(02-15-2013 03:51 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 03:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:17 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:14 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  I've always wondered about the B12 inviting only teams that increase the tv payout. I wonder this because did TCU really increase that because to me TCU doesn't seem very valuable at all. To me if this happend i would expect UC, Uconn, and maybe even memphis or temple to be in their first over a team like TCU and possibly even Iowa State.

The Big 12 took TCU because they were immediately available, and the conference had to get back to at least ten in order to maintain its inventory of games. And the networks are basically overpaying in order to block the PAC 16.

No, they took TCU because the non-Texas schools wanted to keep 2 Texas games each year and because they have the best record of any school not in the Big 5 and one of the top 5 records of the last decade, so they have value to TV.

The part about games in Texas is correct. But lets see how much TV value they add after a few more 7-6 seasons. Any team ranked in the Top 10 is going to do well on TV.

Since we were one of the YOUNGEST teams in the nation last year, with 9 defensive and 8 offensive starters back next year. I think we will do fine.

(02-15-2013 04:14 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 03:51 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  The part about games in Texas is correct. But lets see how much TV value they add after a few more 7-6 seasons. Any team ranked in the Top 10 is going to do well on TV.

Since we were one of the YOUNGEST teams in the nation last year, with 9 defensive and 8 offensive starters back next year. I think we will do fine.

I'm really not saying you won't. I'm just saying that your TV value depends on it. Your TV value is only as good as your ranking. So bringing you into the conference for TV value is a dubious reason. I think the same thing of Louisville. Neither program has some massive following that watches no matter what. If we win, people watch. If we lose, people don't watch.

I think 4x16 is a wonderfully ideal concept but it is not all that realistic in how feasible it is that such a situation could actually happen. There are far too many cultural hurdles to jump over.

I think it is more likely we end up with 3x20 than 4x16 and I still am not convince that we end up with anything so "perfect".

We may end up with one 20 team conference, one 16 team conference, one 12 team conference, then a mid major conference that could be anywhere from 8 teams to 16 teams depending upon possible new NCAA rules as well as how the National Tournament Committee comes to its findings. The MWC may end up with 16 to take advantage of new rules. We may see the MAC do the same. We may see another eastern conference which would be considered a tier below the "New ACC" form up with another 16 teams. How that leaves the Sun Belt, I have no idea. I just hope that the UL Ragin Cajuns end up in that tier.

A complicated end game is more likely in my opinion than anything easily defined. People want something easy to recognize but that kind of cooperation from all these entities is very unlikely.

Then again, with the onset of one 20 team league we may see another one or two form up depending upon the kind of tv contracts that 20 team conference can get.

(02-15-2013 02:21 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights

Do you really see the ACC surviving with no GOR and the lowest conference payout (by a substantial margin) for 12 years?!?

Yep!

Sounds like the big 12 better get proactive and start by inviting Clemson and FSU.