You might want to read this. It doesn't say there will be movement, but it confirms what we already know and to have an A.D. speak this candidly is fresh. He simply says he hopes realignment is over (while he upgrades to improve their image and profile) but states firmly "there are no guarantees." He also seems to think that Texas would protect Texas Tech and that Oklahoma would protect Oklahoma State and suspects that Kansas would try to do the same for Kansas State. He talks to those A.D.'s all of the time so I guess he would know.


http://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/20...uarantees/

It would be interesting to see Amazon acquire the Big 12 media rights.

Quote:Donati said, “I get asked all the time about conference expansion and realignment in 2024 and will this stadium expansion guarantee we’ll stay in the Big 12 Conference? The answer is no, there are no guarantees.”

The way the question is phrased is a little strange. Almost as if TCU were on the cusp of being kicked out unless they expanded...

Obviously, that's not the case so I watched the video to get a little more context. Basically, the AD is stating that it's crucial to show a commitment to football. "Also, creating a medical school is crucial," he said.

Other questions...and these are paraphrased:

Quote:"Does TCU have any plans to add softball?"

AD: It's not anything in our immediate future, but I can see it down the road.

Quote:"Can you explain why the home and home series with Ohio State was cut down to just 1 game in Arlington?"

AD: We run a business and sometimes you have to make decisions that your fans might not like. Reality is, it was a mutual decision. ESPN approached us with an economic package to move the game there. It really was a no-brainer. It was more than a football question, bringing in these resources to do a lot of things for our student athletes.

I find that last one particularly interesting. Ohio State wants to play in DFW...no shock there. So they schedule a series against TCU and are conveniently a part of the decision to just trim it down to one game in Cowboy Stadium. Not that I blame them and their wishes aren't really the point. What I find interesting is that DFW obviously attracts major programs because of the local talent pool and the size of the market.

We already knew that, but ESPN obviously believes in it too. That and I'm sure getting one big neutral site game with these schools is better than losing out on the home game for Ohio State that would have probably gone to another network.

Anyway, this is the reason TCU has always fascinated me. Right in the heart of DFW, you have a viable FBS program that can generate decent money. Last year, they earned $105M and were 3rd in the Big 12 albeit about $50M behind OU. They brought in $93M the year before.

Actually, I went back to 2012 because I believe that was their first year in the Big 12.

2012 = 71.9M
2013 = 77M
2014 = 80.6M
2015 = 93.2M
2016 = 105M

Now, I'm sure some of that is a matter of donations for stadium improvements, but it's clear their revenues are going up on an annual basis. There are others in the Big 12, including WVU and OSU, who seem to fluctuate much more.

Think about this from ESPN's perspective. If you had a guaranteed money maker in the DFW area who you could always count on for good competition...who you could always use to help guarantee good crowds for neutral site match-ups...who would help you dominate media coverage in an important market...and who all in all would be attractive to football focused leagues because it would give them more opportunities to play in front of that huge talent pool...would you give them up?

Personally, I don't think I would. There's an awful lot of ancillary value there.

The TX market will always focus more so on UT, A&M, and OU, but the market is so huge that there's actually room for greater penetration. That and an in-state school(assuming they've played their cards right) will always have greater potential to tap the market over an out of state entity

Also, here's a breakdown of what was said by the Star-Telegram

I want to propose a theory...

If a conference decided to take TCU, perhaps in conjunction with a broader move, how much of a destabilizing force would that be on the Big 12? That league is at the point right now where they simply can't replace the value that even TCU brings and that's notwithstanding the fact that UT and OU are obviously in another stratosphere. Nonetheless, UT and OU need halfway decent competition in conference or they will suffer bigger losses in the long term.

(02-10-2018 11:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

Quote:Donati said, “I get asked all the time about conference expansion and realignment in 2024 and will this stadium expansion guarantee we’ll stay in the Big 12 Conference? The answer is no, there are no guarantees.”

The way the question is phrased is a little strange. Almost as if TCU were on the cusp of being kicked out unless they expanded...

Obviously, that's not the case so I watched the video to get a little more context. Basically, the AD is stating that it's crucial to show a commitment to football. "Also, creating a medical school is crucial," he said.

Other questions...and these are paraphrased:

Quote:"Does TCU have any plans to add softball?"

AD: It's not anything in our immediate future, but I can see it down the road.

Quote:"Can you explain why the home and home series with Ohio State was cut down to just 1 game in Arlington?"

AD: We run a business and sometimes you have to make decisions that your fans might not like. Reality is, it was a mutual decision. ESPN approached us with an economic package to move the game there. It really was a no-brainer. It was more than a football question, bringing in these resources to do a lot of things for our student athletes.

I find that last one particularly interesting. Ohio State wants to play in DFW...no shock there. So they schedule a series against TCU and are conveniently a part of the decision to just trim it down to one game in Cowboy Stadium. Not that I blame them and their wishes aren't really the point. What I find interesting is that DFW obviously attracts major programs because of the local talent pool and the size of the market.

We already knew that, but ESPN obviously believes in it too. That and I'm sure getting one big neutral site game with these schools is better than losing out on the home game for Ohio State that would have probably gone to another network.

Anyway, this is the reason TCU has always fascinated me. Right in the heart of DFW, you have a viable FBS program that can generate decent money. Last year, they earned $105M and were 3rd in the Big 12 albeit about $50M behind OU. They brought in $93M the year before.

Actually, I went back to 2012 because I believe that was their first year in the Big 12.

2012 = 71.9M
2013 = 77M
2014 = 80.6M
2015 = 93.2M
2016 = 105M

Now, I'm sure some of that is a matter of donations for stadium improvements, but it's clear their revenues are going up on an annual basis. There are others in the Big 12, including WVU and OSU, who seem to fluctuate much more.

Think about this from ESPN's perspective. If you had a guaranteed money maker in the DFW area who you could always count on for good competition...who you could always use to help guarantee good crowds for neutral site match-ups...who would help you dominate media coverage in an important market...and who all in all would be attractive to football focused leagues because it would give them more opportunities to play in front of that huge talent pool...would you give them up?

Personally, I don't think I would. There's an awful lot of ancillary value there.

The TX market will always focus more so on UT, A&M, and OU, but the market is so huge that there's actually room for greater penetration. That and an in-state school(assuming they've played their cards right) will always have greater potential to tap the market over an out of state entity

Also, here's a breakdown of what was said by the Star-Telegram

I want to propose a theory...

If a conference decided to take TCU, perhaps in conjunction with a broader move, how much of a destabilizing force would that be on the Big 12? That league is at the point right now where they simply can't replace the value that even TCU brings and that's notwithstanding the fact that UT and OU are obviously in another stratosphere. Nonetheless, UT and OU need halfway decent competition in conference or they will suffer bigger losses in the long term.

Doing the facilities work is crucial for T.C.U. to fit in anywhere. There size of venue is not inappropriate for the PAC or ACC, both of which play softball.

As to your take on DFW, it's very true that if any other P5 conference took T.C.U. they hamstring the Big 12 big time. Imagine any conference losing 6 or 7 actual games in DFW a year. Now imagine that conference has a market reach problem. That pretty much sums it up.

I could see T.C.U. & Texas Tech to the PAC, T.C.U. and Baylor to the ACC, or should the SEC whiff on Oklahoma perhaps T.C.U. to the SEC under less than ideal circumstances for the SEC.

But to me ATU, the fact that the A.D. at T.C.U. made these remarks this early in the time frame leading up to 2023 is telling. Remember every school in the SEC except Vanderbilt has softball. He clearly intended to put T.C.U. on the market, at least in the minds of both the networks and the other P conference leadership. And he patently stated that Oklahoma could/would protect Oklahoma State and Texas could/would protect Texas Tech. His take on this I believe is more positive for the SEC as we and the PAC are the only two conferences that could accommodate that and we have far more to offer them than does the PAC.

(02-10-2018 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But to me ATU, the fact that the A.D. at T.C.U. made these remarks this early in the time frame leading up to 2023 is telling. Remember every school in the SEC except Vanderbilt has softball. He clearly intended to put T.C.U. on the market, at least in the minds of both the networks and the other P conference leadership. And he patently stated that Oklahoma could/would protect Oklahoma State and Texas could/would protect Texas Tech. His take on this I believe is more positive for the SEC as we and the PAC are the only two conferences that could accommodate that and we have far more to offer them than does the PAC.

If I read the article correctly, I think it was actually the writer who was stating that OU would protect OSU and UT would protect Tech.

I don't think the AD actually said that publicly although he could certainly believe that and might have communicated that more or less to the reporters he's in contact with.

(02-10-2018 01:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But to me ATU, the fact that the A.D. at T.C.U. made these remarks this early in the time frame leading up to 2023 is telling. Remember every school in the SEC except Vanderbilt has softball. He clearly intended to put T.C.U. on the market, at least in the minds of both the networks and the other P conference leadership. And he patently stated that Oklahoma could/would protect Oklahoma State and Texas could/would protect Texas Tech. His take on this I believe is more positive for the SEC as we and the PAC are the only two conferences that could accommodate that and we have far more to offer them than does the PAC.

If I read the article correctly, I think it was actually the writer who was stating that OU would protect OSU and UT would protect Tech.

I don't think the AD actually said that publicly although he could certainly believe that and might have communicated that more or less to the reporters he's in contact with.

Well that interview was reported by at least 2 different sources and I read both so I could have blended them. But just put it to the common sense test. T.C.U. knows that because of O.S.U. and Tech's situation they aren't getting paired with Texas or Oklahoma should movement occur so they have to enhance their profile and chances.

T.C.U. / Baylor, or T.C.U. / Tech, or T.C.U. / Houston could be a pairs for either the ACC or PAC should the SEC find another way into DFW. And clearly the A.D. reflects the uncertainty over the Big 12 situation or he wouldn't be talking at all.

(02-10-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well that interview was reported by at least 2 different sources and I read both so I could have blended them. But just put it to the common sense test. T.C.U. knows that because of O.S.U. and Tech's situation they aren't getting paired with Texas or Oklahoma should movement occur so they have to enhance their profile and chances.

T.C.U. / Baylor, or T.C.U. / Tech, or T.C.U. / Houston could be a pairs for either the ACC or PAC should the SEC find another way into DFW. And clearly the A.D. reflects the uncertainty over the Big 12 situation or he wouldn't be talking at all.

TCU and Houston would be a good pair for the PAC to get. I understand concerns regarding these two, but unless the PAC desires to either be left behind, get torn apart by B1G expansion, or settle for Mountain West schools (which I wouldn't be opposed to) they really need to consider looking at TCU and Houston as a combination.

(02-10-2018 03:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well that interview was reported by at least 2 different sources and I read both so I could have blended them. But just put it to the common sense test. T.C.U. knows that because of O.S.U. and Tech's situation they aren't getting paired with Texas or Oklahoma should movement occur so they have to enhance their profile and chances.

T.C.U. / Baylor, or T.C.U. / Tech, or T.C.U. / Houston could be a pairs for either the ACC or PAC should the SEC find another way into DFW. And clearly the A.D. reflects the uncertainty over the Big 12 situation or he wouldn't be talking at all.

TCU and Houston would be a good pair for the PAC to get. I understand concerns regarding these two, but unless the PAC desires to either be left behind, get torn apart by B1G expansion, or settle for Mountain West schools (which I wouldn't be opposed to) they really need to consider looking at TCU and Houston as a combination.

If you look at the state as a whole the PAC would do well to take Tech as a bridge and then add T.C.U. and Houston for fuller penetration. It is a way for the PAC to utilize those markets without having to have Texas to do it. That's precisely why the SEC covets Oklahoma. They along with Arkansas, L.S.U. and Texas A&M give us total penetration into Texas's largest markets.

And while I'm not saying that this will happen, if the PAC took the three I mentioned, and the SEC took the pair of Oklahoma schools it opens the door for Texas to join Kansas in the Big 10 if they wanted it, or to pair with Kansas in the SEC. XLance seems to think Texas might pair with Baylor to the ACC. With the PAC involved it just makes the absorption of the Big 12 much more likely.

The combinations that could work really open up if the PAC simply makes the decision to get into Texas.

(02-10-2018 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well that interview was reported by at least 2 different sources and I read both so I could have blended them. But just put it to the common sense test. T.C.U. knows that because of O.S.U. and Tech's situation they aren't getting paired with Texas or Oklahoma should movement occur so they have to enhance their profile and chances.

T.C.U. / Baylor, or T.C.U. / Tech, or T.C.U. / Houston could be a pairs for either the ACC or PAC should the SEC find another way into DFW. And clearly the A.D. reflects the uncertainty over the Big 12 situation or he wouldn't be talking at all.

TCU and Houston would be a good pair for the PAC to get. I understand concerns regarding these two, but unless the PAC desires to either be left behind, get torn apart by B1G expansion, or settle for Mountain West schools (which I wouldn't be opposed to) they really need to consider looking at TCU and Houston as a combination.

If you look at the state as a whole the PAC would do well to take Tech as a bridge and then add T.C.U. and Houston for fuller penetration. It is a way for the PAC to utilize those markets without having to have Texas to do it. That's precisely why the SEC covets Oklahoma. They along with Arkansas, L.S.U. and Texas A&M give us total penetration into Texas's largest markets.

And while I'm not saying that this will happen, if the PAC took the three I mentioned, and the SEC took the pair of Oklahoma schools it opens the door for Texas to join Kansas in the Big 10 if they wanted it, or to pair with Kansas in the SEC. XLance seems to think Texas might pair with Baylor to the ACC. With the PAC involved it just makes the absorption of the Big 12 much more likely.

The combinations that could work really open up if the PAC simply makes the decision to get into Texas.

I'm not sure the PAC would go for Texas Tech unless it was required to get Texas.

Reason being, Tech is geographically isolated while also being pretty far away from virtually every PAC school. The PAC's profile tends to favor state schools that are either in or near major metro areas. The PAC is pretty spread out so I think this makes travel much easier for them.

TCU and Houston make a lot of sense for the PAC in my opinion, but I'm not sure what they're looking for outside of UT.

(02-10-2018 04:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well that interview was reported by at least 2 different sources and I read both so I could have blended them. But just put it to the common sense test. T.C.U. knows that because of O.S.U. and Tech's situation they aren't getting paired with Texas or Oklahoma should movement occur so they have to enhance their profile and chances.

T.C.U. / Baylor, or T.C.U. / Tech, or T.C.U. / Houston could be a pairs for either the ACC or PAC should the SEC find another way into DFW. And clearly the A.D. reflects the uncertainty over the Big 12 situation or he wouldn't be talking at all.

TCU and Houston would be a good pair for the PAC to get. I understand concerns regarding these two, but unless the PAC desires to either be left behind, get torn apart by B1G expansion, or settle for Mountain West schools (which I wouldn't be opposed to) they really need to consider looking at TCU and Houston as a combination.

If you look at the state as a whole the PAC would do well to take Tech as a bridge and then add T.C.U. and Houston for fuller penetration. It is a way for the PAC to utilize those markets without having to have Texas to do it. That's precisely why the SEC covets Oklahoma. They along with Arkansas, L.S.U. and Texas A&M give us total penetration into Texas's largest markets.

And while I'm not saying that this will happen, if the PAC took the three I mentioned, and the SEC took the pair of Oklahoma schools it opens the door for Texas to join Kansas in the Big 10 if they wanted it, or to pair with Kansas in the SEC. XLance seems to think Texas might pair with Baylor to the ACC. With the PAC involved it just makes the absorption of the Big 12 much more likely.

The combinations that could work really open up if the PAC simply makes the decision to get into Texas.

I'm not sure the PAC would go for Texas Tech unless it was required to get Texas.

Reason being, Tech is geographically isolated while also being pretty far away from virtually every PAC school. The PAC's profile tends to favor state schools that are either in or near major metro areas. The PAC is pretty spread out so I think this makes travel much easier for them.

TCU and Houston make a lot of sense for the PAC in my opinion, but I'm not sure what they're looking for outside of UT.

Looking at a map, Texas Tech is geographically out there in Lubbock. However, Tech alumni and fans are everywhere in Texas. Tech is a much bigger draw in DFW and Houston than a map would lead most people to believe.

If...the SEC took Oklahoma and Oklahoma St; the B1G took Kansas and Texas; the PAC took Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, and perhaps Kansas St; and the ACC took West Virginia and Cincinnati (assuming Notre Dame doesn't go all-in), we'd have a pretty solid P4. If that all were to occur, I could see Connecticut going independent in football or as a football-only member in the AAC with other sports to the Big East.

PAC
West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Kansas St, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston

SEC
West: Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

B1G
West: Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

ACC
Atlantic: Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
Coastal: Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College

AAC
West: Iowa St, Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Tulane, Navy FB (Wichita St)
East: Memphis, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, Connecticut FB (Dayton)

Taking Texas Christian would be a big risk for the PAC 12. Yes, they'd get a foot in the DFW market but: a) a Carnegie R2 research private school (all current PAC members are R1); b) PAC might not want to break the mold for a non-elite private school.

What's interesting about Texas Tech is that even though located in a giant state its revenues are lower than Kansas State and above Iowa State. In the PAC they would be above only Washington State and Utah (Texas Christian would be at the level of UCLA). Averaged out, a TCU-Texas Tech combo would be placed between Colorado and Arizona State. Not bad but may not overcome the objections of academic snobs on the Left Coast. Add in Houston's number (which we know is greatly affected by the fact that it's a program at the G-level) and the average between the three gets them between Oregon State and Utah.

Not factored in is what the rates the PAC Networks could get if put in the state pay TV systems with those three programs or just two of the three. How much Houston helps with the numbers will determine if that program is feasible, long-run, for the PAC.

Now adding Texas Christian and Baylor to the ACC, the average between them ends them up in the #4 position, between Duke and Clemson. That isn't counting the boost they and the ACC could get if adding to the ACCN lineup. And Texas Christian was going to join the Old Big East Conference before the Big XII snatched them up. So we know that they're valued by some former Big East members.

In the end, I still maintain that any breakdown of the XII would depend on what Oklahoma wants to do and then the after effects could go to places we didn't think are likely.

(02-11-2018 07:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Taking Texas Christian would be a big risk for the PAC 12. Yes, they'd get a foot in the DFW market but: a) a Carnegie R2 research private school (all current PAC members are R1); b) PAC might not want to break the mold for a non-elite private school.

What's interesting about Texas Tech is that even though located in a giant state its revenues are lower than Kansas State and above Iowa State. In the PAC they would be above only Washington State and Utah (Texas Christian would be at the level of UCLA). Averaged out, a TCU-Texas Tech combo would be placed between Colorado and Arizona State. Not bad but may not overcome the objections of academic snobs on the Left Coast. Add in Houston's number (which we know is greatly affected by the fact that it's a program at the G-level) and the average between the three gets them between Oregon State and Utah.

Not factored in is what the rates the PAC Networks could get if put in the state pay TV systems with those three programs or just two of the three. How much Houston helps with the numbers will determine if that program is feasible, long-run, for the PAC.

Now adding Texas Christian and Baylor to the ACC, the average between them ends them up in the #4 position, between Duke and Clemson. That isn't counting the boost they and the ACC could get if adding to the ACCN lineup. And Texas Christian was going to join the Old Big East Conference before the Big XII snatched them up. So we know that they're valued by some former Big East members.

In the end, I still maintain that any breakdown of the XII would depend on what Oklahoma wants to do and then the after effects could go to places we didn't think are likely.

I agree that Baylor and Texas would help the ACC. They would also help the ACC by providing two credible football first teams that could challenge but probably which would not upset the top two very often.

As to TCU and the PAC, the article did say that TCU would be adding a medical school. So their days remaining a R2 will probably be few and they should be R1 within a few years.

(02-11-2018 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 07:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Taking Texas Christian would be a big risk for the PAC 12. Yes, they'd get a foot in the DFW market but: a) a Carnegie R2 research private school (all current PAC members are R1); b) PAC might not want to break the mold for a non-elite private school.

What's interesting about Texas Tech is that even though located in a giant state its revenues are lower than Kansas State and above Iowa State. In the PAC they would be above only Washington State and Utah (Texas Christian would be at the level of UCLA). Averaged out, a TCU-Texas Tech combo would be placed between Colorado and Arizona State. Not bad but may not overcome the objections of academic snobs on the Left Coast. Add in Houston's number (which we know is greatly affected by the fact that it's a program at the G-level) and the average between the three gets them between Oregon State and Utah.

Not factored in is what the rates the PAC Networks could get if put in the state pay TV systems with those three programs or just two of the three. How much Houston helps with the numbers will determine if that program is feasible, long-run, for the PAC.

Now adding Texas Christian and Baylor to the ACC, the average between them ends them up in the #4 position, between Duke and Clemson. That isn't counting the boost they and the ACC could get if adding to the ACCN lineup. And Texas Christian was going to join the Old Big East Conference before the Big XII snatched them up. So we know that they're valued by some former Big East members.

In the end, I still maintain that any breakdown of the XII would depend on what Oklahoma wants to do and then the after effects could go to places we didn't think are likely.

I agree that Baylor and Texas would help the ACC. They would also help the ACC by providing two credible football first teams that could challenge but probably which would not upset the top two very often.

As to TCU and the PAC, the article did say that TCU would be adding a medical school. So their days remaining a R2 will probably be few and they should be R1 within a few years.

Florida State added a medical school within the last 10 years. A lot of the leg work came out of the Triangle.
BTW, USF has had a medical school for quite some time.

At the end of the day, PAC12 is likely going to have to take a school or two that aren't an ideal fit from a institutional profile standpoint if they want to compete with the Big 10 and SEC in revenue. They desperately need to get into the central time zone IMO and in reality Texas is probably the only potentially available school that the PAC 12 brass would see as a ideal mix of institutional profile and market.

Not that I think that it would actually happen due to all the politics, but a Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas group of 4 probably would make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for the PAC 12.

(02-14-2018 09:41 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  At the end of the day, PAC12 is likely going to have to take a school or two that aren't an ideal fit from a institutional profile standpoint if they want to compete with the Big 10 and SEC in revenue. They desperately need to get into the central time zone IMO and in reality Texas is probably the only potentially available school that the PAC 12 brass would see as a ideal mix of institutional profile and market.

Not that I think that it would actually happen due to all the politics, but a Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas group of 4 probably would make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for the PAC 12.

True, but would the PAC make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for those B12 schools? That's the operative question considering that Texas and Oklahoma will certainly have other options which will likely be more lucrative.

I can't image this process is going to be fun if you are Sankey, Scott, Swofford or Delany. Because there is no unity of effort, they are going to be fielding calls from each individual school.

The PAC offers two certain things though that especially appeal to UT

1) Less competition. UT has thrived as the big fish in a small pond. They don't want to be a big fish in an ocean full of other big fish. The PAC would provide challenges but they would come in and immeadietly compete for the title.

2) Uneven distributions. Most people don't get this distinction about UT. They don't want to be making the MOST money, they want to be making MORE than their competition. IOW they don't want a conference deal that pays everyone 15 million for tier 3. They want a deal that gives them 10 million and everyone else 2-3 million. The PAC would be willing to indulge the favoritism they crave where no other conference would.

(02-11-2018 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 07:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Taking Texas Christian would be a big risk for the PAC 12. Yes, they'd get a foot in the DFW market but: a) a Carnegie R2 research private school (all current PAC members are R1); b) PAC might not want to break the mold for a non-elite private school.

What's interesting about Texas Tech is that even though located in a giant state its revenues are lower than Kansas State and above Iowa State. In the PAC they would be above only Washington State and Utah (Texas Christian would be at the level of UCLA). Averaged out, a TCU-Texas Tech combo would be placed between Colorado and Arizona State. Not bad but may not overcome the objections of academic snobs on the Left Coast. Add in Houston's number (which we know is greatly affected by the fact that it's a program at the G-level) and the average between the three gets them between Oregon State and Utah.

Not factored in is what the rates the PAC Networks could get if put in the state pay TV systems with those three programs or just two of the three. How much Houston helps with the numbers will determine if that program is feasible, long-run, for the PAC.

Now adding Texas Christian and Baylor to the ACC, the average between them ends them up in the #4 position, between Duke and Clemson. That isn't counting the boost they and the ACC could get if adding to the ACCN lineup. And Texas Christian was going to join the Old Big East Conference before the Big XII snatched them up. So we know that they're valued by some former Big East members.

In the end, I still maintain that any breakdown of the XII would depend on what Oklahoma wants to do and then the after effects could go to places we didn't think are likely.

I agree that Baylor and Texas would help the ACC. They would also help the ACC by providing two credible football first teams that could challenge but probably which would not upset the top two very often.

As to TCU and the PAC, the article did say that TCU would be adding a medical school. So their days remaining a R2 will probably be few and they should be R1 within a few years.

(02-14-2018 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2018 09:41 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  At the end of the day, PAC12 is likely going to have to take a school or two that aren't an ideal fit from a institutional profile standpoint if they want to compete with the Big 10 and SEC in revenue. They desperately need to get into the central time zone IMO and in reality Texas is probably the only potentially available school that the PAC 12 brass would see as a ideal mix of institutional profile and market.

Not that I think that it would actually happen due to all the politics, but a Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas group of 4 probably would make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for the PAC 12.

True, but would the PAC make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for those B12 schools? That's the operative question considering that Texas and Oklahoma will certainly have other options which will likely be more lucrative.

I would think the money would be good, probably not quite what the Big 10 or SEC could provide. But i'm also not certain that Texas or Oklahoma are all that keen on being in a conference with as many big dogs as the SEC has or to a bit of a lesser extent the Big 10. Oklahoma and Texas are the top 2 brands in the Big 12, in the PAC 12 I think USC is the only brand that has the same national profile as Texas or Oklahoma.

SEC & Big 10 both limit the ability for Oklahoma and Texas to be top dogs both in the board room and on the field.

Certainly money drives a lot of decisions but eventually if you consolidate too much power into leagues then there aren't enough cupcakes to feed the greedy mouths of the blue bloods.

(02-14-2018 09:41 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  At the end of the day, PAC12 is likely going to have to take a school or two that aren't an ideal fit from a institutional profile standpoint if they want to compete with the Big 10 and SEC in revenue. They desperately need to get into the central time zone IMO and in reality Texas is probably the only potentially available school that the PAC 12 brass would see as a ideal mix of institutional profile and market.

Not that I think that it would actually happen due to all the politics, but a Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas group of 4 probably would make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for the PAC 12.

It would be absolutely insane for Texas & OU to go to the PAC as only a group of 4 schools. The PAC doesn't do as well ratings wise and add a slate of all west coast games with fan bases that don't attend well or follow the sport? If they go out west they are fools for taking any less than 6 schools at a minimum and are better off if they make the PAC shed some of their dead weight. If both leagues have to shed schools and you got to anywhere from 14, 15 or 16, then that is a decent league viewership wise.

A 16 league of
USC, UCLA, Cal, Wash., Oregon, Colorado, ASU, AZ, Stanford
Tx, TT, TCU, OU, OSU, KS & ISU would be a solid 16 team league. Or maybe even better yet splitting up the PAC between the B1G & Big 12.

I don't care if UT & OU can get an extra $5-8M a year by heading west with a small number of 4 teams. It would hurt their brands and leave them under represented in league decisions.

(02-14-2018 03:52 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(02-14-2018 09:41 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  At the end of the day, PAC12 is likely going to have to take a school or two that aren't an ideal fit from a institutional profile standpoint if they want to compete with the Big 10 and SEC in revenue. They desperately need to get into the central time zone IMO and in reality Texas is probably the only potentially available school that the PAC 12 brass would see as a ideal mix of institutional profile and market.

Not that I think that it would actually happen due to all the politics, but a Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas group of 4 probably would make it worth it from a dollars standpoint for the PAC 12.

It would be absolutely insane for Texas & OU to go to the PAC as only a group of 4 schools. The PAC doesn't do as well ratings wise and add a slate of all west coast games with fan bases that don't attend well or follow the sport? If they go out west they are fools for taking any less than 6 schools at a minimum and are better off if they make the PAC shed some of their dead weight. If both leagues have to shed schools and you got to anywhere from 14, 15 or 16, then that is a decent league viewership wise.

A 16 league of
USC, UCLA, Cal, Wash., Oregon, Colorado, ASU, AZ, Stanford
Tx, TT, TCU, OU, OSU, KS & ISU would be a solid 16 team league. Or maybe even better yet splitting up the PAC between the B1G & Big 12.

I don't care if UT & OU can get an extra $5-8M a year by heading west with a small number of 4 teams. It would hurt their brands and leave them under represented in league decisions.

You do realize that this almost happened back in 2011?