(02-13-2019 10:10 AM)cubucks Wrote: Flugaur is an idiot! What's even more embarrassing is 247 sports labeling him a "Big 10 source". More like Big 10 Scammer looking for followers.
Anyone of us could have written those same tweets that he did. It's so freaking obvious what he's doing. He actually blocked me a while back for calling him out on issues I had with him. I knew he would and it was ok with me, just wanted his bulls**t to be called out.
Anyways, will any of this come true? I'm sure some will but we have a hell of a lot more knowledge with the folks on this board than Flugaur ever will.
Has he ever been on this board? He would get worn out if he has!
I know he reads it. He called me out in a tweet over what appeared to be a divestiture from the BTN. Prior to the last contract renewal for the Big 10 the payout to member schools plus Delany's bonus equaled the amount that SNLKagan devalued the NET worth of the Big 10 Network. I noted that it wasn't a loss but appeared to be the same amount paid out to the 11 oldest member schools plus the bonus and he didn't like the take because it made one of his points B.S.
Kagan had been reporting these stats annually but that ended after last year. This past year's numbers should have been out last April. Still haven't heard a peep.
Anyway I say that because his fictitious BTM (Big Ten Man) seems to only put forth a mish mash of the different theories already discussed in chat rooms and tweets.
I don't know if anything happens with the Big 12 or not this next go around, but they are still the most vulnerable, especially now that content is going to be the main pay driver. I think the losses of Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and A&M have sunk in and nationally speaking unless Texas is playing Oklahoma there just isn't a market for T.C.U./Baylor and KState/Iowa State.
It seems logical that Texas and Oklahoma will look to maximize their brands with other brands that have a national draw because that is the best way for them to maximize revenue. The only market footprint dependent revenue out there right now are the SEC's and B1G's tier 3 for their respective networks. A move to either one by either brand would boost T1, T2, and T3 revenue, something that remaining in the Big 12 can't do.
Texas has been in off and on discussions with the SEC about membership since '87. They don't love us and I'm not claiming that. But we do fit their business model better than any of their other options and their business model is the most successful in college sports. They basically want to play 4 Texas schools a year. In the Big 12 that was easy to do since 3 were in conference. In the SEC should Texas Tech move with them they have 2, but they will have at least 3 OOC games in which they could easily schedule T.C.U. or Baylor or Rice or SMU or Houston. By moving to the SEC with Tech they cut the branding of the other Texas schools not moving to the SEC. This helps them cut the competition for the in state recruits, reunites them with A&M and Arkansas (two games important to their fans) and also trims OU's exposure in Texas. How? I'm pretty sure the deal would be UT & TTU to the SEC for 16 with no OU. That frees Oklahoma and Kansas to head to the Big 10. Texas's other OOC game would remain OU.
The Big 10 would then have cross conference regular season games with the SEC.
Missouri/Kansas, Oklahoma/Texas, possibly Vanderbilt/Northwestern (depending on Alston). The networks have multiple angles in which to market these games.
I find this kind of arrangement much more likely than what most discuss. The Texas Governor giving a nod to the having a situation in which Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Texas all play each other each year can only happen if all 3 are in the same conference. 2 out of conference P games right now is not workable.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but if the Big 10 and SEC are both to profit by expansion the only two candidates of major value are Texas and Oklahoma. Geographically and culturally the divide makes more sense if it works out this way.
