(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:15 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Pac12. Being landlocked (plus wvu) like they are might be a major concern long term though - every other of the main 4 or 5 conferences has sprawl

The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

When the other conferences span a thousand miles, being in a relatively small and somewhat similar part of the country might not be the best long term strategy

Guess what, and I don't know how UL fans took this, but UL almost BEAT WVU out of the bid... by agreeing to less money. There is no equal revenue split in that TV deal.

If UL takes UC with them in a package to the Big XII, sells them on the Bball and improving academics, along with significantly less money, the Big 12 will add them eventually. I think they will want a CCG back in place by 2015. JerryWorld is a slam dunk.

First things first, they need to beat RU this year and have a strong showing in the bowl game, followed up with the hard courts. Cincinnati has fell behind the 8-ball a bit.

(11-17-2012 10:06 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Louisville, Cincinnati to Big XII
Rutgers to Big Ten
UConn to ACC

Who are the two Western schools we pick up (can't be BYU, they won't join us in this situation)?

Who is the one Eastern school we pick up?

West: BSU, SDSU, Houston, SMU
East: USF, UCF, Memphis, Temple, Navy

That's only 6 all sport schools left. You need 8.

(11-18-2012 12:13 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think a bunch of these questions will be answered by Wednesday of this coming week. Anyway that is what I have been told.

Duuuude.

(11-18-2012 12:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Correct. Adding teams to the Big-12 simply dilutes their share of BCS money. The only reason to add to the Big-12 is the extra money from a championship game. However, the B-12 powers that be have decided that the cost of losing out on potential championships and landing additional teams in the BCS postseason outweigh the value of a championship game. The Big10 going to 14 (or 16, or 50) doesnt change that basic calculus for the Big-12.

My understanding is the money for the B12 CCG was already rolled into the latest contract, a holdover when they first lost NE and CO, and before MO and A&M jumped. If so, that incentive is not there, either. and that's only about $2M a team, and 2 new teams would have to be worth $20M apiece, to keep existing teams form losing money. Nobody left to add can do that, unless it's ND, or maybe FSU.

I'm not saying it definitely won't happen, only that it seems illogical. The B10 at least seems to have a logical reason to add teams.

I have no idea what will happen. However the situation you are referring to, the Championship game money included in TV deal, was purely the last two years of their old deal with espn. they jave since signed a new one explicitely for ten teams. so adding a championship game, allows either for renegotiation, or selling separstely ( like the big ten and pac 12 did). Now a ccg itself is not worth enough to add one team, much less two. But it does add enough to offset any potential to add teams who by themselves may not add full current value.

(11-17-2012 11:36 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

If this move by the B1G shakes Florida State lose that could really change the math.....

The ACC loses FSU/Maryland they themselves do not have to get back to 14 and UConn stays in the Big East.

If the BE only loses Rutgers it can hang tight at 12 if it wants....

West: SDSU, Navy, Boise, SMU, Houston, Memphis
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, Temple, UConn, UCF, USF

The realignment of 2012 may be more like 2010 when Nebraska left and there wasn't much impact among the non-AQ leagues. Only when TAMU left for the SEC did things become crazy for CUSA.

The question would become timing. I'd assume UConn to get invited quickly by the ACC- probably faster than FSU could get out.

(11-18-2012 12:42 AM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:15 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Pac12. Being landlocked (plus wvu) like they are might be a major concern long term though - every other of the main 4 or 5 conferences has sprawl

The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

When the other conferences span a thousand miles, being in a relatively small and somewhat similar part of the country might not be the best long term strategy

It has worked fine for the sec

(11-18-2012 03:31 AM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 12:42 AM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:15 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Pac12. Being landlocked (plus wvu) like they are might be a major concern long term though - every other of the main 4 or 5 conferences has sprawl

The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

When the other conferences span a thousand miles, being in a relatively small and somewhat similar part of the country might not be the best long term strategy

It has worked fine for the sec

Signed Mizzou and ATM...

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:15 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Pac12. Being landlocked (plus wvu) like they are might be a major concern long term though - every other of the main 4 or 5 conferences has sprawl

The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

+3 that's damn funny

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:15 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Pac12. Being landlocked (plus wvu) like they are might be a major concern long term though - every other of the main 4 or 5 conferences has sprawl

The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

lol, nice.

The B12 should go after Hawaii then. That gives them a strategic advantage to the entire pacific rim.

(11-18-2012 01:32 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 12:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Dodds has said that adding any available teams doesnt add enough to increase the per school take for the big 12. Basically, no one can pay their way that the Big 12 can actually get at the moment.

Exactly. ONLY THE BIG TEN can still make money by adding teams, b/c the BTN allows it with new markets. That dynamic does not exist in any other conference.

Correct. Adding teams to the Big-12 simply dilutes their share of BCS money. The only reason to add to the Big-12 is the extra money from a championship game. However, the B-12 powers that be have decided that the cost of losing out on potential championships and landing additional teams in the BCS postseason outweigh the value of a championship game. The Big10 going to 14 (or 16, or 50) doesnt change that basic calculus for the Big-12.

My understanding is the money for the B12 CCG was already rolled into the latest contract, a holdover when they first lost NE and CO, and before MO and A&M jumped. If so, that incentive is not there, either. and that's only about $2M a team, and 2 new teams would have to be worth $20M apiece, to keep existing teams form losing money. Nobody left to add can do that, unless it's ND, or maybe FSU.

I'm not saying it definitely won't happen, only that it seems illogical. The B10 at least seems to have a logical reason to add teams.

I have no idea what will happen. However the situation you are referring to, the Championship game money included in TV deal, was purely the last two years of their old deal with espn. they jave since signed a new one explicitely for ten teams. so adding a championship game, allows either for renegotiation, or selling separstely ( like the big ten and pac 12 did). Now a ccg itself is not worth enough to add one team, much less two. But it does add enough to offset any potential to add teams who by themselves may not add full current value.

I read otherwise about the CCG money, but it's irrelevant to the bigger issue, anyway. The BTN can afford to add teams with large markets and make even more money. The B12 (and any other conference, for now) does not have that same situation.

Just an FYI, you did read correct about the ccg. But it was because espn opted not to negotiate down when the big xii lost Nebraska and Colorado (unlike what they did when the BE lost mismi, vpi, and bc, but similar to whay they did when we lost wvu). That deal is over now. Their new one was signed this yesr with espn, using a ten team membership with a round robin set up (the fox deal was also signed this way, but was unaffected by the ccg since they never had the rights to it ). They were no longer getting ccg money, but simply got more money because rights fees have gone up. They were also given look in clauses so that if they expanded, renegotiation could be considered. But every conference has that.

It's not wholly irrelevant because this move may them try again to get fsu and Clemson, which would affect the big east in all likelihood.

(11-18-2012 03:52 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 03:31 AM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 12:42 AM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:15 PM)monty Wrote:  Pac12. Being landlocked (plus wvu) like they are might be a major concern long term though - every other of the main 4 or 5 conferences has sprawl

The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

When the other conferences span a thousand miles, being in a relatively small and somewhat similar part of the country might not be the best long term strategy

It has worked fine for the sec

Signed Mizzou and ATM...

don't get in the way of the make-believe going on with facts

(11-18-2012 12:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Just an FYI, you did read correct about the ccg. But it was because espn opted not to negotiate down when the big xii lost Nebraska and Colorado (unlike what they did when the BE lost mismi, vpi, and bc, but similar to whay they did when we lost wvu). That deal is over now. Their new one was signed this yesr with espn, using a ten team membership with a round robin set up (the fox deal was also signed this way, but was unaffected by the ccg since they never had the rights to it ). They were no longer getting ccg money, but simply got more money because rights fees have gone up. They were also given look in clauses so that if they expanded, renegotiation could be considered. But every conference has that.

It's not wholly irrelevant because this move may them try again to get fsu and Clemson, which would affect the big east in all likelihood.

Yeah, I buy that. I just don't think there's a compelling reason yet. I do think FSU has itchy feet, though (they are the other school with MD that opposed the increased exit fee), and UL would certainly partner with them.

FSU will be watching the Maryland decision closely, if the Terrapins make the move and work out the 50 million exit fee, you can bet that the Noles will be making big time overtures to both SEC and Big12. They are mad at the fact that they are basically out of the NC championship this year with one loss and are actually out of top four for a playoff. Yes in large part is because thy played two 1AAs but that also doesn't cover tat they would still be behind one loss SEC teams even if they hadn't play one 1AA.

(11-18-2012 12:46 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 03:52 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 03:31 AM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 12:42 AM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

When the other conferences span a thousand miles, being in a relatively small and somewhat similar part of the country might not be the best long term strategy

It has worked fine for the sec

Signed Mizzou and ATM...

don't get in the way of the make-believe going on with facts

Let them have fun for Pete's sakes. :ugaexams:

(11-18-2012 12:46 PM)monty Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 03:52 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 03:31 AM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(11-18-2012 12:42 AM)monty Wrote:  

(11-17-2012 11:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The Big 12 needs access to the sea? Are they 1918 Poland?

When the other conferences span a thousand miles, being in a relatively small and somewhat similar part of the country might not be the best long term strategy

It has worked fine for the sec

Signed Mizzou and ATM...

don't get in the way of the make-believe going on with facts

Texas uber alles?

54'40" or Texas Fight?

If the Big East loses Louisville and Cincinnati to the Big 12, Rutgers to the Big Ten, and UConn to the ACC ...

EAST or ATLANTIC
UMass \ Temple
Army \ Navy
USF \ UCF

WEST or PACIFIC
Memphis \ Boise State
Houston \ SMU
Fresno State \ SDSU

BASKETBALL SIDE
Providence
St. John's \ Seton Hall
Villanova \ Georgetown
DePaul \ Marquette

That leaves 14 in basketball, with a 7\7 split, and 5 football-onlies as Army finally says "yes" to membership.

(11-18-2012 02:45 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  If the Big East loses Louisville and Cincinnati to the Big 12, Rutgers to the Big Ten, and UConn to the ACC ...

EAST or ATLANTIC
UMass \ Temple
Army \ Navy
USF \ UCF

WEST or PACIFIC
Memphis \ Boise State
Houston \ SMU
Fresno State \ SDSU

BASKETBALL SIDE
Providence
St. John's \ Seton Hall
Villanova \ Georgetown
DePaul \ Marquette

That leaves 14 in basketball, with a 7\7 split, and 5 football-onlies as Army finally says "yes" to membership.

Except you need 8 all-sport schools to be a conference. So add ECU for all sports to the East, and AF for football only to the West.

Of course, I am hoping the bleeding stops with Rutgers and UConn, which might result in something like this:

EAST
Louisville \ Cincy
USF \ UCF
East Carolina \ Navy
Temple

WEST
Houston \ SMU
Boise State \ SDSU
Fresno State \ Air Force
Memphis

BASKETBALL SIDE
Providence
St. John's \ Seton Hall
Villanova \ Georgetown
DePaul \ Marquette