+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: MemphisTigers.org (/forum-446.html)
+------ Forum: Dockery-Finch Memorial Tiger Sports Forum (/forum-499.html)
+------ Thread: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams (/thread-784964.html)
Pages: 1 2
Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - TIGERCITY - 07-22-2016 10:47 PM
Tweeted by Bryan Fisher - don't know source of info. HERE >>
https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/status/756621645356240896
![[Image: CoAPX1OWIAAomX1.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoAPX1OWIAAomX1.jpg:large)
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - Atlanta - 07-23-2016 06:22 AM
If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - Latilleon - 07-23-2016 07:01 AM
(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - Atlanta - 07-23-2016 07:24 AM
(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
Implications from the B12 are it's all about the money......16 schools gets them the most money, if the incremental TV contract obligations are correct. That would be 6 schools the B12 could short for a number of years, putting more $$$ in the current membership collective pockets.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - Latilleon - 07-23-2016 08:58 AM
(07-23-2016 07:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
Implications from the B12 are it's all about the money......16 schools gets them the most money, if the incremental TV contract obligations are correct. That would be 6 schools the B12 could short for a number of years, putting more $$$ in the current membership collective pockets.
But the contract is for only 7 or 8 more years and it's a gamble the money will stay up, so they can't dilute the brand. That is the argument to only add two.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - hsvtiger - 07-23-2016 09:10 AM
(07-23-2016 07:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
Implications from the B12 are it's all about the money......16 schools gets them the most money, if the incremental TV contract obligations are correct. That would be 6 schools the B12 could short for a number of years, putting more $$$ in the current membership collective pockets.
I somewhat agree. If they can get the same incremental increases, give the new schools much less than a full share, then the current schools get more. If you think about it, it is the perfect time to do it as the new schools will have 7-8 years to ramp things up to achieve their full worth before the next TV contract.
I think that scheduling is easy for 16 - Two eight team divisions, with 7 division games per year, plus two (or maybe 3) crossover games. For basketball, play home-and-home vs division and one game vs non-division for a total of 22. (Or, you could do 4 pods with home-home within pod and one game with other 12 for a total of 18.)
Lot's of things to consider...but, hey, whatever includes Memphis.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - BinghamptonNed - 07-23-2016 09:34 AM
(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - 80sTiger - 07-23-2016 10:37 AM
They will have enough trouble agreeing on the extra 2 in the +4 scenario ... I'm not sure they could every agree on the last 2 in a +6 situation.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - Atlanta - 07-23-2016 10:40 AM
(07-23-2016 09:10 AM)hsvtiger Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
Implications from the B12 are it's all about the money......16 schools gets them the most money, if the incremental TV contract obligations are correct. That would be 6 schools the B12 could short for a number of years, putting more $$$ in the current membership collective pockets.
I somewhat agree. If they can get the same incremental increases, give the new schools much less than a full share, then the current schools get more. If you think about it, it is the perfect time to do it as the new schools will have 7-8 years to ramp things up to achieve their full worth before the next TV contract.
I think that scheduling is easy for 16 - Two eight team divisions, with 7 division games per year, plus two (or maybe 3) crossover games. For basketball, play home-and-home vs division and one game vs non-division for a total of 22. (Or, you could do 4 pods with home-home within pod and one game with other 12 for a total of 18.)
Lot's of things to consider...but, hey, whatever includes Memphis.
And the idea of concerns over dilution are ridiculous given it wouldn't happen for 8 yrs. That's an eternity in a conference life & UT/OK would always have alternatives. If it's $$, go for the $$ while they are there. Fun to talk about but I'm not so sure this incremental structure is as fixed contractually as we hear. Just think about the $$ lost on such an idea if not implemented.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - ncrdbl1 - 07-24-2016 01:11 AM
(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
What is so hard about 16 teams. Two divisions.
Football Each school in your division 7 games. a permanent rivalry from the other divisions1 game and a rotating game from other side 1 game. Which leaves you three non conference games.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - MonsterTigerBlue - 07-24-2016 01:36 AM
Tulane , ECU, UCF
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - holyterror - 07-24-2016 05:48 AM
(07-23-2016 10:37 AM)80sTiger Wrote: They will have enough trouble agreeing on the extra 2 in the +4 scenario ... I'm not sure they could every agree on the last 2 in a +6 situation.
"These things have a way of working out."
Dollar Bills. They'll get their minds right.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - BinghamptonNed - 07-24-2016 05:52 AM
(07-24-2016 01:11 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
What is so hard about 16 teams. Two divisions.
Football Each school in your division 7 games. a permanent rivalry from the other divisions1 game and a rotating game from other side 1 game. Which leaves you three non conference games.
It will be 8 conference games, 7 divisional one crossover game, there will be no rivalry games since there are no existing rivalries inter-divisionally
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - geosnooker2000 - 07-24-2016 02:55 PM
(07-24-2016 05:52 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:(07-24-2016 01:11 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
What is so hard about 16 teams. Two divisions.
Football Each school in your division 7 games. a permanent rivalry from the other divisions1 game and a rotating game from other side 1 game. Which leaves you three non conference games.
It will be 8 conference games, 7 divisional one crossover game, there will be no rivalry games since there are no existing rivalries inter-divisionally
With respeck... you are going on the assumption of your earlier post about a legends division and a newcomers division. I question the idea of eliminating the possibility (a probability in their minds) of a Texas/Oklahoma championship game, and other legend matchups in the championship as well. I could just as easily see them putting Texas in the South and Oklahoma in the North, and picking your division "playground style."
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - BinghamptonNed - 07-24-2016 03:42 PM
(07-24-2016 02:55 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:if Tx an Ou play every season then the championship. game would be a rematch(07-24-2016 05:52 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:(07-24-2016 01:11 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote:(07-23-2016 06:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote: If as reported that the B12 gets an incremental bump with each new, added school, then why not add 6 - as some have suggested is the end game (4 or 5 conferences with 16 schools each) of the power conferences anyway?
I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
What is so hard about 16 teams. Two divisions.
Football Each school in your division 7 games. a permanent rivalry from the other divisions1 game and a rotating game from other side 1 game. Which leaves you three non conference games.
It will be 8 conference games, 7 divisional one crossover game, there will be no rivalry games since there are no existing rivalries inter-divisionally
With respeck... you are going on the assumption of your earlier post about a legends division and a newcomers division. I question the idea of eliminating the possibility (a probability in their minds) of a Texas/Oklahoma championship game, and other legend matchups in the championship as well. I could just as easily see them putting Texas in the South and Oklahoma in the North, and picking your division "playground style."
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - kabluey - 07-25-2016 02:21 AM
If any conference hits 16, look for them to consider the pod system the PAC likely would have implemented had they succeeded in their raid on the Big 12 lo those many years ago. 4 pods of 4 rotating around in 2 8 team divisions to ensure all schools had similar access and exposure to CA and TX talent.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - AlonsoWDC - 07-25-2016 03:18 AM
The WAC had a 16-program superconference in the mid-to-late 1990s after they got all those SWC teams and others. It was what led to the MWC split, but they worked on a pod system.
Nobody liked it obviously.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - geosnooker2000 - 07-25-2016 07:10 PM
(07-24-2016 03:42 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:(07-24-2016 02:55 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:if Tx an Ou play every season then the championship. game would be a rematch(07-24-2016 05:52 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:(07-24-2016 01:11 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:(07-23-2016 07:01 AM)Latilleon Wrote: I'd guess they wouldn't want to be bigger than everyone else; 16 is harder to schedule, and they aren't that enamored with the candidates.
What is so hard about 16 teams. Two divisions.
Football Each school in your division 7 games. a permanent rivalry from the other divisions1 game and a rotating game from other side 1 game. Which leaves you three non conference games.
It will be 8 conference games, 7 divisional one crossover game, there will be no rivalry games since there are no existing rivalries inter-divisionally
With respeck... you are going on the assumption of your earlier post about a legends division and a newcomers division. I question the idea of eliminating the possibility (a probability in their minds) of a Texas/Oklahoma championship game, and other legend matchups in the championship as well. I could just as easily see them putting Texas in the South and Oklahoma in the North, and picking your division "playground style."
True, but isn't that the case with Alabama and Tennessee?
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - SMUleopold - 07-26-2016 01:29 AM
Yes, the Big XII would get an additional $23M per school per year for each new member. But there's a catch:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/26/8846289/big-12-conference-expansion-realignment-revenue
The additional monies that would go to the conference would mostly be to cover the costs of the new members, not necessarily increase the current members wallets. If one of the members succeeded on the field or on the court, the current members may actually stand to make more money, but if the new members didn't live up to expectations it could actually cut into the current members revenue. I remember talking to some KSU fans before the Liberty Bowl who said their biggest concern about letting new schools in was that they may cut into their piece of an already unfairly cut pie.
But the idea that the individual conference members stand to make money by just bringing in new members isn't true, unfortunately.
RE: Big 12 TV money -- adding 0, 2 and 4 teams - memphisike - 07-27-2016 07:06 AM
BIg 12 needs to add MEMPHIS and cinncinatti, word on the street is ECU headed to ACC