rather than a position of disadvantage, instability or weakness. Those 3 things above will strengthen the conference. You can always expand and be a LOT more attractive with those things in place.
But I would be happier if the league stayed at 10 teams which is the superior format.
Boren and his minions ought to be convincing his peers rather than the public.
I'd be very happy to see the LHN turned into a B12 network BEFORE expanding.
I'd be very happy to see a National Championship won by a a BIG12 team BEFORE expanding.(Although there is some merit to having a weak conference schedule.)
I'd be happy to see the Big12 talk about expanding from a position of strength rather than a position of disadvantage, instability or weakness. Those 3 things above will strengthen the conference. You can always expand and be a LOT more attractive with those things in place.
But I would be happier if the league stayed at 10 teams which is the superior format.
Boren and his minions ought to be convincing his peers rather than the public.
The writer is a hack that doesn't understand facts.
He viciously attacks Boren--who as the leader of the University of Oklahoma has a duty to look out for his university and the conference that university is in to guarantee future success.
The "psychological disadvantage" Boren spoke of previously is in full effect here--the yellow journalist calls out OU's president for speaking up about needed changes, while at the same time fear mongering that if the conference tries to do anything it could be bad or go wrong--yet ignores that every other conference did the exact same things and have prospered.
If writers like this would shut up and get out of the way then the BIG 12 wouldn't have negativity surrounding it and could get on with their business in a more efficient manner. Its not Boren that is the problem--its hacks like the writer of that hit piece.
He viciously attacks Boren--who as the leader of the University of Oklahoma has a duty to look out for his university and the conference that university is in to guarantee future success.
The "psychological disadvantage" Boren spoke of previously is in full effect here--the yellow journalist calls out OU's president for speaking up about needed changes, while at the same time fear mongering that if the conference tries to do anything it could be bad or go wrong--yet ignores that every other conference did the exact same things and have prospered.
If writers like this would shut up and get out of the way then the BIG 12 wouldn't have negativity surrounding it and could get on with their business in a more efficient manner. Its not Boren that is the problem--its hacks like the writer of that hit piece.
If the BIG 12 has a 10 team CCG now it means the league will need to break into two divisions anyway. If they continue to play 9 conference games it means a guaranteed rematch which no other conference faces.
There isn't any benefit to playing a 10 team CCG vs. a 12 team one. There are advantages to having 12 teams and playing a CCG--because every school won't play all the others and that means more teams with more wins at seasons end--higher rankings and a better shot at playoffs and NY6 bowls. There are also fan, recruiting, viewing and financial benefits you don't get by remaining at 10.
The conference doesn't have a big enough footprint (meaning people in its territory) or enough inventory (meaning games to put on) in order to create a conference network without expanding first. As the commissioner has stated--doing nothing means falling $20 million or so behind the Big Ten and SEC by 12 years from now.
As for a championship? Its going to continue to be very difficult for a BIG 12 team to win a championship when the league is disadvantaged in making the playoffs compared to others and when recruiting is dropping off. 9 more years of dwindling revenues compared to its peers and iffy playoff access will weaken the BIG 12 in recruiting , coaching and of course competitively.
Beyond that in 8 or so years the conference has to negotiate a new tv contract. Those negotiations aren't going to go well if nothing changes and the time for that change is now, not 9 years from now. Its going to take a couple of years to implement anything and then you are 6 years out at best from renegotiations but will need to demonstrate improvements at that time.
While some wish away their future with the imagined "four conferences" or "either the ACC or BIG 12 will survive" fantasies--you should consider what that may mean.
If the BIG 12 goes away, then WVU is in trouble. So are many other schools in the conference--in fact there are only two guaranteed to be OK--Texas and Oklahoma. Everyone else is in danger of being dropped down a rung or two in competition. Even Kansas with its national brand of basketball was nearly left out the last go around.
If the BIG 12 doesn't do anything now, its simply NOT going to be in position to do anything later. Teams are going to leave the conference by the end of the current contracts. Those teams are going to be Oklahoma and Texas. Everyone else is going to be scrambling.
and to count on the ACC adding WVU if that happens is not thinking rationally---the ACC never showed any interest in the Mountaineers before, declining every single time to consider the Mountaineers. As for ACC teams moving to the BIG 12? If the conference doesn't act now to expand, create a CCG and a conference network then there won't be anything about an unstable (at that time) BIG 12 with low revenues and a lack of on field success to attract any ACC school.
The most likely scenario that will happen is that--because revenues drive these issues-BOTH the ACC and BIG 12 will be gone---and again, that doesn't leave WVU in a good situation at all. Both conferences will have major revenue gaps and the schools that can move on will. WVU isn't in that group. Its schools like OU, Texas, FSU and Clemson.
Guess some would get their wish of WVU playing closer competition that isn't as good as what it faces now or could in an expanded BIG 12.
If the BIG 12 goes away, then WVU is in trouble. So are many other schools in the conference--in fact there are only two guaranteed to be OK--Texas and Oklahoma. Everyone else is in danger of being dropped down a rung or two in competition. Even Kansas with its national brand of basketball was nearly left out the last go around.
If the BIG 12 doesn't do anything now, its simply NOT going to be in position to do anything later. Teams are going to leave the conference by the end of the current contracts. Those teams are going to be Oklahoma and Texas. Everyone else is going to be scrambling.
and to count on the ACC adding WVU if that happens is not thinking rationally---the ACC never showed any interest in the Mountaineers before, declining every single time to consider the Mountaineers. As for ACC teams moving to the BIG 12? If the conference doesn't act now to expand, create a CCG and a conference network then there won't be anything about an unstable (at that time) BIG 12 with low revenues and a lack of on field success to attract any ACC school.
The most likely scenario that will happen is that--because revenues drive these issues-BOTH the ACC and BIG 12 will be gone---and again, that doesn't leave WVU in a good situation at all. Both conferences will have major revenue gaps and the schools that can move on will. WVU isn't in that group. Its schools like OU, Texas, FSU and Clemson.
Guess some would get their wish of WVU playing closer competition that isn't as good as what it faces now or could in an expanded BIG 12.
Great post Mountaineer Steve. You make a lot of logical points. At the end of the day, its about money and eyesballs - Households who are willing to pay for a new conference tv network. Agree that the first conference to get a network channel wins.
Great points about the acc network. It doesn't make a lot of financial sense to pay extra for something that espn already owns.
I don't see UVA leaving; why would they leave to make another $25 million and still finish 6-6 in football. UVA has a lot of money already ("endowments"). And if the B1G can't get UVA, then they probably don't get UNC, which is the prize.
So I think the lynch pin for all of this is Florida State. How far are they willing to fall behind their SEC neighbors in revenue - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georga...and to some extent LSU and South Carolina?
I think ultimately, Fox will own the B1G and Pac; ESPN will own the SEC and Big 12.
Great points about the acc network. It doesn't make a lot of financial sense to pay extra for something that espn already owns.
I don't see UVA leaving; why would they leave to make another $25 million and still finish 6-6 in football. UVA has a lot of money already ("endowments"). And if the B1G can't get UVA, then they probably don't get UNC, which is the prize.
So I think the lynch pin for all of this is Florida State. How far are they willing to fall behind their SEC neighbors in revenue - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georga...and to some extent LSU and South Carolina?
I think ultimately, Fox will own the B1G and Pac; ESPN will own the SEC and Big 12.
This guy is brilliant or has been reading all of my posts
- Boren is an egomaniac blowhard that is causing disstabilization in the league.
- Now that Dodds is gone at TexA$$, Boren has to show his A$$ in public forum. This might be the best quote from the story. Other leagues do their fighting behind closed doors, because they don’t have a 74-year-old president at a legacy university drunk on his own power, without understanding or care for the collective good, and intent on being remembered as an agent of change in athletics — whether the change is ultimately good or bad.
- Another gere is a great point - If the league is “psychologically disadvantaged,” as Boren famously said, it’s because he’s aired the same problems and uncertainties that exist in every league as something unique to the Big 12.
- Outside of myself, this is the first time I seen anyone point out that, The focus is typically on how far the Big 12 is behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenue distribution, which ignores the Big 12’s lead on the Pac-12 and ACC. This lead is not going away anytime soon
- Surprisingly however he did get this wrong, The league would not be able to renegotiate existing TV contracts through expansion, meaning the difference would have to be made up for by some combination of creating a championship football game or a conference TV network. As we all know now, adding 2 teams will give BIG12 prorata share increase. I believe adding 4 teams allows a look in into TV contracts. However and too his point unless the ACC implodes and the BIG12 ends up with a FSU/Clemson pair, TV contracts won't go up Prorata for 14 teams. This diffence however might be made up with BIG12N. My issue with adding teams is split of other revenue sources such as CCG (if one is added) 10 vs 14 teams, CFP split 10 vs 14 teams, and NCAA BB revenue
Long term however I believe there will be 4 P5 conferences, with either ACC or BIG12 surviving. The first between the ACC and BIG12 to create a network will be the winner.
The BIG12 has a HUGE advantage in that:
On the other hand the ACC has the following issues
- They have a ton of content not already owned by ESPN or FOX
- They can convert LHN to BIG12N that would save 10's of millions on startup cost.
- Except in small cases the BIG12's current footprint does not overlay other P5 conferences.
- All content is already owned by ESPN.
- It would cost ESPN millions to start a ACCN
- With all the cord cutting and ESPN slashing 100's of millions from budget they are not going to pay more for something they already own. And this my friend is why the ACCN has not taken off, and is not likely to take off until current TV deal ends.
- Current footprint overlaps the SEC and BIG. and again with cord cutting, I doubt ESPN wants to go back to the same CABLE companies and try to strong arm them into picking up another network, and I doubt the cable companies want to add more cost to their customers. It would be better and more cost effective for ESPN to let ACC die and allow the BIG, SEC, and BIG12 pick up the relevant programs.
Your last point is the one that everything hinges upon. The ESPN has what can be only described as a soft deal to provide the ACC with a network by such-and-such date or pay a penalty of 2 million per ACC member for failing to do so. ESPN is never going to do a network for the ACC that has to be peddled to all of the cable companies that have had the BTN and the SECN shoved down their throats. Also, ESPN is not going to pay 2 million per ACC member for content it already has access too. The current broadcast deal that the ACC has is all that it is going to get.
As soon as though schools realize this and that the money gulf between them and the other members of the P5, that ACC GoR is going to be tested.
I do not see going to four power conferences. That would be a max of 64 teams. I see that it has to go larger which five gives you a max of 80. I personally like 4 playoff spots for 5 conferences. It creates stronger competition.
If all things remain the same, I would agree with you, but the future has dollar signs in it. It is only a matter of time before college-level athletes receive some form of meaningful compensation. That coming will either cause the break from the NCAA or be the result of it. There is a great deal of debate on these meshed topics and the debate is almost exclusively on when not if. If this should occur, there are many current P5 members that do not have deep pockets. As much as the landscape has changed in the last 20 years, the betting money is that we have seen nothing to compare in the next 20.
This guy is brilliant or has been reading all of my posts
- Boren is an egomaniac blowhard that is causing disstabilization in the league.
- Now that Dodds is gone at TexA$$, Boren has to show his A$$ in public forum. This might be the best quote from the story. Other leagues do their fighting behind closed doors, because they don’t have a 74-year-old president at a legacy university drunk on his own power, without understanding or care for the collective good, and intent on being remembered as an agent of change in athletics — whether the change is ultimately good or bad.
- Another gere is a great point - If the league is “psychologically disadvantaged,” as Boren famously said, it’s because he’s aired the same problems and uncertainties that exist in every league as something unique to the Big 12.
- Outside of myself, this is the first time I seen anyone point out that, The focus is typically on how far the Big 12 is behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenue distribution, which ignores the Big 12’s lead on the Pac-12 and ACC. This lead is not going away anytime soon
- Surprisingly however he did get this wrong, The league would not be able to renegotiate existing TV contracts through expansion, meaning the difference would have to be made up for by some combination of creating a championship football game or a conference TV network. As we all know now, adding 2 teams will give BIG12 prorata share increase. I believe adding 4 teams allows a look in into TV contracts. However and too his point unless the ACC implodes and the BIG12 ends up with a FSU/Clemson pair, TV contracts won't go up Prorata for 14 teams. This diffence however might be made up with BIG12N. My issue with adding teams is split of other revenue sources such as CCG (if one is added) 10 vs 14 teams, CFP split 10 vs 14 teams, and NCAA BB revenue
Long term however I believe there will be 4 P5 conferences, with either ACC or BIG12 surviving. The first between the ACC and BIG12 to create a network will be the winner.
The BIG12 has a HUGE advantage in that:
On the other hand the ACC has the following issues
- They have a ton of content not already owned by ESPN or FOX
- They can convert LHN to BIG12N that would save 10's of millions on startup cost.
- Except in small cases the BIG12's current footprint does not overlay other P5 conferences.
- All content is already owned by ESPN.
- It would cost ESPN millions to start a ACCN
- With all the cord cutting and ESPN slashing 100's of millions from budget they are not going to pay more for something they already own. And this my friend is why the ACCN has not taken off, and is not likely to take off until current TV deal ends.
- Current footprint overlaps the SEC and BIG. and again with cord cutting, I doubt ESPN wants to go back to the same CABLE companies and try to strong arm them into picking up another network, and I doubt the cable companies want to add more cost to their customers. It would be better and more cost effective for ESPN to let ACC die and allow the BIG, SEC, and BIG12 pick up the relevant programs.
There are a couple of things wrong here. The Big 12 does not own all that much content. They only have the Tier 3 content. That amounts to 10 football games (one for each team) and a handful of basketball games. I'm sure some games that don't get used probably pass down to them, but the rest of the games are actually owned by ESPN and Fox.
ESPN's ownership of the ACC's rights isn't a problem. That has to happen either way to start a network. (This is the same situation for the SEC, minus the one CBS game.) I don't know why you think ESPN has to pay extra for the content they already own. They wouldn't. The revenue that they would split with the ACC would come from subscription fees and ad revenue, same as with the SEC. ESPN doesn't have to pay extra for the content.
Regarding the extra costs of starting up a network, it wouldn't be that much. ESPN would do the same thing they do with the SEC. The SECN is operated out of the ESPN Events studios in Charlotte, where it also operates ESPNU. That's one of the reasons the SECN works out so well for ESPN. They can produce the network from a pre-existing facility, to keep down costs. It would be easy to do the same thing for the ACC.
Says the guy who would add Eastern Idaho Tech if it'd get us to 12, because quality means jack diddly.
