Oklahoma's president not happy

[Buckaineer]

After the deregulation vote, Oklahoma's president had this to say:

excerpt:
"The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game," Boren said in the statement. "I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference."

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/108878/oklahoma-president-big-12-still-disadvantaged-even-after-title-game-deregulation

The last sentence is bolded because that has far reaching implications for the future of the BIG 12. If Oklahoma's president is not happy with the status quo, then that may spell big trouble down the road for the conference's future. This will have a direct impact on WVU's future. So far Bowlsby and some in the conference have more or less ignored Boren's pleas for proactive change--if they continue to do so, then obviously Oklahoma feels that inaction "will not be adequate" and that isn't going to be good (see defunct Big East).

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

Here are some figures that can not be ignored

Footprint of
ACC - 97 million people
SEC - 95 million people
Big 10 - 85 million people
Pac 12 - 65 million people
Big 12 - 39 million people

I think the conference is going to have to at least listen to OU president Boren. And Gordon Gee is one of those that is in agreement with Boren. And when it come down to running the conference it is the presidents that have the final say.

 

[atlksnwvu]

those population numbers will mean less and less as more folks cut the cord and stop paying for cable. Current TV contracts are purely based on tv sets in the region and will soon be based on who is actually buying the content. I suspect that at least 1/2 of the folks in the ACC, PAC 12, & B10 areas will not be paying for college football games. Folks in big cities/NFL towns could care less. ESPN has lost almost 10 million subscribers in the last 2 years and there really are no choices. Wait until we start to see more and more alternatives to cable and the numbers will really drop. Now is not the time to expand.

 

[Buckaineer]

Here are some figures that can not be ignored

Footprint of
ACC - 97 million people
SEC - 95 million people
Big 10 - 85 million people
Pac 12 - 65 million people
Big 12 - 39 million people

I think the conference is going to have to at least listen to OU president Boren. And Gordon Gee is one of those that is in agreement with Boren. And when it come down to running the conference it is the presidents that have the final say.

Its pretty clear there is significant backwards thinking with this group of schools-especially in the state of Texas. Most down there still think the conference doesn't need to do anything even though they are being passed by quickly by the other leagues in many ways.

Baylor and Oklahoma State still don't want to play anyone out of conference even though its been clear for a long while that is what is necessary to participate at the top level in terms of championships.

Its going to be critical for the future of the conference that change takes place, but some still want to pretend its not needed. The numbers you've posted above illustrate the tremendous need for change for for some reason people think that is not going to matter?

Its 2016--in eight years the BIG 12 must try to renegotiate a tv deal. The SEC network is growing and have a growing contract through 2036. The Big Ten is about to get a new lucrative deal that is going to guarantee their schools even more than they make now-enough money to open the eyes of everyone. You can bet that in 2023 the Pac 12 is going to be sniffing around the BIG 12 again for teams when they have to renew their tv contracts. If Oklahoma isn't getting satisfaction on any of the things they feel are needed in this conference then you'd have to be naive to think at that time everything is just going to be ok.

 

[Buckaineer]

those population numbers will mean less and less as more folks cut the cord and stop paying for cable. Current TV contracts are purely based on tv sets in the region and will soon be based on who is actually buying the content. I suspect that at least 1/2 of the folks in the ACC, PAC 12, & B10 areas will not be paying for college football games. Folks in big cities/NFL towns could care less. ESPN has lost almost 10 million subscribers in the last 2 years and there really are no choices. Wait until we start to see more and more alternatives to cable and the numbers will really drop. Now is not the time to expand.

People may cut the cord to bundles, but people that are sports fans aren't going to stop watching live sports.
Conference networks aren't going to go away, they are going to be switched to a different distribution platform and people are still going to pay to see the games and conferences they want to.

The BIG 12 can't leave itself disadvantaged. If you are Texas thats probably ok with them since they make more money than anyone. If you are the other 9 schools its not going to be acceptable.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

I wouldn't say that he is "not happy."

But I do think he is entirely appropriate when he tries to make the conference leaders to continue to look forward when it comes to conference solidity and development.

I simply take his comments to mean, "We still need to be forward thinking and here are some key issues."

I happen to think that he is correct.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

Here's the thing Boren is a politician. Why is he running to the media? Perhaps because in private discussions he has learned Texas is still opposed to expansion and he can't convince the others to buck Texas.

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren is strongly voicing his displeasure. He says the situation "is not adequate".

He is letting everyone know-politely but firmly-that change is going to be necessary. It isn't the first time he's let the conference understand OU's feelings here.

He's dealing with a conference that had to be left out of the playoffs to understand that not playing a 13th game when everyone else does would be a disadvantage.

They had to be bashed for years in the media and watch other conference mandate games before finally ordering everyone to play strong OOC competition--and some are still bitching about it and can't understand why.

The conference watched as the Big Ten and SEC and Pac 12 created networks, the ACC is trying to get one--and some in the BIG 12 still can't understand that the conference is only as strong as its weakest (or in this case poorest) member. While everyone else is working together the BIG 12 still has schools trying to one up each other (just like the old eastern schools used to do).

Hopefully Boren's "warning" will be taken to heart by the members.

 

[xWVU2010x]

those population numbers will mean less and less as more folks cut the cord and stop paying for cable. Current TV contracts are purely based on tv sets in the region and will soon be based on who is actually buying the content. I suspect that at least 1/2 of the folks in the ACC, PAC 12, & B10 areas will not be paying for college football games. Folks in big cities/NFL towns could care less. ESPN has lost almost 10 million subscribers in the last 2 years and there really are no choices. Wait until we start to see more and more alternatives to cable and the numbers will really drop. Now is not the time to expand.

We are still a very long way from that point. People 40 and up are for the most part not going to adapt to a streaming version of television, a good chunk of millennials will switch eventually but not all of them atleast for awhile. A larger footprint is important, adding UConn and Cincy are the logical choices IMO to grow the footprint.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

I'm way over 40, and I would happily "adapt" to it. It's not exactly rocket science to stream content and it's not a generational thing like "why do so many kids listen to such crappy music."

Give me the ability to select and pay for only the content I want and get what I want at a better price and I'm in line day 1. I don't think it's an age thing at all when it comes to hating to pay for an entire tier because it's necessary to get the small portion of the crap included that people actually want.

If it wasn't for live sports I'd have no reason for a cable or satellite subscription.

 

[Rootmaster]

Woody...great find on household coverage. The Big 12 continues to fall behind in the potential eyeball race and that is not good. I spent a great deal of my life doing media negotiations and buys...and I understand how the money vs. eyeballs equation works. Boren gets it. Folks seeing the potential in the NY/NE market with Connecticut get it. Folks seeing the Cincinnati/Ohio market potential get it. And Florida for G--'s sake...Tampa and or Orlando. Those folks that understand the enormous media impact there get it. On the other hand, those who want things to stay as they are don't get it. When the time for a new contract rolls around "potential market penetration" will be the main point. Networks can always work with the conference to schedule games where the ratings will have the highest ceilings. Okla and most of the old school in the Big 12 will move on if that bogs down and WVU will be on the same island as Connecticut. Strength is truly in the numbers and WVU needs to be surrounded by good numbers.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

I think the counter-point is that in the rapidly coming world "potential market penetration" will be even less important.

I could claim Fordham has a "potential market penetration" of over 20 million people because it sits in the geographic center of the metro area. If you tried to sell a "Fordham channel" in a free market that would be meaningless because no one would care about "potential" but only about actual.

I'd be willing to wager you could sell MANY more WVU games in Wood County, West Virginia than you could Fordham games in Bronx County, New York even though the Bronx has 15 times the population. Nationally, the disparity would be far greater. (I'd also not be surprised if you could sell significantly more WVU football and b-ball in the NYC metro area than you could Fordham)

People would not look at the number of households in a specific TV market but in the number of people who buy the product wherever in the world they live.

Imagine if you could simply have "on-demand" access to HD streams of whatever game you wanted to watch (and other stuff you actually want to watch) and the combined cost was less than the cost of buying all the packages and tiers full of stuff you never watch but you need to buy now in order to watch small portion of it you actually watch.

No one of any age would be against that. Right now, it's probably more a lack of technology and infrastructure to achieve the ability to put HD streams out to everyone than a question of demand and desire.

 

[Nova Mountaineer]

Population figures can be impressive. I do suggest that ACC, Big 10 and Pac 12 dont' dominate their entire geographic areas - all have significant pro football presence. For example, ACC - NY Gaints and Jets, Boston Patriots; Atlanta - Falcons; and Miami - Dolphins. Same type of thing in the Big 10 and Pac 12.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Here are some figures that can not be ignored

Footprint of
ACC - 97 million people
SEC - 95 million people
Big 10 - 85 million people
Pac 12 - 65 million people
Big 12 - 39 million people

I think the conference is going to have to at least listen to OU president Boren. And Gordon Gee is one of those that is in agreement with Boren. And when it come down to running the conference it is the presidents that have the final say.

As impressive as those numbers are and the obvious implication, I would suggest that they are not all that. 20, 15, even 10 years ago those numbers mattered a great deal, but they are no longer as meaningful as they once were. If they were, the ACC would be in the driver's seat for the ACCN, commanding a payout as large as that of the SEC and bigger than that of the Big Ten. The ACC is unlikely to get a network of any type now and if they do manage to hobble one together, it is going to produce a low payout and include ALL rights, whereas other conferences retained their Tier 3 rights.

Does a conference need a network? I think that is a given and the LHN is a brick wall for the Big-12.

Many here complain and pontificate that there are no good candidates out there because they have been suckered into the line of thinking that the Big-12 has to haul in another blue chip or forget about it and that is not the case. What is being gained here is conference stability and integrity. All any new member has to be is no worse than Kansas.

Then there are those that moan, but "I wanna play Texas and Oklahoma every year." Win your division and you most likely will play both every year assuming one of them is on your division and the other is worth playing.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Eyeballs certainly count. And 12 teams with a conference championship "seems" desirable. But on the other hand ....

....in the two years of the playoff the Big 12 has been excluded one time. So has the Pac 12, which has a championship game.

Selecting four teams from five conferences, even if they all have a championship game, means that one conference will be left out of the playoff each year. How does Boren propose to deal with that?

But Boren is correct .... it's not adequate to sit still in light of the ruling. The B12 certainly can use a TV network and having a presence in the Northeast can be valuable .... especially if you get a UConn tipping off against B12 bball teams.

 

[Buckaineer]

On the the one hand you have a conference that was excluded because it doesn't have a 13th "data point".
On the other, you have a conference excluded from the playoffs because the best team lost two games rather than just one.
That is a huge difference. The BIG 12's champion fell in the final rankings once again just this season and was precariously close to losing out again had Stanford had one less loss.
Its a disadvantage that has to be stopped. You have to put your teams on an even plane with everyone else--where winning gets them in--not some other conferences team losing.

What Boren is proposing is to give BIG 12 teams the same shot as everyone else, rather than starting and finishing behind everyone else, hoping that someone else slips up enough to get them in.

 

[Buckaineer]

As to the market issue, there will always be advertising so the companies producing sports can get paid. That is why markets will always be important. Advertisers sell to markets and the bigger and richer the better.

At 39 million homes--far less than everyone else, there are many less homes to sell to and that makes negotiating for more money than other conferences very difficult-especially when your on the field results against other conferences is not good and you aren't playing for championships anymore.

Having a tv network doesn't mean it will always be on tv--but it certainly would for years to come still and then would be transitioned into whatever new media is out there. The SEC and Big Ten are ensuring success for all members with these networks while the BIG 12 is leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

Texas, OU, WVU, and Kansas are doing pretty well in that regard but others in the league not so much. You don't want to leave members financially struggling if other conferences aren't doing this. Boren sees that sure, Texas is doing well, but its possible for everyone to do well if they work together--and actually its necessary for a succesful future.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

After the deregulation vote, Oklahoma's president had this to say:

excerpt:
"The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game," Boren said in the statement. "I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference."

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/108878/oklahoma-president-big-12-still-disadvantaged-even-after-title-game-deregulation

The last sentence is bolded because that has far reaching implications for the future of the BIG 12. If Oklahoma's president is not happy with the status quo, then that may spell big trouble down the road for the conference's future. This will have a direct impact on WVU's future. So far Bowlsby and some in the conference have more or less ignored Boren's pleas for proactive change--if they continue to do so, then obviously Oklahoma feels that inaction "will not be adequate" and that isn't going to be good (see defunct Big East).

apparently Boren doesn't get it. There is only one school worth adding available, that is byu. Maybe he needs to get on the phone to sway other P5 schools to leave their conferences for the big 12.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

apparently Boren doesn't get it. There is only one school worth adding available, that is byu. Maybe he needs to get on the phone to sway other P5 schools to leave their conferences for the big 12.

BYU is a good candidate but only from some points of view. It has history and more importantly it has national reach through its alumni but for all of the good points about BYU it has negatives that are just as strong. Two large issues are negatives, the no Sunday ANYTHING stance and location, location, location. Neither can be compromised and both are deal breakers in the minds of some.

If BYU were better located and not fixated on the No Sunday Anything stance, they would already be a P5 member. The fact that they are not is very telling.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

I

Eyeballs certainly count. And 12 teams with a conference championship "seems" desirable. But on the other hand ....

....in the two years of the playoff the Big 12 has been excluded one time. So has the Pac 12, which has a championship game.

Selecting four teams from five conferences, even if they all have a championship game, means that one conference will be left out of the playoff each year. How does Boren propose to deal with that?

But Boren is correct .... it's not adequate to sit still in light of the ruling. The B12 certainly can use a TV network and having a presence in the Northeast can be valuable .... especially if you get a UConn tipping off against B12 bball teams.

I was not saying eyeballs don't matter; I was saying that they do not matter as much as they used too and they currently matter more than they will in 5 years - it is the trend.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

After the deregulation vote, Oklahoma's president had this to say:

excerpt:
"The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game," Boren said in the statement. "I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference."

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/108878/oklahoma-president-big-12-still-disadvantaged-even-after-title-game-deregulation

The last sentence is bolded because that has far reaching implications for the future of the BIG 12. If Oklahoma's president is not happy with the status quo, then that may spell big trouble down the road for the conference's future. This will have a direct impact on WVU's future. So far Bowlsby and some in the conference have more or less ignored Boren's pleas for proactive change--if they continue to do so, then obviously Oklahoma feels that inaction "will not be adequate" and that isn't going to be good (see defunct Big East).

So it was not enough to post this in the other expansion thread, you had to start a new one?

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

The Big 12 won't even exist in 10 years, so really it's not important to me. If history tells us anything, Texas is toxic and it chases off schools.

I just hope WVU finds itself in a good spot.

 

[Manster]

Its pretty clear there is significant backwards thinking with this group of schools-especially in the state of Texas. Most down there still think the conference doesn't need to do anything even though they are being passed by quickly by the other leagues in many ways.

Baylor and Oklahoma State still don't want to play anyone out of conference even though its been clear for a long while that is what is necessary to participate at the top level in terms of championships.

Its going to be critical for the future of the conference that change takes place, but some still want to pretend its not needed. The numbers you've posted above illustrate the tremendous need for change for for some reason people think that is not going to matter?

Its 2016--in eight years the BIG 12 must try to renegotiate a tv deal. The SEC network is growing and have a growing contract through 2036. The Big Ten is about to get a new lucrative deal that is going to guarantee their schools even more than they make now-enough money to open the eyes of everyone. You can bet that in 2023 the Pac 12 is going to be sniffing around the BIG 12 again for teams when they have to renew their tv contracts. If Oklahoma isn't getting satisfaction on any of the things they feel are needed in this conference then you'd have to be naive to think at that time everything is just going to be ok.

I'm not convinced the next TV contracts are going to be higher. In fact, there is reason to believe we have hit the ceiling in what networks and ESPN are willing to pay. Look at ESPN, the are losing their ass on the latest $7.3 BILLION deal to televise the playoffs and are now having to give their advertisers a refund of $20m. Attendance is down, frankly, with the rise in concussions and alternate sports such as lacrosse, I fear even participation is down. Some think we have seen the peak and the networks, schools, and coaches with $7m salaries are on the cusp of getting a hard dose of reality. I happen to be leaning towards that camp.

 

[Rootmaster]

A lot of you folks are making the point that I have made in the past. Right now IT IS about potential cable households because whether you like it or not that is the basis of the existing contracts...and will be for the considerable future. Households determine the base rate to advertisers...which is the ONLY reason to have contracts with any football group at all. Market penetration plus a product plus ad rates equals (if everything done right) profit for the networks. Right now the networks have shackled themselves with bad deals...too much money being paid out for inventory and not enough revenue coming in. They are losing boatloads.

I agree that the future is in streaming games and subscriptions. The two problems for that are one, all schools will have to have a brand that a ton of people want to see (not just hard core school fans), and two , the audience that each school attracts will determine the ad revenue it receives. In effect, each school will have its own network. That is a good thing for Oklahoma, Texas, ND etc but not so good for the WVU's of the world.

Bottom line is the cord cutting will continue but the Golden Goose from network payouts will wither and die.

 

[3xWVUenginEER]

Here are some figures that can not be ignored

Footprint of
ACC - 97 million people
SEC - 95 million people
Big 10 - 85 million people
Pac 12 - 65 million people
Big 12 - 39 million people

I think the conference is going to have to at least listen to OU president Boren. And Gordon Gee is one of those that is in agreement with Boren. And when it come down to running the conference it is the presidents that have the final say.

Wow!! So the ACC has the biggest TV footprint. Yet their TV is the worst on the list in terms of $$$$$$/school I guess the footprint don't mean a lot when no one in it cares about the local colleges in it.

I'll bet the American Conference has a big footprint too. Nobody watches though in that footprint either..

Btw David Boren is a former U.S. Senator. I think he's just craving attention.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

After the deregulation vote, Oklahoma's president had this to say:

excerpt:
"The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game," Boren said in the statement. "I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference."

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/108878/oklahoma-president-big-12-still-disadvantaged-even-after-title-game-deregulation

The last sentence is bolded because that has far reaching implications for the future of the BIG 12. If Oklahoma's president is not happy with the status quo, then that may spell big trouble down the road for the conference's future. This will have a direct impact on WVU's future. So far Bowlsby and some in the conference have more or less ignored Boren's pleas for proactive change--if they continue to do so, then obviously Oklahoma feels that inaction "will not be adequate" and that isn't going to be good (see defunct Big East).

Reminds me what Miami A.D. and President kept telling the Big East Commissioner in Private that later came out in Public. Now OU President is saying it over and over in Public and I see it as a Warning Sign, Expand the Big-12 or OU may Expand elsewhere?

In my opinion, CFB Conferences are so disorganized now, we have 14 Programs in the "Big Ten" with 10 Programs in the "Big-12" with Louisville and Notre Dame in the Midwest not the "Atlantic Coasts" and Colorado and Utah in the "Pacific-12"???

It is coming soon, but a "New For Profit League" or Four to Eight Conferences need to be reconfigured very similar to the what the NFL did after the NFL-AFL merged. They put Teams into closer Geographical Locations combined with Past Rivalries like Dallas-Washington-Philadelphia, and moved Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Baltimore to the AFC. In ended up making more sense and more money and save them money from controlling costs as well as provide a level playing field of parity to equally share in increased profits together.

Redesigning and reassigning Programs that are closer together to help sell out each other out, return historical rivals, and making everyone more equally competitive is smart business especially at smarter educational institutions that created this great game anyway.

It is easier to manage Four Conferences with 20 Programs with 10 Teams in each Two Divisions, that schedules 9 games within them, with 3 OOCs and 1 Championship. Or Eight Conferences with 10 Teams, that makes 9 games and 3 OOCs? All sharing TV, Bowl, and Attendance money, with more stipends to student-players that remain on campus all year long, equal rosters, coaches classification salary grades, and other ways to incraes revenues and reduces costs for all.

It will come sooner or later, so why not sooner, before the "Sooner" leave the Big-12 and create more expansion anyway?

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Reminds me what Miami A.D. and President kept telling the Big East Commissioner in Private that later came out in Public. Now OU President is saying it over and over in Public and I see it as a Warning Sign, Expand the Big-12 or OU may Expand elsewhere?

In my opinion, CFB Conferences are so disorganized now, we have 14 Programs in the "Big Ten" with 10 Programs in the "Big-12" with Louisville and Notre Dame in the Midwest not the "Atlantic Coasts" and Colorado and Utah in the "Pacific-12"???

It is coming soon, but a "New For Profit League" or Four to Eight Conferences need to be reconfigured very similar to the what the NFL did after the NFL-AFL merged. They put Teams into closer Geographical Locations combined with Past Rivalries like Dallas-Washington-Philadelphia, and moved Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Baltimore to the AFC. In ended up making more sense and more money and save them money from controlling costs as well as provide a level playing field of parity to equally share in increased profits together.

Redesigning and reassigning Programs that are closer together to help sell out each other out, return historical rivals, and making everyone more equally competitive is smart business especially at smarter educational institutions that created this great game anyway.

It is easier to manage Four Conferences with 20 Programs with 10 Teams in each Two Divisions, that schedules 9 games within them, with 3 OOCs and 1 Championship. Or Eight Conferences with 10 Teams, that makes 9 games and 3 OOCs? All sharing TV, Bowl, and Attendance money, with more stipends to student-players that remain on campus all year long, equal rosters, coaches classification salary grades, and other ways to incraes revenues and reduces costs for all.

It will come sooner or later, so why not sooner, before the "Sooner" leave the Big-12 and create more expansion anyway?

Two major issues with this:

1: Those currently in charge have to create a system where they are likely unemployed. All of the current conferences have bloated, money sucking organizations that would be double or triple or worse redundant in a new system of just 4 conferences. No one, at that level is going to obsolete themselves.

2: Thinking of conferences as only athletic associations is not universal. The Big Ten thinks about its academic side as much if not more. The SEC, you better have some measure of Dixie blood and not duplicate out footprint or we wont recognize you. The ACC was regional until it realized the Big East was about to kill, so it struck first and now the same minds that drove the Big East under are members of the new ACC and they still have those same shallow ideas - such as - we are all better than WVU and they make decisions based on things other than athletics. The Pac-12 just wanted to survive and Texas wrote them a check written on stupid because they had egos the size of their state and drove off a portion of the membership. Now the Big-12 can't think about a new member in only athletic terms, if they did, they would have them already. So trying to make conferences purely athletic in nature is never going to work; they are much more complex than that.

 

[Buckaineer]

Wow!! So the ACC has the biggest TV footprint. Yet their TV is the worst on the list in terms of $$$$$$/school I guess the footprint don't mean a lot when no one in it cares about the local colleges in it.

I'll bet the American Conference has a big footprint too. Nobody watches though in that footprint either..

Btw David Boren is a former U.S. Senator. I think he's just craving attention.

When the ACC gets its next tv contract--its going to be significantly larger. They are the focus of the network which has them under contract for all rights--lots of prime time heavily promoted games and their ratings have increased dramatically since realignment. They are having regular playoff participants. Won one championship and just played for another with a different team. They are now heavily promoting their markets.

As it is, adding markets (and brands)grew their revenues tremendously--Each existing school gained over five million per school after they poached the Big East's Pitt and SU and another million per school for ND's partial membership. That's why they expanded with the schools they did--or at least a major reason (also wanted to help end the Big East obviously).

 

[eer_ful]

One reason I would not go West with expansion is the # of teams that are not in a P5 conference. I would leave as many schools in the West alone so the Pac12 can expand without moving into the mid-west. I know it probably doesn't mean much but at least it would give the PAC12 other options than to raid the BIG12.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

The ACC is the largest because they have several big population state however in several of those states they are not the primary team. GT vs GA in the state of Georgia. Pitt vs PSU in Pennsylvania. FSU/Mia vs UF in the state of Florida. I compiled the list using the 2015 Census data for each state. The only conference that really does not share any state with another conference is the P12.

 

[Buckaineer]

Here's what Barry Tramel thinks about Boren's statements--Tramel writes for OKlahoma's largest newspaper:

excerpt:
David Boren would like to end The Longhorn Network
David Boren has his sights set on something bigger than conference expansion or a Big 12 title game. The OU president is focused on what started this whole “psychologically disadvantaged” Big 12 in the first place.


The Longhorn Network.

http://newsok.com/article/5472488?u...m_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter

 

[Darth_VadEER]

We are still a very long way from that point. People 40 and up are for the most part not going to adapt to a streaming version of television, a good chunk of millennials will switch eventually but not all of them atleast for awhile. A larger footprint is important, adding UConn and Cincy are the logical choices IMO to grow the footprint.

I disagree. My father and father-in-law both cut cable and use Sling TV now (as do I) via roku. It's not difficult at all.

The options are just now becoming available.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I'm way over 40, and I would happily "adapt" to it. It's not exactly rocket science to stream content and it's not a generational thing like "why do so many kids listen to such crappy music."

Give me the ability to select and pay for only the content I want and get what I want at a better price and I'm in line day 1. I don't think it's an age thing at all when it comes to hating to pay for an entire tier because it's necessary to get the small portion of the crap included that people actually want.

If it wasn't for live sports I'd have no reason for a cable or satellite subscription.

Try Sling, $20 per month, ESPN/ESPN2 included.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

="Charleston Mountie, post: 700572, member: 11672"]Two major issues with this:

1: Those currently in charge have to create a system where they are likely unemployed. All of the current conferences have bloated, money sucking organizations that would be double or triple or worse redundant in a new system of just 4 conferences. No one, at that level is going to obsolete themselves.
Excellent point and why better minds have to prevail as well as congressional and others take them on, they do not have the power only what the College Presidents, like OU's Boren, WVU's Gee, Pitt's Gallagher etc! It is not just illogical but out right stupid, Pitt, WVU, PSU are not playing in the same conference. There are more programs and College Presidents that can out vote the ones keeping things as they want it as well as Conference Commissioners! But you are far more correct about their Power, and it is time to take on that kind of indefensible system that is obsolete too.

I suggest they become part of that inclusion to make a better system and have a say in it and the new system is going to make more money anyway with increased interests, attednnance, and TV Ratings that all will share. Once they see that is happening, they will want t be part of it, to keep their interests rather be kicked out of it?

2: Thinking of conferences as only athletic associations is not universal. The Big Ten thinks about its academic side as much if not more. The SEC, you better have some measure of Dixie blood and not duplicate out footprint or we wont recognize you. The ACC was regional until it realized the Big East was about to kill, so it struck first and now the same minds that drove the Big East under are members of the new ACC and they still have those same shallow ideas - such as - we are all better than WVU and they make decisions based on things other than athletics. The Pac-12 just wanted to survive and Texas wrote them a check written on stupid because they had egos the size of their state and drove off a portion of the membership. Now the Big-12 can't think about a new member in only athletic terms, if they did, they would have them already. So trying to make conferences purely athletic in nature is never going to work; they are much more complex than that.

Once again, well thought out and great points made by you. Academic Reforms consistent with Practical Athletic Reform,s that help the Players be educated, taken care of, and given credit for dedicating their bodies and minds to a sport that brings in Billions for all, and millions for the Coaches and Conferences Commissioners and NCAA paid more than College Presidents, when the college presidents are in charge, can begin to make the changes?

I agree, difficult but not impossible obstacles!

 

[Rootmaster]

You guys are strengthening my point about the future being streaming. However it won't be through an old school "network", it will be by individual schools and individual viewer choice. Technology will favor the big names and tomorrow will arrive quick. BTW that is one of reasons I have been frustrated with the current HC and our middle of the pack is okay attitude. WVU has to make its mark in the near future before the communications universe spins in a new direction. Just sayin'.

 

[Buckaineer]

Here is Boren's plan:

excerpt:
Give University of Oklahoma president David Boren credit. He’s tired of the Big 12 Conference being reactive to every situation that comes down the pike.

Boren wants to see his league become proactive -- or, at least, react very much like every other Power 5 conference has the last five years or so, from a position of strength.

In a nearly 25-minute telephone interview with the Tulsa World on Thursday evening, Boren sketched out a plan for the Big 12 to grow out of what he called a “little brother” status and compete again with the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences.

Boren wants the Big 12 to expand to 12 teams, he wants the league to fold Texas’ Longhorn Network and other third-tier properties into a Big 12 Network, and he wants a conference championship game. All at once, in that order, and immediately.

“I think if we try to do it piecemeal, we’re just gonna kind of end up with just a Band-Aid on top,” Boren said. “I think we need a comprehensive plan to strengthen the conference and give it equal status with the other Power 5 conferences.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_cd7816c7-5571-5ebe-9392-3911e9337f83.html

 

[Buckaineer]

And here it is--does Oklahoma intend to stay in the BIG 12?

excerpt:
Asked if OU has a standing invitation to the Big Ten, Boren said there are no “official” invitations, but said there are “always, always informal conversations that we get approached (with) from time to time. … I think there are always opportunities for Oklahoma.”

He also addressed the question of what was a better long-term scenario for OU: staying in the Big 12 or moving to another conference.

“I think if -- if -- we can get the Big 12 on the right track, if this comprehensive plan could be adopted, then I would rather stay in the Big 12,” he said. “I think that would be to our advantage. But it’s something that we really need to have happen. But we just need to wait and see what develops. Certainly, my first choice, if we can get the right things done in the Big 12, the right steps taken, especially these three, then I think we ought to stay in the Big 12. If it just doesn’t happen, then I try to think long-term.”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_cd7816c7-5571-5ebe-9392-3911e9337f83.html
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_cd7816c7-5571-5ebe-9392-3911e9337f83.html

 

[Rootmaster]

Buck...good find. Boren is absolutely correct and is laying his cards down. He gets it as I have said before. Build now or die tomorrow. WVU should be leading the way on all these issues...Oklahoma will land on its feet. WVU is in a much more precarious position.

 

[Buckaineer]

I wouldn't say that he is "not happy."

But I do think he is entirely appropriate when he tries to make the conference leaders to continue to look forward when it comes to conference solidity and development.

I simply take his comments to mean, "We still need to be forward thinking and here are some key issues."

I happen to think that he is correct.

Honestly--do you still think that?

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Here is Boren's plan:

excerpt:
Give University of Oklahoma president David Boren credit. He’s tired of the Big 12 Conference being reactive to every situation that comes down the pike.

Boren wants to see his league become proactive -- or, at least, react very much like every other Power 5 conference has the last five years or so, from a position of strength.

In a nearly 25-minute telephone interview with the Tulsa World on Thursday evening, Boren sketched out a plan for the Big 12 to grow out of what he called a “little brother” status and compete again with the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences.

Boren wants the Big 12 to expand to 12 teams, he wants the league to fold Texas’ Longhorn Network and other third-tier properties into a Big 12 Network, and he wants a conference championship game. All at once, in that order, and immediately.

“I think if we try to do it piecemeal, we’re just gonna kind of end up with just a Band-Aid on top,” Boren said. “I think we need a comprehensive plan to strengthen the conference and give it equal status with the other Power 5 conferences.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_cd7816c7-5571-5ebe-9392-3911e9337f83.html

Another excerpt from that article:

“… Boy, I was very frustrated, for example, that we let Louisville get away and we let other schools get away. We had opportunities at one time several years ago before all these schools gave up their rights, their legal rights and their financial rights, we had a real opportunity, I think back then, to even snag some of the bigger-name programs in the country, and we let the opportunity pass us by — in spite of some of us expressing our frustrations.”

He is talking about Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech to come in with WVU instead of just WVU and TCU. TCU got in when the first three went off market - lucky for them, not so lucky for the Big-12.