Big 12 perception continues to sink

It's easy to say the Big 12 is the weakest conference and when the tv contracts are up for renewable, they will implode. But where are the teams going to go? Is Texas really that desirable? Can you get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State?

I don't see the SEC being particularly interested in either team. With Texas A&M, we already have a massive presence in the state of Texas. Bringing in UT does nothing to add to the subscriber base. It would only bring in more competition in all sports, something that is not needed, and a ton of headaches from the relationships side of the equation. Texas looks down its nose at the SEC anyway, and would never join the league that A&M left them for. That would be a sign of weakness to them, and believe me, that means something to them. As for Oklahoma, it is well documented in this thread. They do not bring a large population base, and only bring in more competition in most sports. Besides, I think OU actually ends up worse off in the end. They will never come into SEC recruiting territory and win battles on a regular basis. They have a history in the state of Texas. They have no history in Florida/Georgia/Louisiana. They are not coming into those states and winning battles against Alabama/Auburn/LSU/Georgia/Florida/FSU/Miami. It's just not happening. So they must continue to recruit the state of Texas. Theoretically, they could maintain the rivalry with Texas despite being in different conferences. They did for most of their history. Also, they would renew a yearly game with A&M, which helps maintain their state of Texas presence. But it's no guarantee. They are weakening as we speak. Bob Stoops is on the backend of his tenure there. I don't think it's guaranteed that we have the 2000s Oklahoma and not the 1990s Oklahoma if they were to join. I think Oklahoma would jump to the SEC without even looking. But I really don't see why we would want them, all other things considered.

Ultimately, if the SEC adds anyone, it will be from the states of North Carolina and Virginia, and it will preferably be those schools (not Virginia Tech/NC State). I just don't see the ACC falling apart, and I don't see those schools being interested in leaving to join the SEC. So, we stand pat with 14 teams and continue to print money.

The Big Ten is the only other league that is sitting in a place of contentment. I've seen it mentioned that Texas or Oklahoma could join the Big Ten, but does anyone honestly believe Texas wants to be playing games in Ohio or Michigan in November? Or better yet and also more likely, Minnesota and Wisconsin? Really? And Oklahoma. There is no way they join the Big Ten without Texas (I've seen it mentioned that the Big Ten would add Kansas and Oklahoma). No way the Sooners give up their ties to the Southwest and play games in Minnesota in November. The Nebraska rivalry renewal would be awesome but it does nothing for recruiting and they've already abandoned the Huskers before. And the Big Ten does not add Kansas unless they also get Oklahoma or Texas. So Kansas, while likely the 3rd most attractive current Big 12 team, really has no options without being partners with either the Sooners or Longhorns in a move.

So, the Big Ten is much like the SEC in this regard. I think ultimately Notre Dame is still their most attractive target, even if they have long since been the least likely to join. Short of Notre Dame, I think the Big Ten is also most attracted to an addition of North Carolina and Virginia.

The ACC, I think, would take a semi-membership of Texas in a heartbeat. Like Notre Dame, Texas would play 5 ACC opponents every year in football, have their own football tv contract, and have all other sports as full ACC members. I think this is somewhat likely. I've even seen it posited that the ACC would add Oklahoma and Kansas as full members. Having 18 teams in all sports but football, with Notre Dame/Texas being only partial members there. That would certainly shore up the ACC as a conference on the same level as the SEC/Big Ten.

The PAC 12 is in a tough spot. I think they would still love to have Texas, despite how badly the Longhorns burned those relationships back in 2010. Yes, they would take Texas/OU in a heartbeat. But OU cannot get in without Texas. This was proven in 2012 (I think) when they attempted to join along with Oklahoma State. The PAC 12 asked about Texas, OU laughed nervously and said well it's just us, and the PAC 12 promptly hung up the phone. I think the PAC 12 would take Oklahoma State and Texas Tech along with OU/Texas, as long as Texas is included. But only in a full time basis, on the same terms as all other teams (which means the LHN must be left behind). This will not happen until the LHN is disbanded at the end of its contract. Seems like it was a 15 year deal originally. These are the only options for PAC 12 expansion. BYU is a non-starter. With the latest round of possible Big 12 expansion falling through, BYU is a non-starter with every power 5 league and will only get back into a conference by groveling to the MWC.

That's my longwinded take. Texas has options. Oklahoma has options, but not as many as they think. Kansas has a couple of options, but they must include some combination of Texas/OU. All the rest of the Big 12 have no options, except hoping Texas/OU somehow decides to stick around when this round of tv contracts expire. West Virginia might have an out depending on how things break. But it would be a long, long shot.

TideEngineer08 said:

It's easy to say the Big 12 is the weakest conference and when the tv contracts are up for renewable, they will implode. But where are the teams going to go? Is Texas really that desirable? Can you get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State?
.

Click to expand...

Texas brings a lot of money to the equation, but unless OU drops Okie Lite then OU isn't desirable. I think if OU continues with that stance then at best they will be with the ACC

TideEngineer08 said:

Ultimately, if the SEC adds anyone, it will be from the states of North Carolina and Virginia, and it will preferably be those schools (not Virginia Tech/NC State). I just don't see the ACC falling apart, and I don't see those schools being interested in leaving to join the SEC. So, we stand pat with 14 teams and continue to print money.

.

Click to expand...

Out of the Big 12 the only team that the SEC would be interested in with no strings attached would be Kansas. Kansas's basketball revenue would be huge.

Redwood Forrest said:

How does this stack up with the SEC? I saw the numbers a month ago ...... but I am seventy year old.

Click to expand...

The total payout for the SEC was something like 32 million per team. Now, obviously Notre Dame isn't only getting money from the network deal, but that should give you some idea.

81usaf92 said:

Out of the Big 12 the only team that the SEC would be interested in with no strings attached would be Kansas. Kansas's basketball revenue would be huge.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't believe that to be the case. It is a bit curious, but there was never any real momentum for Kansas to go anywhere from what I recall. That is a bit odd, considering they are 27th among public schools in athletic department revenue. However, that compares to Texas A&M at #1 (it fluctuates based on fundraising efforts and such), Texas at #2, Oklahoma at #8, and even Louisville at #22. So, Kansas is a legit major conference athletic department, but they lack what it takes to really become attractive. They are right in the middle of the country, but that insures a decent amount of travel time, they are not a football power, and that's been an important factor, and perhaps most importantly, there are less than 3 million people in Kansas. There's a reason Missouri was a much more attractive candidate for the SEC, the state has twice as many people in it. So, when they looked at Kansas, and looked at Missouri, both of whom make about the same, I guess it was an easy choice.

Having said that, it is a bit puzzling no one seems to have taken a hard look at Kansas. The Pac-12 expansion talked never seemed to include them, the ACC added Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse, but I heard no serious talk of adding Kansas. Is that because Kansas is loyal? That's hard to believe, considering how Missouri, Colorado and Nebraska all were so eager to leave. The truth is that I don't think Kansas has what conferences are looking for, at least not to the extent that they're going to be the centerpiece of an expansion. For the record, at this point I think the only real attractive targets for the SEC are in the ACC.

We keep seeing obituaries for the Big XII. But they keep plugging along. I think they will survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As for ND to the B1G; I think they have realized they are no longer competitive with tOSU, UM, MSU, PSU and Wisconsin. They would be much more competitive in the ACC.

KrAzY3 said:

The total payout for the SEC was something like 32 million per team. Now, obviously Notre Dame isn't only getting money from the network deal, but that should give you some idea.


Actually, I don't believe that to be the case. It is a bit curious, but there was never any real momentum for Kansas to go anywhere from what I recall. That is a bit odd, considering they are 27th among public schools in athletic department revenue. However, that compares to Texas A&M at #1 (it fluctuates based on fundraising efforts and such), Texas at #2, Oklahoma at #8, and even Louisville at #22. So, Kansas is a legit major conference athletic department, but they lack what it takes to really become attractive. They are right in the middle of the country, but that insures a decent amount of travel time, they are not a football power, and that's been an important factor, and perhaps most importantly, there are less than 3 million people in Kansas. There's a reason Missouri was a much more attractive candidate for the SEC, the state has twice as many people in it. So, when they looked at Kansas, and looked at Missouri, both of whom make about the same, I guess it was an easy choice.

Having said that, it is a bit puzzling no one seems to have taken a hard look at Kansas. The Pac-12 expansion talked never seemed to include them, the ACC added Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse, but I heard no serious talk of adding Kansas. Is that because Kansas is loyal? That's hard to believe, considering how Missouri, Colorado and Nebraska all were so eager to leave. The truth is that I don't think Kansas has what conferences are looking for, at least not to the extent that they're going to be the centerpiece of an expansion. For the record, at this point I think the only real attractive targets for the SEC are in the ACC.

Click to expand...

Kansas is loyal to the Big 12 the same reason Kentucky is loyal to the SEC. It's an easy path to the Final 4 with a big cash flow from conference affiliation added in from sports they aren't good at. Kentucky is going to be the biggest obstacle for Kansas getting in if it ever gets serious


Nebraska's excuse was that they wanted an easier route to a championship.

Colorado was tired of being screwed by what Texas wanted to do

Missouri was the most vocal about the LHN, and were on their way to the Big 10 had Nebraska not cut them off a year before their contract was up

aTm tried to work with Texas, and was actually considering to leave with Nebraska before trying to keep the rivalry going, but they had enough and say "good bye"

Personally I think Texas, OU, Okie Lite, and Kansas moves to the ACC, and the SEC gets someone like Virginia and NC State in return. I think Texas joining a conference is going to make members mad enough to say to heck with this.

81usaf92 said:

Texas brings a lot of money to the equation, but unless OU drops Okie Lite then OU isn't desirable. I think if OU continues with that stance then at best they will be with the ACC



Out of the Big 12 the only team that the SEC would be interested in with no strings attached would be Kansas. Kansas's basketball revenue would be huge.

Click to expand...

The money is a big deal with Texas. But having already gained a strong foothold in the state with A&M, would it really be worth the headache to add Texas? Also, I'm not certain A&M would attempt to block Texas's entrance into the league but I am certain that Texas would never "stoop" so low as to join the SEC because of "academic superiority" as well as being perceived as following A&M.

Kansas is an interesting case. I would be cool to see their rivalry with Missouri renewed and might help make Missouri's presence in the SEC be more palatable. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they wouldn't seem so out of place anymore, with Kansas along for the ride.

Edited to add: Also, we could finally get that Kansas vs. R-Kansas rivalry going. *Les Miles reference.

TideEngineer08 said:

The money is a big deal with Texas. But having already gained a strong foothold in the state with A&M, would it really be worth the headache to add Texas? Also, I'm not certain A&M would attempt to block Texas's entrance into the league but I am certain that Texas would never "stoop" so low as to join the SEC because of "academic superiority" as well as being perceived as following A&M.
.

Click to expand...

texas wont be a SEC team especially with Bama, aTm, and UF. There is no way they would ever want Texas to get involved in the SEC's financials.

Texas to Pac 12- possible, but USC, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon might need convincing

Texas to the Big 10- No. Michigan, tOSU, Nebraska, and PSU would kill that madness before it started.

Texas to the ACC- I think this is more likely because FSU is the only real team there, and I think they would be willing to deal with Texas financials. Duke and UNC might have a problem but I don't think they would ultimately care enough to block or leave with their easy path in basketball. I think if Kansas becomes a part of the equation then they would be more upset.

bottom line- texas is that friend that asks to open your fridge to get a beer, but abuses your kindness and takes everything in the fridge when you aren't looking

4Q Basket Case said:

I think UTw overplayed its hand a few years ago, and might not be as desirable an addition as it once would have been.

They continued to angle for special monetary treatment from any conference where there was mutual interest. Which went over about as you would expect in any one worth being in.

Having gotten the unaccustomed middle finger, they launched the Longhorn Network, trumpeting that their omnipresent superiority in everything would make them so rich that everyone else would be begging them to reconsider.

Fast forward a few years. The LHN has severely underperformed, as have the athletic teams. Now they're stuck in by far the weakest P5 conference, and casting about. Even non-SEC fans snicker about the predominant style of play, and the commissioner is a buffoon.

Nobody wants their combination of arrogance, entitlement, and lagging performance.

They don't bring what they once did, and they steadfastly refuse to admit it, even to themselves.

If only Colt hadn't got hurt....

Click to expand...

When the Longhorn Network contract comes up for renewal.....it won't be.

They better be making alternate plans before then or be nationally embarrassed when it comes to an end. :cool2:

To add to this, NO conference is going to give Texas more than a fair share. The other members would never agree to that.

Crimson1967 said:

We keep seeing obituaries for the Big XII. But they keep plugging along. I think they will survive.

Click to expand...

There's a reasonable chance that they do, but keep in mind that it was basically an outside entity that stepped in and saved them last time. They didn't do it on their own. Also, there is simmering resentment over Texas and the LNH, Oklahoma is openly pondering their future, Baylor has been sanctioned by the conference, and the expansion plans were abandoned. They're not in good shape right now.

GrayTide said:

As for ND to the B1G; I think they have realized they are no longer competitive with tOSU, UM, MSU, PSU and Wisconsin. They would be much more competitive in the ACC.

Click to expand...

This is kind of the wild card in the whole discussion. We can come up with a lot of decent marriages, Virginia Tech in the SEC, Texas in the Pac-12, Notre Dame in the Big 10, etc... but that's without factoring in the impact on the football programs themselves. That had to be a factor in the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland (who are a combined 12-38 in Big 10 play). Those teams were ok with taking the beat-downs, both parties gained financially, and the football powers got cupcakes on their schedule. That's not how it worked with Nebraska though.

81usaf92 said:

Kansas is loyal to the Big 12 the same reason Kentucky is loyal to the SEC. It's an easy path to the Final 4 with a big cash flow from conference affiliation added in from sports they aren't good at.

Click to expand...

The thing is, I just didn't get the feeling that it was merely loyalty keeping them there. The Big 12 was on the brink of collapse, they were going to invoke a clause if I recall correctly to literally liquidate the conference. Not only that, but due to the unequal profit sharing, Texas and Oklahoma were getting a bigger piece of the pie. So, while I'd agree that generally speaking Kansas has probably been happy with the Big 12, I have to believe if they saw a good opportunity they'd take it.

81usaf92 said:

Personally I think Texas, OU, Okie Lite, and Kansas moves to the ACC, and the SEC gets someone like Virginia and NC State in return. I think Texas joining a conference is going to make members mad enough to say to heck with this.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind that scenario at all really. It is possible, since ESPN has the network deal with the ACC and they could just roll the LNH into that. Either way though, I certainly see the state of Virginia and North Carolina as the best possible expansion targets (unless somehow Notre Dame magically becomes in play) for the SEC.

Redwood Forrest said:

Big 12 teams play OOC teams, like these, year after year: UTSA, Akron, Ohio, C Michigan, Charlotte, UTEP, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, Houston and E Carolina.

Those in bold were considered "not good enough" for Big 12 membership this past year. Funny thing that. If they had taken two of them it would have "diluted" the conference but playing them every year does not dilute the conference. Hmmmmm.

The SEC plays a whole bunch of cupcakes every year, like Mercer, Western Carolina and Missouri State. But mention bringing Cincinnati and East Carolina into the SEC and they hang you from a lamppost. :conf2:

Click to expand...

The Big 12 needs to expand (by the way, Alabama is actually an affiliate member), but I think the problem is they couldn't make up their minds on what exactly they wanted and the kind of let Fox and ESPN make up their mind for them (they didn't want to have to payout more since the Big 12 is already overcompensated to keep them together). They could have added a legit football brand in BYU and a basketball brand in Memphis, they could have expanded into Ohio and Florida, which would have been good for a future network, etc... but they didn't and that's part of their dysfunction. They really dragged their feet and dug a hole for themselves. When they made the weird addition of West Virginia, they could have looked around and weighed other options or expanded further, with Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville still available, but they didn't and now they're facing limited options. At one point there was even talk of FSU and Clemson joining, but I'm not sure which side got cold feet (we know FSU isn't always big on tough competition).

To circle back though, those cupcakes are OOC and there's a big difference there. Alabama isn't actually profit sharing with those teams, they are paying them a set amount. The SEC profit shares though, so each addition has to pull their own weight. While Ohio and North Carolina are great states to expand into, the problem is the lower profile of those respective programs. For instance, Alabama has one of the best college football markets in the country. The Birmingham market tunes in at a much higher rate than other major markets, and this creates a lot of value. The problem is, they won't do that for UAB. And that's the issue with some of these lesser schools. If you can't demonstrate an adequate level of interest, their value in negotiating deals goes down significantly.

81usaf92 said:

Personally I think Texas, OU, Okie Lite, and Kansas moves to the ACC, and the SEC gets someone like Virginia and NC State in return. I think Texas joining a conference is going to make members mad enough to say to heck with this.

Click to expand...

Ironically, I saw commissioner Sankey last night eating dinner alone.

Two things, the ACC has solidified it conference both competitively and financially. Therefore, it's really not worth the effort considering that charter schools like Virginia and north Carolina would consider leaving to come the SEC. Next, there is no way if I am the SEC that I would let all 4 of those teams go to the SEC that is too much brand cache in one conference.

The SEC had to be mindful that the coaching quality has dipped considerably the last few years and it has affected the competitive quality of the league. After this next round of alignment, there will likely be a period of stability where a conference's growth will depend on its overall competitiveness and brand name marketability. Once you have tapped the major markets for subscribers then you have to give those subscribers a reason to watch. That's where the brand names come in. We are a few years from Saban retiring. Looking at that event from the conference perspective you might consider adding more brand teams despite some front end increased competition.

The subscriber model is dying model. Thus, we need identify teams that have the most nationwide appeal and teams that draw viewership on a pay per view basis.

Even under those circumstances, I would not accept texas. However under this scenario Kansas has some appeal despite lack of population primarily for basketball appeal. Texas is most valuable for both sides to the SEC. I think a Texas merger with any other conference is of incrementally diminishing value over time due to playing teams in different time zones and culturally different regions.

I would consider merger marriage of Kansas and TCU giving both programs a vesting share of membership based several factors such viewership, attendance, etc. Overtime, I think TCU could pull some market appeal from texas because they would be playing brand name in region teams where the relationship is mutually accretive over time but necessarily so with Texas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

JDCrimson said:

The subscriber model is dying model. Thus, we need identify teams that have the most nationwide appeal and teams that draw viewership on a pay per view basis.

Click to expand...

There's a bit of oversimplification in saying that. Yes, ESPN subscriber numbers are down, but guess what, the SEC Network numbers are not. Sporting events are one of the few things that defy people moving entirely to on-demand programming. People still want to watch the event live. Now, there will be some adjusting, but the networks are here to stay. The most endangered types of programming are the cable networks that just constantly air the same two or three programs, those are easily made obsolete. So, yes there might be less revenue, but subscriptions are not going away, heck Netflix is a subscription. Along those lines, the ACC, Big 10, SEC, and Pac-12 all have the tier three rights tied up in networks. There is no pay per view anymore for them.

JDCrimson said:

Once you have tapped the major markets for subscribers then you have to give those subscribers a reason to watch. That's where the brand names come in. We are a few years from Saban retiring. Looking at that event from the conference perspective you might consider adding more brand teams despite some front end increased competition.

Click to expand...

We're not completely on a different page here. The overall quality of the product matters a lot, and that's one reason I've been against Virginia Tech as an addition. A: Their athletic department stinks, even though they are a football power they're still 40th in revenue, well behind Virginia. B: Their success is all tied up in on-field success in football. Once they start losing in the SEC their brand appeal will go with it. That's one key about brand, the question you have to ask if what brands can withstand losing. Not all can do that.

JDCrimson said:

I would consider merger marriage of Kansas and TCU giving both programs a vesting share of membership based several factors such viewership, attendance, etc. Overtime, I think TCU could pull some market appeal from texas because they would be playing brand name in region teams where the relationship is mutually accretive over time but necessarily so with Texas.

Click to expand...

While I can follow some of your logic, I just do not see the appeal in that move. I'll reiterate that the attractive options remain in the east. The SEC is already in Texas, I just don't see the appeal in doubling down anymore than I see the appeal in adding FSU. Kansas? I can see the merits but I can also break things down a bit, even according to some things you set forth.

Now, we have to remember that even outside of the network, football and men's basketball are not the only sources of revenue for a conference. They are just the big earners. For instance, the ESPN deal includes things like women's basketball. But, the overall quality of the brand, and the athletic department really does matter when you consider the SEC Network, which I reiterate is not going away. The one way to insure that it competes in a changing landscape is to have the most interesting and engaging content possible. That's not just good football games, but good basketball games, baseball games, etc... The quality of the overall product is of importance, because it's actually carving out a niche that really didn't exist before. It gives fans of schools and conferences access to more content than ever before, but as you said we need to give them a reason to watch.

So, what are the factors? Population, brand popularity, overall athletic prowess, etc... and this is where I think you can start to get a picture. Now, my dream addition remains North Carolina and Notre Dame, but Notre Dame is probably the biggest long-shot, so to illustrate my viewpoint I'll include a runner-up in Virginia. Virginia is a harder case to make because clearly they are not at the level of Kansas' brand, but there are other factors to be taken into consideration.

This chart is actually quite interesting because it has several teams that have come up in expansions all lined up nice and neat.
27: Maryland 1,606,770 43
28: Kansas 557,980 21
29: Virginia 1,937,53 44
30: Missouri 990,180 19
31: West Virginia 342,190 20
32: North Carolina 1,920,340 10

Now, they're ranked by their athletic department revenue. It isn't coincidence that three of those teams have been snatched up, and that we're discussing potential destinations for the other three. The next number is cable subscribers in those states. Now, obviously in present day this means more money. However, in the long run it also means just a general pool of resources to tap into. Looking at those numbers you can see why Kansas was left out in the cold, and you can also tell that the Big 12 has absolutely no plans for a network when they added West Virginia. For instance, this makes Virginia worth millions more per year to a conference network than Kansas. Now, you could argue that despite similar earnings Kansas is more popular. That's true, and the final number is their ranks in terms of merch sales. This the best gauges of the popularity of just the brand itself. By now, I think you can tell that North Carolina really is starting to stand out.

Why do I still favor Virginia though? They're practically tied on one, well ahead in another, but behind in a third category. But there's more to it than that, and the question is who makes the conference better? I can see all of those programs being in a major conference. I'm not arguing any of those don't belong, I'm just trying to figure out who is the best for the SEC. Virginia starts to pull away if you go back to something of real importance to the SEC, and that's support of football. Virginia sucks at football, and that's just fine as far as I'm concerned. Their attendance, while unspectacular is 39,000. Kansas is a kind of humiliating 25,000. The Big 12 averages around 8,000 more fans per game than the ACC as well, so it stands to reason a decent chunk of those going to Kansas games are there to see the other team. This is one reason Kansas has been overlooked, their fans just do not care about college football. This means they can't be counted on to watch other teams play either, and that hurts the revenue potential. Then there's the big kicker, Virginia produces way more D1 recruits than Kansas. And that gets into the fact that the state just has more resources. Virginia is a potential gold mine for the SEC. Yes, Kansas is a great basketball brand, no doubt in that regard, but the question is how else could they help the SEC? The answer is that there really isn't much else they could do. Having said all that, I'm not arguing that Kansas and Virginia Tech would hurt the SEC, just that they are not the best possible additions.

Crimson1967 said:

We keep seeing obituaries for the Big XII. But they keep plugging along. I think they will survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The problem is that they're like a business that has sold virtually all of its assets to maintain an existence and has virtually none left. Let's be honest: other than Texas and OU, what is in the Big 12 nowadays that anyone finds desirable for anything? OK, MAYBE Kansas in basketball. But their cache is gone. They've watched a prestigious football name flee (Nebraska), a better than average team historically leave (Colorado), a school that represents a lot of the old traditions (ATM), and, well, whatever Missouri is.

Outside of those two, the Big 12 has nothing left to interest anyone. K-State is a nice story but let's be honest: the only K-State games anyone has seen in recent years are bowl games during the holidays and some of our fans watched them play Auburn in 2014 on TV. KSU has played maybe two big games in their existence, the 1998 Nebraska game and the 2003 Big 12 title game.

Kansas? Had that one great year a decade ago.

Iowa St? I love 'em because I know several grads but their biggest school win in history was the one that demolished the BCS. They won two Big 8 titles, the last in 1912.....over a century ago.

Okie St? Best known for their eccentric coaches like Miles, Gundy, and even Eddie Sutton but.....no.....

WVA? Most folks don't even know they play in the Texas Witches Conference

TCU? Same

Baylor? A singular word mean corruption and intrigue and murder and rape

The Big 12 is WCW. They've sold off everything of value save for a legendary dinosaur (OU as Ric Flair) and an overrated team historically (Sting). If either bolts, we'll be reading about them in books that mention the Metro Conference and SWC.

It all still boils down to the LHN. Tx. and Okie took the money and made all the other teams in the conference 2nd rate.

Redwood Forrest said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/05/19/acc-revenues-drop-30-million/101881486/

The ACC ended up at low end of the Power 5 in per-school distributions for fiscal 2016.

•The SEC's ranged from $41.9 million to $39.1 million.
•The Big Ten gave about $34.8 million to each of its 11 longest-standing members, and smaller amounts to Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.
•The Big 12's ranged from $28.9 million to $28 million.
•The Pac-12's were about $28.7 million per school.
•The ACC's ranged from 27.9 million to 26.6 million.

Very interesting. Without the "rebate to keep them together" the Big 12 would really would be on bottom.

Click to expand...

There are some interesting things to take away from that.

The SEC pulling away from the Big Ten is pretty significant, especially if you consider that they are under-compensating three members. Both the SEC's expansion and the SEC Network appear to have gone quite well, because there was a time that the Big Ten was ahead of the SEC in terms of distribution. However, it should be noted the advantage of the SEC Network varies per school. I saw where Alabama was making something like 8 million a year in tier 3 rights, while some schools were making far less. So everyone won, but some gained more than others. It should be noted though that the Big 10 has a new deal coming in that should catapult them ahead of the SEC, at least temporarily.

The Big 12 did get an overly generous deal and that is propping them up. Also, as I understand it there is a deal that gives up their basketball rights. So, they only revenue stream missing is tier 3 football rights. I believe Texas is getting something around 12 million per year for the LNH, so you can add that and see why they're not in a hurry to move. However, the other Big 12 schools aren't getting a cut (though they are actually having some of their games air on the LNH, which has to really irritate them). The whole thing is a house of cards right now.

The Pac-12's revenue includes their network. That's not a good sign. However, they don't have artificially inflated numbers, in fact they have numbers that are being held down. Their current deal is showing some age, and they would aim to get a substantial increase per team that could bump them up to around where the Big Ten is now. The thing is, their network isn't really being monetized well. If they could get Texas and work out a deal with ESPN, it is entirely possible that they can reach somewhere in the neighborhood of that 40 million figure.

The ACC is at the bottom, but their network hasn't started yet either. However, they're starting kind of late. It should increase the payout though. One thing worth noting is that the ACC moved into a lot of syndicated SEC territory after the SEC Network started. So, the bump they get shouldn't be anywhere near the SEC's payout.

So, where do things end up? Well, without more expansion the SEC should still slowly rise in revenue, but it seems like the Big 10 will leap forward again with 45 million. The Pac-12 and ACC should be in the 35 million range once the new stuff kicks in. The Big 12? They're going to be left well behind.

Selma's analogy is flawed - Texas is Hogan. Not sure if he OU equivalent - maybe the Kliq.

Could even argue that Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit are analogous to TCU, OSU, Baylor in that those are legit competitors if it weren't for preferential treatment of UT and OU.


Flair and Sting were always draws unless the booking was bad.