Expansion: Alive and Well

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
True. But the Pac 12 Network is struggling mightily.
They own it completely though. So, for instance they could add Texas, as part of that work out a deal with ESPN to let them play a role in their network. That way, not only would they add the state of Texas, but they'd have ESPN backing their network as well. I don't think the network is as big a problem as it might seem because their true independence makes them valuable in a future deal.
Which means why would anyone leave the Big 12 for less money? I thing the Pac 12 need to add Houston and SMU while they can get them. The AAC doesn't pay much at all.
Why leave the Big 12? Because it's a Texas dominated conference that perpetually flirts with disaster. The only reason the Big 12 is in reasonable financial shape right now is because the powers that be didn't want them gone, so the Big 12 was overcompensated as a way to keep them together. They're still inept, bumbling fools that lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M.

The only problem the Pac 12 has right now is their network. That's it. But the idea that just because a school is making a bit more on their tier 3 rights, everything is going great, is kind of ridiculous. Even considering the fact that the Big 12's paying out about what the Pac-12 is, there's just no doubt at all as to which conference is healthier.

Also, I would add that I see no pressure on the Pac-12 at all to add SMU or Houston. They can, if they want, at any point in time. I doubt the Big 12 is stupid enough to add either, so what's the rush for the Pac-12? They can keep aiming high until the Big 12 gets their act together... and as long as they have Texas we can ponder if that ever happens.

If the Pac-12 is really in some sort of trouble, there's a lot that's not publicly known. I don't buy it though, we constantly hear about the Big 12's problems, and if they don't play things just right with their expansion, they'll only get worse.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
They own it completely though. So, for instance they could add Texas, as part of that work out a deal with ESPN to let them play a role in their network. That way, not only would they add the state of Texas, but they'd have ESPN backing their network as well. I don't think the network is as big a problem as it might seem because their true independence makes them valuable in a future deal.

Why leave the Big 12? Because it's a Texas dominated conference that perpetually flirts with disaster. The only reason the Big 12 is in reasonable financial shape right now is because the powers that be didn't want them gone, so the Big 12 was overcompensated as a way to keep them together. They're still inept, bumbling fools that lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M.

The only problem the Pac 12 has right now is their network. That's it. But the idea that just because a school is making a bit more on their tier 3 rights, everything is going great, is kind of ridiculous. Even considering the fact that the Big 12's paying out about what the Pac-12 is, there's just no doubt at all as to which conference is healthier.

Also, I would add that I see no pressure on the Pac-12 at all to add SMU or Houston. They can, if they want, at any point in time. I doubt the Big 12 is stupid enough to add either, so what's the rush for the Pac-12? They can keep aiming high until the Big 12 gets their act together... and as long as they have Texas we can ponder if that ever happens.

If the Pac-12 is really in some sort of trouble, there's a lot that's not publicly known. I don't buy it though, we constantly hear about the Big 12's problems, and if they don't play things just right with their expansion, they'll only get worse.
I see your point. If the networks don't want the Pac 12 to fold then they may up the price for them as they did for the Big 12. I wonder which way the Pac 12 will play this: Wait for the Big 12 to implode and then pick a couple of team or wait too late to pick a couple. The PAC 12 needs Texas viewers badly because they don't have a lot of serious college fans in California as they do in Texas.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
I see your point. If the networks don't want the Pac 12 to fold then they may up the price for them as they did for the Big 12. I wonder which way the Pac 12 will play this: Wait for the Big 12 to implode and then pick a couple of team or wait too late to pick a couple. The PAC 12 needs Texas viewers badly because they don't have a lot of serious college fans in California as they do in Texas.
The first thing I'd underscore is that you can be sure that both ESPN and Fox want a piece of the Pac-12 Network. This is one of those situations where an entity has greater value than actual earnings. Those two guys want market share, and Pac-12 has it. So, there's some unrealized monetary value there.

I think the Pac-12 is probably aware of this though and they have to know full well that as long as their network is independent, they have an easier path towards adding Texas for example. It keeps their options open. The Big 12 is in a very different position, because the only network deal they could possibly work out would be with ESPN, independence or Fox are both completely out of the picture thanks to the Texas deal. Not only that, but the last round of additions contrast harshly with each other. The Pac-12 added over 8 million in population, the Big 12 added less than 2.

I just don't see the vulnerability there within the Pac-12 that the Big 12 has. I don't know if the Big 12 will implode, if they add the right schools they might avert disaster entirely. But, they are extremely vulnerable that's for sure. They'll never get Clemson, FSU or Notre Dame, they are stuck with leftovers. I'm sure the Pac-12 and Big 10 still are interested in one or two of the Big 12 schools, so the risk of a program leaving will hang over them for the foreseeable future.

I think the Pac-12 is probably ok with the current situation for now and can afford to wait it out a bit longer. If the Big 12 clearly becomes stronger and more entrenched, perhaps they look at doing something about their network and/or expanding into larger markets but we'll see...
 

CHATTBRIT

Hall of Fame
Dec 3, 2003
5,762
504
237
Falling Water, TN
If the Big XII wants to add 2 quality schools, they should first stop the unequal payout system they currently have. Clearly, joining a big 5 conference would elevate most school's profile and would result in increased revenues over what they currently receive.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
The PAC12 may have a few troubles, but the Big 12 is in real trouble. There's a difference. I'd be shocked if a team left the relative security of one for the complete instability of the other. No, the Big 12 will try to get lesser teams that have potential for growth and bring in new markets. And they'll be fortunate not to lose teams they have in the process.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I just wonder how much cable tv rates will go up for ESPN. Someone has to pay for it and it will be the consumer.
ESPN is losing subscribers at a pretty alarming rate over the last year or so. Fox has made a massive play at conference contracts which may extend this sports media bubble for a few more years but the reality is that we are on a bubble that is closer to busting by the day. The subscription television cabal -which is basically a state sanctioned oligopoly - is holding the ever-growing cash for live sports together. The television providers are losing subscribers, ESPN is losing subscribers, sooner or later the money is just gonna dry up.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
I just formed the first 16 team super conference. Now who is the ACC, B1G and SEC gonna poach? I just more than doubled my TV footprint.



Big 12 East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, W Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF and E Carolina.
Big 12 West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Tulsa and Tulane.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
After spending a couple of hours on Big 12 boards and several of the prospects boards I have realized the people who will decide who gets into the Big 12, either two or four, will NOT be the fans, the alumni, the media or the schools themselves. Who then, you ask?

A Consulting Firm will be paid millions by the Big 12 to tell them who they need to add. A slick Power Point and even videos will rule out and narrow the field down to four and then to two. The Big 12 will then vote Yes on adding two or adding all four.

So while we talk about TV sets, Academic standing, Travel time, football and/or basketball reputation & etc., it will be who the Consultant decides who should be added, just like the Consultant told them they needed to expand.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
The only way Texas leaves the Big 12 is if it folds. Period.
This is the crux of Big-12 security and also the root cause of many of their illnesses. There is a weird political dynamic holding Texas in the conference because the partisans of all the other major Texas Big-12 schools threaten to inflict damage to UT-Austin's funding if they fly off to conferences disinterested in taking the other Texas schools. There is simply no other place for Texas to go and I feel like they are resisting adding Houston simply to avoid one more cuff holding them to the Big-12 longterm.

I'd go as far as to say that the SEC would be better off prioritizing Oklahoma over Texas if they were seeking to go westward for expansion. OU would be a hard pull because their boosters and fans place such a high value on the Red River Shootout game but they can be bargained without all the extra baggage attached to Texas. You might be able to get the University of Oklahoma - if they become disenchanted with the direction Texas politics is driving the conference - by simply agreeing to take on Oklahoma State. I don't think that would be such a bad deal for the SEC to be quite honest. We really don't need any more Tier I football programs and Oklahoma State would fill out the middle while giving some additional competency in basketball historically speaking.

I don't think the SEC is really actively pursuing expansion to 16 but it is worthwhile to always weigh the options when disruption is apparently on the horizon in the power conferences.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
After spending a couple of hours on Big 12 boards and several of the prospects boards I have realized the people who will decide who gets into the Big 12, either two or four, will NOT be the fans, the alumni, the media or the schools themselves. Who then, you ask?

A Consulting Firm will be paid millions by the Big 12 to tell them who they need to add. A slick Power Point and even videos will rule out and narrow the field down to four and then to two. The Big 12 will then vote Yes on adding two or adding all four.

So while we talk about TV sets, Academic standing, Travel time, football and/or basketball reputation & etc., it will be who the Consultant decides who should be added, just like the Consultant told them they needed to expand.
Well, I think all of the above mentioned will be among the core criteria given to the consulting firm for canvasing the options. I imagine the consultant firm isn't even actively making all the strategic research so much as they are the back channel plausible deniability for asking schools who may not want to be linked in relocation talks. For example, if they were looking for an ACC member they may want to avoid the Maryland situation where the word gets leaked before the move is all but done. They don't want counter-moves killing their choices before it is announced and pretty dang hard for other interests to kill it.

Alabama and other schools in the coaching hiring process don't need consultants because they have no clue who they want. They need consultants to gage the interest without officially contacting people.
 

MBA_99

1st Team
Jan 11, 2010
913
37
52
A, A
I wasn't aware Coach Bryant did this either. And really the roots of this do go back at least as far as the 70's. The changes in college TV in the 80's made the changes since possible.
I liked this article, and think the points all probably have some truth. As a Tech alumnus (undergrad, with UA grad degree and TP seats) I've always had the impression that Dodd and Tech didn't want to play Bama and Ucheat and the like. Every Tech student (athlete or not) must pass a year of Calculus. And other such curriculum. I know Saban's academic record is great, and Vandy rates well and all, but I also know Ph.D.s galore who hated Calculus. Try recruiting in the SEC with that little feature. I'm sure some all-SEC players took a year of Calc, and that many are smarter than I, but I'll wager most did not.

On a related note, while I'm exceedingly proud of my Tide's 16 championships, I'm also really proud of the Jackets' five with those academic requirements. That's right, there are five, not four as the article said. I have no idea how the stars aligned in 1990 that everyone was worse than Tech and Colorado and Nebraska (who Tech beat 45-21), but it was so and Colorado won one poll because they got five downs to win a key game.
 

BamaFossil

All-American
Jun 3, 2008
3,223
370
107
Williamsburg, VA
I like the recent additions of aTm & MO; but at this point I'd like to see the SEC stand pat. IMO the SEC has no reason to expand and hopefully won't. The SEC can revisit the expansion issue if in the distant future (20-30 years) one of the top two Virginia and North Carolina schools become available. No rush. No need to.

Hopefully the SEC doesn't consider adding Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC doesn't need another big dog. We have plenty, thank you.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
I like the recent additions of aTm & MO; but at this point I'd like to see the SEC stand pat. IMO the SEC has no reason to expand and hopefully won't. The SEC can revisit the expansion issue if in the distant future (20-30 years) one of the top two Virginia and North Carolina schools become available. No rush. No need to.

Hopefully the SEC doesn't consider adding Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC doesn't need another big dog. We have plenty, thank you.
If the ACC teams were on the table, I would disagree with you, but they're not. I'd agree that's virtually no reason to add Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC is already in the two most populous (former in the case of Missouri) Big 12 states, there's nothing else out for them out west. All that's left is the east, and the ACC's grant of rights takes the best potential additions off the table as you alluded to.

Of course the rest isn't a direct response to you, but what's left to me just comes down to the Pac-12, Big 12 and may be Big 10. I think that the Big 10 is done expanding unless they can get ACC programs (which is now decades away from being possible), or Texas. Texas for a conference not already in the state, would be a very big addition. The Big 10 would have an issue because of the network ties, I'm not sure they could get around that, but if they could one possibility I saw mentioned (Kansas and Texas) would be viable. Kansas actually brings in a lot of revenue and their basketball program is top tier, so the Big 10 would add a ton of TV sets (via Texas), big brands, but Kansas football would balance the difficulty adding Texas presents. That's a long shot though, but I think the Big 10 has no business expanding further unless it's a big addition.

So, that comes down to a tug of war in the west between the Pac-12 and Big 12. The Pac-12 already got one school from the Big 12 and almost had what would have amounted to a merger. The Big 12 either positions themselves well enough that the Pac-12 has no leverage over them, or the Big 12 remains vulnerable and the Pac-12 might remain a threat.

The thing is, it's hard to get a read on what the Big 12 is trying to do, other than the obvious which is to stay alive. If they want to go with a network, the obvious additions seem to be Cincinnati and a Florida school. That would add two huge states and make a network that much more attractive. They could go the other way, the we don't want no stinkin' networks direction (which is what they did with tiny West Virginia and TCU) and just add the two best "brands". I guess that would be BYU and may be Memphis (basketball)? That's the thing, of their choices they just don't have that many big brands, but they are trying to keep short term financial incentives up, to keep teams around and in the least Memphis and their Fedex connection could bring in an infusion of cash.

They really lose me when I hear talk about Houston. Houston? Really? Sure, they need a fifth team in the state of Texas because otherwise people in the state might not tune in... That along with suggestions like Uconn confuse me. Ok, so Uconn has a good basketball brand, and as long as you don't look at a map it makes sense. Same goes for Boise State, I can't think of any reason to choose them over BYU. So, they are in a weird spot. Either they commit to a network basically and do what's best for that, or they add some teams just to add some teams (and protect against a Texas departure and little else).
 
Last edited:

mdb-tpet

All-SEC
Sep 2, 2004
1,477
1,189
182
If the ACC teams were on the table, I would disagree with you, but they're not. I'd agree that's virtually no reason to add Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC is already in the two most populous (former in the case of Missouri) Big 12 states, there's nothing else out for them out west. All that's left is the east, and the ACC's grant of rights takes the best potential additions off the table as you alluded to.

Of course the rest isn't a direct response to you, but what's left to me just comes down to the Pac-12, Big 12 and may be Big 10. I think that the Big 10 is done expanding unless they can get ACC programs (which is now decades away from being possible), or Texas. Texas for a conference not already in the state, would be a very big addition. The Big 10 would have an issue because of the network ties, I'm not sure they could get around that, but if they could one possibility I saw mentioned (Kansas and Texas) would be viable. Kansas actually brings in a lot of revenue and their basketball program is top tier, so the Big 10 would add a ton of TV sets (via Texas), big brands, but Kansas football would balance the difficulty adding Texas presents. That's a long shot though, but I think the Big 10 has no business expanding further unless it's a big addition.

So, that comes down to a tug of war in the west between the Pac-12 and Big 12. The Pac-12 already got one school from the Big 12 and almost had what would have amounted to a merger. The Big 12 either positions themselves well enough that the Pac-12 has no leverage over them, or the Big 12 remains vulnerable and the Pac-12 might remain a threat.

The thing is, it's hard to get a read on what the Big 12 is trying to do, other than the obvious which is to stay alive. If they want to go with a network, the obvious additions seem to be Cincinnati and a Florida school. That would add two huge states and make a network that much more attractive. They could go the other way, the we don't want no stinkin' networks direction (which is what they did with tiny West Virginia and TCU) and just add the two best "brands". I guess that would be BYU and may be Memphis (basketball)? That's the thing, of their choices they just don't have that many big brands, but they are trying to keep short term financial incentives up, to keep teams around and in the least Memphis and their Fedex connection could bring in an infusion of cash.

They really lose me when I hear talk about Houston. Houston? Really? Sure, they need a fifth team in the state of Texas because otherwise people in the state might not tune in... That along with suggestions like Uconn confuse me. Ok, so Uconn has a good basketball brand, and as long as you don't look at a map it makes sense. Same goes for Boise State, I can't think of any reason to choose them over BYU. So, they are in a weird spot. Either they commit to a network basically and do what's best for that, or they add some teams just to add some teams (and protect against a Texas departure and little else).
Alternatively, I can see the Big 12 adding one team from Louisiana or Mississippi to try to get more into the SEC recruiting areas. It would be a small increase in viewing area though.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville

Big 12 TV partners push back on expansion


The Big 12’s TV partners are pushing back on the conference’s plans to expand.

ESPN and Fox Sports believe that expansion with schools from outside the power five conferences will water down the Big 12 and make it less valuable, not more, sources said. But the Big 12 is financially motivated to add more teams. A clause in the conference’s media deals stipulate that if the Big 12 expands, it would receive pro rata increases in its rights fees.

The original deals pay $2.6 billion over 13 years, or about $20 million per school annually. Expansion by two schools, theoretically, would force ESPN and Fox combined to pay an additional $40 million per year in rights fees. Expansion by four teams could mean another $80 million per year.

Both networks, according to sources, are digging their heels in against paying those kinds of increases based on expansion with schools outside the power five.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.