What exactly did WVU bring to the Big12?

[VaultHunter]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

 

[MikeRafone]

A long tradition of couch burning. After A&M left with their bonfire, the league's pyromaniacs needed some first class entertainment.

 

[KeatonsCorner]

An above average football program with reasonable history of success and a basketball program that has averaged more than 20 wins a season not only since it joined the B12 but over the last 13 seasons

 

[topdecktiger]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

You and several other people keep missing the point on this issue. West Virginia was not take in in expansion. West Virginia and TCU were replacements, not expansions. It's not just semantics. There is a huge difference.

 

[WVUALLEN]

Ranked 15th all time football wins.. Ranked 20th all time in basketball wins. National fan base, yes. Historical sports value. They don't mind playing on Sundays. Not many G5 schools have much to offer as did WVU. 3-0 in BCS bowl era. Heck Notre Dame was in 4 and was 0-4.

 

[skygusty]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

It isn't as much the who of expansion as the why. Money and politics. All about Texas and Oklahoma. That's about the only reason I see. Everybody else is pretty happy as things are and would be happy for a long time. Not those two. There is nothing really wrong with the BIG12 as it is, except for those two schools wanting more money and making threats if they don't get it that threaten the long term stability of the conference. Looking highly probable that WVU doesn't get a closer school, but they get two more opponents even further away.

 

[BigLickMountee]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

competition
a resume
and a future of fan support, a winning tradition, and a devotion to a conference.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

So now WVU is supposed to be afraid of a little more competition? Right now WVU could likely beat every team on the expansion list except Houston. Four competitive teams from highly populated areas can trigger renegotiation of the current TV contract as well as an extension of the GOR. I don't see the negative. Too many of you act as though the Big 12 conference has an actual expiration date where it no longer exists. It doesn't. The conference paid WVU $30.4 million dollars this year!

WVU does not need a conference network in the traditional sense. WVU's third tier and retained advertising rights paid them over $9 million dollars this year. Do you really think a conference network could pay them that much during the first five years? A traditional conference network would have helped about five or six B12 teams, WVU was not one of them.

 

[Orlaco]

We would beat Houston. It's not like they're Kansas St.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

We would beat Houston. It's not like they're Kansas St.

The Houston team that was 11-1 and beat three ranked teams including a two touchdown thumping of FSU in the Peach bowl last year? Ms. Orlaco, I love your confidence in the Mountaineers!

 

[Orlaco]

Yea... ...how do you feel about my sarcasm ?

 

[steeleer]

What did WVU bring? We brought a lifeline for a conference that was ready to implode and didn't even have enough teams to even fulfill its TV contract.

Besides that? Not much

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Yea... ...how do you feel about my sarcasm ?

I'll probably regret telling you this, but I like intellectual humor. You got me.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

Let's see, Coach Holgorsen! Wait, that's not it...Sky.....no, that's not it. I know, Puskar Stadium, Puskar Center and Mountaineer fans! Yeah, BABY!

 

[Rootmaster]

don't think the fan base of WVU had a lot to do with us getting in a P5. one has to wonder if the history of wvu fans travelling well doesn't have more to do with the fact that most of the old foes (traditional rivalries) were within easy driving distance...Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia Tech etc. than a more rabid fan base than most. if we were such earth movers as a fan base then perhaps we could get a respectable showing at the annual Spring game (like a long list of schools do). would bet that travel tickets will continue to decline with the need for long plane rides etc. wvu was available and was in the midst of a good run when the conference needed replacements to survive. timing was everything. recent history would not have put us in such a good position. the difference between the last 10 or so additions to the P5 conferences isn't as great as a lot of blinder wearing fans profess. Cincy, Houston and the like are in the boat we were lucky enough to get off of.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

don't think the fan base of WVU had a lot to do with us getting in a P5. one has to wonder if the history of wvu fans travelling well doesn't have more to do with the fact that most of the old foes (traditional rivalries) were within easy driving distance...Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia Tech etc. than a more rabid fan base than most. if we were such earth movers as a fan base then perhaps we could get a respectable showing at the annual Spring game (like a long list of schools do). would bet that travel tickets will continue to decline with the need for long plane rides etc. wvu was available and was in the midst of a good run when the conference needed replacements to survive. timing was everything. recent history would not have put us in such a good position. the difference between the last 10 or so additions to the P5 conferences isn't as great as a lot of blinder wearing fans profess. Cincy, Houston and the like are in the boat we were lucky enough to get off of.

I meant fans at home games and was mostly being playful. Few B12 teams can draw 60,000 for a big game. Most of the stadiums do not have that kind of capacity.

The last Spring game that was an actual game at Puskar Stadium drew over 20,000 fans. WVU has the depth now for the formation of teams to play a real game. First team offense against second team defense and second team offense against first team defense if nothing else, or simply choose up sides. Give the fans a show and they will come. It would also help the children's hospital.

 

[topdecktiger]

So now WVU is supposed to be afraid of a little more competition? Right now WVU could likely beat every team on the expansion list except Houston. Four competitive teams from highly populated areas can trigger renegotiation of the current TV contract as well as an extension of the GOR. I don't see the negative. Too many of you act as though the Big 12 conference has an actual expiration date where it no longer exists. It doesn't. The conference paid WVU $30.4 million dollars this year!

WVU does not need a conference network in the traditional sense. WVU's third tier and retained advertising rights paid them over $9 million dollars this year. Do you really think a conference network could pay them that much during the first five years? A traditional conference network would have helped about five or six B12 teams, WVU was not one of them.

The negative, if you want to call it that, is that a contract renegotiation and GOR extension are not as likely as you believe.

If the Big 12 had a conference network, West Virginia would still get to keep most of the $9 million. Out of the $9 million, West Virginia would still to get about 6-7 million, even with the network. The only thing West Virginia would be giving up to a conference network would be the TV rights. West Virginia would still retain things like radio and advertising rights, which makes up the bulk of the $9 million. So, let's hypothetically say a Big 12 network was paying out $5 million a year. That would add to the ~$6 million West Virginia would still get from IMG, so you would end up with ~$11/12 million vs. $9 million, assuming a network would pay that much.

 

[coalcountry52]

You and several other people keep missing the point on this issue. West Virginia was not take in in expansion. West Virginia and TCU were replacements, not expansions. It's not just semantics. There is a huge difference.

This. And both programs had built strong tradition which made us lucrative for a major conference. The Big XII looked for replacements with more than potential TV value and wanted the quality of football to stay strong. Now in expansion, most of you wish to ignore that.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

This. And both programs had built strong tradition which made us lucrative for a major conference. The Big XII looked for replacements with more than potential TV value and wanted the quality of football to stay strong. Now in expansion, most of you wish to ignore that.

Right now that's a strong argument for the inclusion of Houston. 13-1 in 2015 with a trashing of FSU in the Peach Bowl.

 

[genghis_card]

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

Oh come on. WVU is much better than the candidates that are left.

 

[Rootmaster]

Actually the WVU stadium is the mean average for the conference ranking 5th....only Baylor and TCU are in the 40s...but they are in Texas lol.

 

[matics]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

Class!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Actually the WVU stadium is the mean average for the conference ranking 5th....only Baylor and TCU are in the 40s...but they are in Texas lol.

That's true, but only a few hundred separate WVU and two others. That's a virtual tie for third. Oklahoma and Texas are substantially larger. Oklahoma has around 82,000 and Texas just over 100,000, right?

 

[zwick99]

I ask this question because some people in the WVU community seem to think there are no worthy candidates for expansion.
TV Market?
National Championship football program or P5 level football program?
National Championship basketball program?
Recruiting territory?
National fanbase?

What exactly did WVU have that any of the candidates now didn't have?

Who did you have lined up that was a better replacement?

 

[Rootmaster]

The point of the argument about new schools, from the point of view of many, is that WVU was in the same boat not long ago, and not long ago the schedule was not filled with "blue bloods" and heavyweights either. How come, given our mediocre level of success with DH, have we become so elitist? Given membership, Cincinnati for example, will be a tough out. Same could be said for others like Houston, BYU etc. We were tossed a life ring and caught it. And, we sure haven't been tearing things up since then. Of course the criticism comes mostly from those who laughed at Rutgers and Maryland, and the ACC as a whole. Not really funny anymore.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The point of the argument about new schools, from the point of view of many, is that WVU was in the same boat not long ago, and not long ago the schedule was not filled with "blue bloods" and heavyweights either. How come, given our mediocre level of success with DH, have we become so elitist? Given membership, Cincinnati for example, will be a tough out. Same could be said for others like Houston, BYU etc. We were tossed a life ring and caught it. And, we sure haven't been tearing things up since then. Of course the criticism comes mostly from those who laughed at Rutgers and Maryland, and the ACC as a whole. Not really funny anymore.

Let's face it my good man, the only true 'blue bloods' are in the Ivy League. The rest are all cretins, trying to make money by injuring each other! How primitive.

 

[topdecktiger]

How come, given our mediocre level of success with DH, have we become so elitist?

They haven't become elitist. The reason some people don't like the idea of adding Houston or Memphis is that they don't solve the so-called "problems" for the Big 12. The only thing those new schools do is trigger the pro rata clause. That's literally the only reason the Big 12 is thinking of doing this in the first place.

 

[Rootmaster]

Top...just curious...what problems in the Big 12-2=10 do Houston or Memphis not help solve? Just want to stay informed you know.

 

[topdecktiger]

Top...just curious...what problems in the Big 12-2=10 do Houston or Memphis not help solve? Just want to stay informed you know.

Well, keep in mind I don't think the Big 12 has any problems in the first place, so there's that. I'm just talking about the "problems" some fans (and David Boren) seem to think exist.

Houston and Memphis are not increasing the actual value of the TV contract. The pro rata doesn't increase the actual value. It just covers the cost of splitting the pie 2/4 extra ways. What the Big 12 is going to do is low-ball these new teams, so they are only getting ~$5-6 million a year, and the original 10 schools will keep the rest of the pro rata increase. Well, that's not really adding value to the contract. That's really just robbing Peter to pay Paul. If Houston and Memphis actually added value, then this whole pro rata issue wouldn't even come up. They would just add the new schools, and redo the TV contract, and everybody, including the new teams, would get more money.

Houston and Memphis don't make it any more likely for the conference to get a network. Again, if they did, they would have added them already. If you recall after the spring meeting, when the network was a no-go, Bowlsby said the consultants were going to get additional data about expansion. In other words, the schools in question didn't really provide that much of a boost, since they had to go back and reanalyze the data to see exactly how much of a boost they would provide.

Houston and Memphis don't really make it any more likely for Texas and Oklahoma to stay. If Texas and Oklahoma were considering leaving before, adding these schools isn't going to change any of the factors. They aren't bring in extra money. Some of them bring in new markets (although Houston doesn't). That said, what these schools deliver from the markets obviously isn't exactly a pot of gold. Otherwise, they would have been added already.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Well, keep in mind I don't think the Big 12 has any problems in the first place, so there's that. I'm just talking about the "problems" some fans (and David Boren) seem to think exist.

Houston and Memphis are not increasing the actual value of the TV contract. The pro rata doesn't increase the actual value. It just covers the cost of splitting the pie 2/4 extra ways. What the Big 12 is going to do is low-ball these new teams, so they are only getting ~$5-6 million a year, and the original 10 schools will keep the rest of the pro rata increase. Well, that's not really adding value to the contract. That's really just robbing Peter to pay Paul. If Houston and Memphis actually added value, then this whole pro rata issue wouldn't even come up. They would just add the new schools, and redo the TV contract, and everybody, including the new teams, would get more money.

Houston and Memphis don't make it any more likely for the conference to get a network. Again, if they did, they would have added them already. If you recall after the spring meeting, when the network was a no-go, Bowlsby said the consultants were going to get additional data about expansion. In other words, the schools in question didn't really provide that much of a boost, since they had to go back and reanalyze the data to see exactly how much of a boost they would provide.

Houston and Memphis don't really make it any more likely for Texas and Oklahoma to stay. If Texas and Oklahoma were considering leaving before, adding these schools isn't going to change any of the factors. They aren't bring in extra money. Some of them bring in new markets (although Houston doesn't). That said, what these schools deliver from the markets obviously isn't exactly a pot of gold. Otherwise, they would have been added already.

The only schools that will be added are the ones the consultants suggest and ESPN agrees with. Houston brings much more than you seem to realize. They bring UT and their pawns to accept expansion, they bring the fourth largest city to the conference and just maybe take the SE Texas Neilson ratings away from the SEC. They also allow an eastern team or two in because Texas keeps their veto numbers. How can you or anyone else ignore and override the conclusions of the consultants with any credibility? Where are your studies to support your bias? If Houston and Cincy, Memphis or anyone else triggers an extension of the GOR it's a winner.

 

[topdecktiger]

The only schools that will be added are the ones the consultants suggest and ESPN agrees with. Houston brings much more than you seem to realize. They bring UT and their pawns to accept expansion, they bring the fourth largest city to the conference and just maybe take the SE Texas Neilson ratings away from the SEC. They also allow an eastern team or two in because Texas keeps their veto numbers. How can you or anyone else ignore and override the conclusions of the consultants with any credibility? Where are your studies to support your bias? If Houston and Cincy, Memphis or anyone else triggers an extension of the GOR it's a winner.

Your first point is wrong. The pro rata clause is triggered with any schools. ESPN (and Fox) have to pay the pro rata increase, no matter which team it is.

Regarding Houston:
-You are doing some filling in here. Texas isn't really concerned about adding in Houston. If you go here, someone posted an article from Orangebloods, which included some comments from several people in the UT athletic department. Essentially, Texas doesn't really care about expansion, but since the league came up with this idea of redistributing the pro rata money, they will go along with it. Here is one quote from the article:

“If you want to know why we are not strongly against this idea, it’s because of the money,” one source told me via text on Wednesday. “It’s a lot of money to us, so imagine how much money it is for some of the other league members. We’re at least going to listen. We like found money in the parking lot as much as the next guy.”

So basically, it's a short-term cash grab (which is what the article says as well).

-The 4th largest city in the U.S. is already in the Big 12's footprint. This is the best way to sum it up: The Big 12 already gets paid for the Houston market.

-Taking away Neilson ratings from the SEC in Houston really doesn't matter. These contracts are self-contained. It's not a zero-sum game. In other words, if the SEC gets lower ratings in Houston, that doesn't make the Big 12's contract pay any more.

-The eastern thing isn't really a factor. For one, we don't know if they are going to go to 14 or just 12. They might end up taking Houston and BYU. In that case, so much for eastern teams. However, as I said, Texas isn't hell bent on getting Houston for some kind of voting block. That's something you've sort of invented on your own. Everything I have read indicated UT's motivation for this is the pro rata money.

-I'm not overriding the consultants. You are putting words into the consultants' mouths. The consultants never said the TV contract was going to be renegotiated, nor did they say the GOR would be extended. Really, the consultants haven't said much of anything. What we have been able to glean is that none of the schools in question really added any sort of value to make the data convincing. The only thing we have seen that is convincing is the pro rata clause, which can't be attributed to the schools.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Your first point is wrong. The pro rata clause is triggered with any schools. ESPN (and Fox) have to pay the pro rata increase, no matter which team it is.

Regarding Houston:
-You are doing some filling in here. Texas isn't really concerned about adding in Houston. If you go here, someone posted an article from Orangebloods, which included some comments from several people in the UT athletic department. Essentially, Texas doesn't really care about expansion, but since the league came up with this idea of redistributing the pro rata money, they will go along with it. Here is one quote from the article:

“If you want to know why we are not strongly against this idea, it’s because of the money,” one source told me via text on Wednesday. “It’s a lot of money to us, so imagine how much money it is for some of the other league members. We’re at least going to listen. We like found money in the parking lot as much as the next guy.”

So basically, it's a short-term cash grab (which is what the article says as well).

-The 4th largest city in the U.S. is already in the Big 12's footprint. This is the best way to sum it up: The Big 12 already gets paid for the Houston market.

-Taking away Neilson ratings from the SEC in Houston really doesn't matter. These contracts are self-contained. It's not a zero-sum game. In other words, if the SEC gets lower ratings in Houston, that doesn't make the Big 12's contract pay any more.



-The eastern thing isn't really a factor. For one, we don't know if they are going to go to 14 or just 12. They might end up taking Houston and BYU. In that case, so much for eastern teams. However, as I said, Texas isn't hell bent on getting Houston for some kind of voting block. That's something you've sort of invented on your own. Everything I have read indicated UT's motivation for this is the pro rata money.

-I'm not overriding the consultants. You are putting words into the consultants' mouths. The consultants never said the TV contract was going to be renegotiated, nor did they say the GOR would be extended. Really, the consultants haven't said much of anything. What we have been able to glean is that none of the schools in question really added any sort of value to make the data convincing. The only thing we have seen that is convincing is the pro rata clause, which can't be attributed to the schools.

You are still in another world. Forget all the rest of your imaginary happenings and facts, you are dead wrong about UT regarding Houston. The governor and several legislators have stated publicly they want Houston in the Big 12. UT's president tweeted that if Houston wasn't admitted no one would be. Texas Tech's president has come out in favor of Houston. Houston doesn't need any favors, they just went 13 - 1 last year and kicked the crap out of FSU in the Peach Bowl 38 - 24. That's a bigger smackdown than your Clemson Tigers put on FSU.

We are not privy to what the consultants have said, except Commissioner Bob Bowlsby made it clear that their findings changed a lot of minds about expansion alone. Contrary to what you believe there are a handful of non power 5 teams left that are head and shoulders above many so called power 5 teams. They will bring value or they will not be added.

Houston would obviously be in the upper tier of any conference in football. They beat three top 25 teams as they ended up ranked #8 in the final poll for last season. In the Big 12 that was behind only Oklahoma and TCU. In the ACC that was behind only Clemson. And they bring no value? You're still just an ACC troll who can't stand the thought of the Big 12 getting it together like the ACC did.

Try reading this if you cannot bring yourself to admit I'm right. Does the Orlando Sentinal have any credibility with you?

 

[skygusty]

I fully expect them to add 4 teams, and string the payments out for as long as possible before the new teams are getting full shares, and simply add new signatures to the existing GOR. I suspect that the new teams won't get full shares until after the current GOR expires. During the last years of the current GOR, I expect Texas and Oklahoma to start shopping around for better offers after they have milked the pro-rata for all they can get. WVU better still be a better team than Cincy at that point because there is probably only one slot left in the SEC and there are as yet no Ohio teams in the SEC either.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

During the last years of the current GOR, I expect Texas and Oklahoma to start shopping around for better offers after they have milked the pro-rata for all they can get. WVU better still be a better team than Cincy at that point because there is probably only one slot left in the SEC and there are as yet no Ohio teams in the SEC either.

Maybe even sooner than that, UT and OU will bank their extra pro-rata to use as a war-chest/buyout fund to get out of the Big 12 as soon as someone else comes calling with an offer they can't refuse.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Maybe even sooner than that, UT and OU will bank their extra pro-rata to use as a war-chest/buyout fund to get out of the Big 12 as soon as someone else comes calling with an offer they can't refuse.

Yeah, but in the meantime someone should probably trim back the weeds growing on the path that the PAC 12 beat to their doors.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Yeah, but in the meantime someone should probably trim back the weeds growing on the path that the PAC 12 beat to their doors.

When the exodus occurs I think UT will go to the B1G and OU to the SEC. If that causes the BIG 12 break-up, Houston may very well go with OU and Kansas with UT. It makes sense and sets the stage for the 16 team super-conferences everyone seems to kick about.

Then the PAC 12 needs 4 teams; OSU, KSU, Baylor and TCU. The ACC will only need one if you count ND as the 15th team, and we better hope that they pick WVU. Otherwise WVU, ISU, Tex Tech and whoever else is left may think C-USA looks pretty good.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

When the exodus occurs I think UT will go to the B1G and OU to the SEC. If that causes the BIG 12 break-up, Houston may very well go with OU and Kansas with UT. It makes sense and sets the stage for the 16 team super-conferences everyone seems to kick about.

Then the PAC 12 needs 4 teams; OSU, KSU, Baylor and TCU. The ACC will only need one if you count ND as the 15th team, and we better hope that they pick WVU. Otherwise WVU, ISU, Tex Tech and whoever else is left may think C-USA looks pretty good.

Perhaps when the Big 12 dies in a couple of years you, Greg, and Top Deck can deliver the eulogy for poor little left behind again WVU. It's a conspiracy I tell you, a damned conspiracy! Whatever conference WVU goes to and regardless of how many tens of millions they pay out per year, someone will find a way to destroy it!

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Perhaps when the Big 12 dies in a couple of years you, Greg, and Top Deck can deliver the eulogy for poor little left behind again WVU. It's a conspiracy I tell you, a damned conspiracy! Whatever conference WVU goes to and regardless of how many tens of millions they pay out per year, someone will find a way to destroy it!

MikeyDub, no one is calling for the demise of WVU. The reality is that expanding THIS conference will not ensure any kind of stability as long as UT/LHN are exclusive of the conference and Boren at OU is the top dog for the BOD.

I've said it before, in no other conference does a university president become the voice of the conference over the commissioner. Delaney, Swofford and Sankey ARE their respective conferences. Bowlsby is second fiddle to Boren, and that is as big a problem as conference expansion for the BIG 12.

 

[OlegeezEER]

MikeyDub, no one is calling for the demise of WVU. The reality is that expanding THIS conference will not ensure any kind of stability as long as UT/LHN are exclusive of the conference and Boren at OU is the top dog for the BOD.

I've said it before, in no other conference does a university president become the voice of the conference over the commissioner. Delaney, Swofford and Sankey ARE their respective conferences. Bowlsby is second fiddle to Boren, and that is as big a problem as conference expansion for the BIG 12.

Yes but Boren is second fiddle to the University of texas

 

[OlegeezEER]

When the exodus occurs I think UT will go to the B1G and OU to the SEC. If that causes the BIG 12 break-up, Houston may very well go with OU and Kansas with UT. It makes sense and sets the stage for the 16 team super-conferences everyone seems to kick about.

Then the PAC 12 needs 4 teams; OSU, KSU, Baylor and TCU. The ACC will only need one if you count ND as the 15th team, and we better hope that they pick WVU. Otherwise WVU, ISU, Tex Tech and whoever else is left may think C-USA looks pretty good.

Houston isn't going to the Sec or Big 10