(06-08-2019 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There were rumors that Amazon was on and off again about investing in the RSNs that were up for sale in the last year.

When the first bid came out, it was said they were involved. It ended up being that they were investing in the spin-off of the YES Network. Later on, it was rumored they could be partnering with Sinclair to buy the others. That ended up not happening, but I get the impression Sinclair was ready to move without them and just found another partner.

So who knows exactly what their involvement was?

If Amazon jumps into the sports market then I wouldn't be surprised if they just outright bought an existing network. After all, they'll need an adequate production facility to pull it off. Until they make that sort of move then I think the only move they make is joining up with some leagues to simulcast an existing feed.

Then again, going with a college conference that already has in-house production facilities might be their ideal move. They could invest less on the venture up front and use the individual schools to do a lot of the work for them. A significant portion of their retail business works that way already. They use affiliates in a variety of industries to feed products to them and Amazon acts as a traditional retailer...they just do everything online.

They are certainly producing scripted content for Amazon Prime, but maybe they find it useful to sign up schools with existing broadcasting infrastructure?

Look, it's a no lose situation for Amazon. If they invest in the PAC and it helps to stabilize a lousy situation they've earned a ton of West Coast good will. If the PAC takes off they profit. If the PAC flounders they can say we tried and get credit for the attempt and in the process their name gets a lot of exposure and 750 million for ever how many years of advertising is a bargain.

(06-05-2019 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I totally agree that UT, OU, and Kansas are easier to build a conference around than are UVa, UNC, Duke, and Wake Forest who are the ones that control the ACC.

[CITATION NEEDED]


That's the first time I've ever heard Wake as a power broker. Wake is more like the Skunkworks of the ACC ... a small quiet private near league headquarters where special projects can be carried out in a place where FOIA requests can't get to them.

The NC mafia did use to run the show. When FSU and GT were added that brought the mathematical ability of the NC4 to the brink in terms of stopping votes. With the first Big East expansion their ability to stop something from happening all by their lonesome ended. This, above anything else, is why ECU won't be in the ACC any time soon even if they had the exact same measurables as NC State: it recreates the NC mafia.

While currently undeniably a hodge podge of geography and interests, the ACC9 as it stood before Big East expansion is actually pretty cohesive. UVA and UMD got to come down I-95 and play lots of games further South, helping their ability to recruit and avoid a reputation as a Northern team. While UMD left it has done nothing to acquit itself before or since as being anything other than a highly dysfunctional athletic department. The NC4 is obviously cohesive. GT is the bridge between the academics and the football first mentality of everybody further South than RDU. Most of the pain associated with organizing the ACC today comes from the painful observation that only Virginia Tech fits within that original ACC9 core.

(06-09-2019 12:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-05-2019 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I totally agree that UT, OU, and Kansas are easier to build a conference around than are UVa, UNC, Duke, and Wake Forest who are the ones that control the ACC.

[CITATION NEEDED]


That's the first time I've ever heard Wake as a power broker. Wake is more like the Skunkworks of the ACC ... a small quiet private near league headquarters where special projects can be carried out in a place where FOIA requests can't get to them.

The NC mafia did use to run the show. When FSU and GT were added that brought the mathematical ability of the NC4 to the brink in terms of stopping votes. With the first Big East expansion their ability to stop something from happening all by their lonesome ended. This, above anything else, is why ECU won't be in the ACC any time soon even if they had the exact same measurables as NC State: it recreates the NC mafia.

While currently undeniably a hodge podge of geography and interests, the ACC9 as it stood before Big East expansion is actually pretty cohesive. UVA and UMD got to come down I-95 and play lots of games further South, helping their ability to recruit and avoid a reputation as a Northern team. While UMD left it has done nothing to acquit itself before or since as being anything other than a highly dysfunctional athletic department. The NC4 is obviously cohesive. GT is the bridge between the academics and the football first mentality of everybody further South than RDU. Most of the pain associated with organizing the ACC today comes from the painful observation that only Virginia Tech fits within that original ACC9 core.

When SC withdrew from the ACC, that left 7. Afterwards, GT would be #8 before the ACC later added FSU, then Miami & VPI, etc.

(06-09-2019 12:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-05-2019 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I totally agree that UT, OU, and Kansas are easier to build a conference around than are UVa, UNC, Duke, and Wake Forest who are the ones that control the ACC.

[CITATION NEEDED]


That's the first time I've ever heard Wake as a power broker. Wake is more like the Skunkworks of the ACC ... a small quiet private near league headquarters where special projects can be carried out in a place where FOIA requests can't get to them.

Kinda like how Vandy is the like the Skunkworks of the SEC. Special projects/discussions can be carried out in a place where FOIA requests can't get to them either.

Wake Forest is a charter ACC member. Agree with JRsec point on the NC4. It is not just about expansion, they have disagreed before over adding new members. UNC-Duke are very bonded when it comes to expansion. But on matters of conference hirings, tournament locations, enacting rules and related policies, there is definitely a NC4 political dynamic. That doesn't mean their views only count, but four out of fifteen is certainly a pocket base.
And private schools can hide some salary and expenditure information; but they do have to file tax information even as non-profits. To receive federal grants, information must be reported. Student financial aid has to have institutional financial information, including athletics data. Pell grants, fed work-study, etc. receive those figures whether or not information is distributed to non-government entities and sources conducting surveys.

Do you really think the SEC keeps Vandy around for its football, basketball, baseball?? Hardly. Its status as a private school is what the SEC loves about it. Plus, Vanderbilt is a charter member of the SEC.

(06-12-2019 10:44 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Wake Forest is a charter ACC member. Agree with JRsec point on the NC4. It is not just about expansion, they have disagreed before over adding new members. UNC-Duke are very bonded when it comes to expansion. But on matters of conference hirings, tournament locations, enacting rules and related policies, there is definitely a NC4 political dynamic. That doesn't mean their views only count, but four out of fifteen is certainly a pocket base.
And private schools can hide some salary and expenditure information; but they do have to file tax information even as non-profits. To receive federal grants, information must be reported. Student financial aid has to have institutional financial information, including athletics data. Pell grants, fed work-study, etc. receive those figures whether or not information is distributed to non-government entities and sources conducting surveys.

I agree with this but just wanted to add it's really more of a 6 or 7 team block. You have the Carolina 4, Virginia (which Virginia Tech votes with frequently), and many times if it isn't a football issue Clemson will habitually support them as well.

That's why the football issues particularly concern the Carolina 4. It is a topic where Virginia Tech and Clemson are apt not to vote with them, although UVa will. And in the ACC it takes a 3/4's vote to change something. Holding a solid 5 votes creates an obstructionist block when it comes to passing things favorable to the football first schools.


BTW: The Waco Tribune still sees some vulnerability:
https://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/f...2a019.html

It's a good read but a growing problem is the papers move these articles so they can record your visit at their site. So you will go to a 404 Can't Find message at the Waco Trib but they have a search window. So type the article title into the window and you can pull it up.

(06-12-2019 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:44 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Wake Forest is a charter ACC member. Agree with JRsec point on the NC4. It is not just about expansion, they have disagreed before over adding new members. UNC-Duke are very bonded when it comes to expansion. But on matters of conference hirings, tournament locations, enacting rules and related policies, there is definitely a NC4 political dynamic. That doesn't mean their views only count, but four out of fifteen is certainly a pocket base.
And private schools can hide some salary and expenditure information; but they do have to file tax information even as non-profits. To receive federal grants, information must be reported. Student financial aid has to have institutional financial information, including athletics data. Pell grants, fed work-study, etc. receive those figures whether or not information is distributed to non-government entities and sources conducting surveys.

I agree with this but just wanted to add it's really more of a 6 or 7 team block. You have the Carolina 4, Virginia (which Virginia Tech votes with frequently), and many times if it isn't a football issue Clemson will habitually support them as well.

That's why the football issues particularly concern the Carolina 4. It is a topic where Virginia Tech and Clemson are apt not to vote with them, although UVa will. And in the ACC it takes a 3/4's vote to change something. Holding a solid 5 votes creates an obstructionist block when it comes to passing things favorable to the football first schools.


BTW: The Waco Tribune still sees some vulnerability:
https://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/f...2a019.html


It's a good read but a growing problem is the papers move these articles so they can record your visit at their site. So you will go to a 404 Can't Find message at the Waco Trib but they have a search window. So type the article title into the window and you can pull it up.

TRY THIS LINK:
Is Another Round of College Realignment on the Horizon?

Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

(06-12-2019 09:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

If as certain West Virginia posters are claiming the Big 10 could legitimately get Colorado/Stanford (which I doubt) then the Big 12 could have some P5 ieces to play with.

In terms of the old market model, there are plenty of G5 school's out there that might help too.

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I certainly don't think there will be any difficulty in placing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, and consequently I think Oklahoma and Texas will have long enough coattails to find slots for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.

The serendipity here is if the PAC does indeed find a suitor to buy into their conference then the shareholder might well insist on expansion of the time slots with which to sell PAC games. That might be good news for Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Christian and Kansas.

When the ACC sobers up about not landing Texas then I think WVU finds a home as well since they add content value where the ACC is weakest (football) while being competitive in baseball and basketball.

Baylor may indeed be odd man out.

(06-12-2019 09:58 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

If as certain West Virginia posters are claiming the Big 10 could legitimately get Colorado/Stanford (which I doubt) then the Big 12 could have some P5 ieces to play with.

In terms of the old market model, there are plenty of G5 school's out there that might help too.

That would be a fascinating combo.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Big Ten could snag Colorado although Stanford would be harder. Makes sense on some level, I suppose.

But if the PAC 12 is serious about these potential investors then that may mean they've got a company lined up that would be willing to invest in their rights long term. If that's the case then I think it's a long shot that they lose any schools.

(06-12-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I certainly don't think there will be any difficulty in placing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, and consequently I think Oklahoma and Texas will have long enough coattails to find slots for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.

The serendipity here is if the PAC does indeed find a suitor to buy into their conference then the shareholder might well insist on expansion of the time slots with which to sell PAC games. That might be good news for Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Christian and Kansas.

When the ACC sobers up about not landing Texas then I think WVU finds a home as well since they add content value where the ACC is weakest (football) while being competitive in baseball and basketball.

Baylor may indeed be odd man out.

Let me theorize here...

If the PAC has investors willing to spend $750M then that may indicate the league has a working understanding with a new media player for the next round of contracts. It wouldn't be ESPN and almost certainly not FOX. CBS and NBC need ratings generators at bargain prices...doesn't make sense.

Other media companies perhaps with the exception of Warner Media(formerly Turner) wouldn't have enough cash to drop on an experiment like the PAC. Warner is not really in the game so they could be willing to dump a lot of money on the PAC in order to buy into the market. There are also rumors that AT&T is about to spin off DirecTV to Dish Network. AT&T now owns Warner so that sort of sale could provide an interesting cash influx just in time for new media rights deals to come up for bid. Throw that in with the long term savings of getting out of the satellite market and AT&T/Warner could be in a strong position going forward to bid on sports.

But there is the reality that AT&T dropped the PAC from their Uverse service. The PAC Networks never got on DirecTV in the first place so maybe that company isn't the one who believes in the future of the PAC.

Makes more sense that it would be a brand new player. Newcomers in other words...maybe Amazon...maybe Google or Apple.

I'm not sure Amazon would be the same company investing $750M for a slice of NewCo, but that's also possible.

If Amazon was willing to drop money on the PAC 12 for a major rights deal on the condition that the league expanded into the CTZ then everybody's in business. Amazon, even more so than a broadcast network, would be interested in large markets with buying power. Their investment will make money to some degree if they're broadcasting popular schools and selling additional subscriptions and such, but they also need those schools to draw audiences from locales where there's more disposable income. A significant portion of Amazon's plan on accruing profit will rely on these sports broadcasts driving fans to purchase from the existing online platform. Amazon would be both broadcaster and advertiser.

PAC 12 country has a good bit of disposable income, but they need to expand into more markets. That means reaching into TX in a big way. UT would probably not be on board, but I could see the PAC wanting as big a slice of TX as possible. That probably still doesn't mean Baylor, but I really think Houston would be on the table.

The investors give the PAC a short term boost in exchange for long term profitability that's undergirded by new media. Biggest question would be who the new media is...

If UT knew that the Pac 12 could actually wind up to be profitable, I could see them changing their minds. One to gauge if this is true or not is to take a look at the 'Horns OOC schedule in the future when the Pac 12 has new media lined up, and that should tell the tale.

(06-13-2019 03:12 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  If UT knew that the Pac 12 could actually wind up to be profitable, I could see them changing their minds. One to gauge if this is true or not is to take a look at the 'Horns OOC schedule in the future when the Pac 12 has new media lined up, and that should tell the tale.

You won't see much on that new schedule except for SEC schools and a few Big 10 schools and maybe an ACC school.

As to ATU's theory one thing stood out to me, If AT&T decided to get in on the PAC they would have at least softened them up by keeping them off of their platforms. But I do think Amazon is the most likely and here's why. 750 million for a 10 or 15 year commitment is cheap advertising (think 60 - 75 million a year to have your name plastered across college football, basketball, and baseball screens, on a network, and in venues, and if it fails you have a write off.

(06-12-2019 09:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

While I don't expect the Big 12 to do it the other school that does really well for the Big 12 ratings wise in a content model is Houston. Houston does well ratings wise in each Texahoma game it is involved in and I think even the Texahoma games that don't involve Houston get a bump with the Big 12 having a hometown team in Houston.

That being said with all the PAC 12 issues, I don't expect the Big 12 to invite Houston because of possible opportunities with PAC schools. Although, I will say this I think Houston would give the Big 12 better tv ratings than a Colorado, Az., ASU, Utah.

The other negative to making an addition of BYU & Houston is the playoff, bowl CCG money is split 12 ways instead of 10 which has been part of what keeps the Big 12 revenue strong. Also, OU seems to have opposition to adding Houston due to recruiting concerns.

If Baylor was booted adding Houston would be an improvement for the Big 12 IMO.

(06-13-2019 12:15 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

While I don't expect the Big 12 to do it the other school that does really well for the Big 12 ratings wise in a content model is Houston. Houston does well ratings wise in each Texahoma game it is involved in and I think even the Texahoma games that don't involve Houston get a bump with the Big 12 having a hometown team in Houston.

That being said with all the PAC 12 issues, I don't expect the Big 12 to invite Houston because of possible opportunities with PAC schools. Although, I will say this I think Houston would give the Big 12 better tv ratings than a Colorado, Az., ASU, Utah.

The other negative to making an addition of BYU & Houston is the playoff, bowl CCG money is split 12 ways instead of 10 which has been part of what keeps the Big 12 revenue strong. Also, OU seems to have opposition to adding Houston due to recruiting concerns.

If Baylor was booted adding Houston would be an improvement for the Big 12 IMO.

Houston is in a Catch 22. If the Big 12 tried to add them Oklahoma would raise hell about elevating another Texas school in one of their recruiting centers, or bolt. But the Houston demographic will be valuable to some other conference (PAC or ACC), but not the Big 12, especially now that the footprint model is dying for all but T3 revenue. (If I were the ACC, and knew N.D. wouldn't go all in, I would add Houston and T.C.U. for the markets and the football upgrade.)

Baylor's inclusion has been an interesting stumbling block in many ways, from the PAC's reluctance to consider them, to Houston's exclusion, to the scandals. Very reminiscent of how SMU helped to deliver the final blow to the SWC.

(06-13-2019 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:15 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

While I don't expect the Big 12 to do it the other school that does really well for the Big 12 ratings wise in a content model is Houston. Houston does well ratings wise in each Texahoma game it is involved in and I think even the Texahoma games that don't involve Houston get a bump with the Big 12 having a hometown team in Houston.

That being said with all the PAC 12 issues, I don't expect the Big 12 to invite Houston because of possible opportunities with PAC schools. Although, I will say this I think Houston would give the Big 12 better tv ratings than a Colorado, Az., ASU, Utah.

The other negative to making an addition of BYU & Houston is the playoff, bowl CCG money is split 12 ways instead of 10 which has been part of what keeps the Big 12 revenue strong. Also, OU seems to have opposition to adding Houston due to recruiting concerns.

If Baylor was booted adding Houston would be an improvement for the Big 12 IMO.

Houston is in a Catch 22. If the Big 12 tried to add them Oklahoma would raise hell about elevating another Texas school in one of their recruiting centers, or bolt. But the Houston demographic will be valuable to some other conference (PAC or ACC), but not the Big 12, especially now that the footprint model is dying for all but T3 revenue. (If I were the ACC, and knew N.D. wouldn't go all in, I would add Houston and T.C.U. for the markets and the football upgrade.)

Baylor's inclusion has been an interesting stumbling block in many ways, from the PAC's reluctance to consider them, to Houston's exclusion, to the scandals. Very reminiscent of how SMU helped to deliver the final blow to the SWC.

JRsec,
I agree OU has opposition to Houston(I don't know if it is a deal breaker or not) and splitting playoff money, CCG and bowl money two more ways. But I do think Houston is actually a good content model addition, I can't tell if you were disagreeing about that with the Big 12 or not? Maybe you were saying OU disagrees so its a done deal, if OU makes it a deal breaker for being in the conference. That I can agree with.

(06-13-2019 01:06 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:15 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Obviously there is anxiety in the B12. Baylor knows their option to move to another P5 conference is slim to none.
If the B12 really wants to survive basically intact, they need to be taking action now with expanding, or try to do some kind of structured affiliation with the PAC12.

The B12 could find decent, but not perfect, additions. Doing so now would be better than the risks at crunch time.

Frankly, I think there are as many as five members expecting (or firmly hoping with some indicators) to move to another power conference in a few, short years.

The B12 has created their own vulnerability image. They have had time to change that, but collectively refused to do so.

Rather than some grand design to disassemble and relocate all or most all in the B12, change will be done the old fashioned way: courting and picking-off. The 16-team conference figures as a new norm, certainly is plausible.

I don't think expansion helps them at this stage. Unless they land some pretty solid contributors then their payouts will go down with expansion and that will exacerbate the problem.

The key issue, of course, being that all the solid contributors are already in Power 5 leagues.

To me, there's only one school out there that's worthy of a P5 invite...BYU. They would fit pretty well in the Big 12, but there's no one else to balance the numbers. Even then, BYU is not a dominant force in the ratings. You really need another school of even higher quality to make the move worth it.

While I don't expect the Big 12 to do it the other school that does really well for the Big 12 ratings wise in a content model is Houston. Houston does well ratings wise in each Texahoma game it is involved in and I think even the Texahoma games that don't involve Houston get a bump with the Big 12 having a hometown team in Houston.

That being said with all the PAC 12 issues, I don't expect the Big 12 to invite Houston because of possible opportunities with PAC schools. Although, I will say this I think Houston would give the Big 12 better tv ratings than a Colorado, Az., ASU, Utah.

The other negative to making an addition of BYU & Houston is the playoff, bowl CCG money is split 12 ways instead of 10 which has been part of what keeps the Big 12 revenue strong. Also, OU seems to have opposition to adding Houston due to recruiting concerns.

If Baylor was booted adding Houston would be an improvement for the Big 12 IMO.

Houston is in a Catch 22. If the Big 12 tried to add them Oklahoma would raise hell about elevating another Texas school in one of their recruiting centers, or bolt. But the Houston demographic will be valuable to some other conference (PAC or ACC), but not the Big 12, especially now that the footprint model is dying for all but T3 revenue. (If I were the ACC, and knew N.D. wouldn't go all in, I would add Houston and T.C.U. for the markets and the football upgrade.)

Baylor's inclusion has been an interesting stumbling block in many ways, from the PAC's reluctance to consider them, to Houston's exclusion, to the scandals. Very reminiscent of how SMU helped to deliver the final blow to the SWC.

JRsec,
I agree OU has opposition to Houston(I don't know if it is a deal breaker or not) and splitting playoff money, CCG and bowl money two more ways. But I do think Houston is actually a good content model addition, I can't tell if you were disagreeing about that with the Big 12 or not? Maybe you were saying OU disagrees so its a done deal, if OU makes it a deal breaker for being in the conference. That I can agree with.

I was agreeing that without Baylor Houston would likely have gotten in. I am disagreeing that Houston adds enough value to the Big 12 with regard to ESPN's aspiration to make them feasible for the Big 12. And I was suggesting that they had value to the PAC or ACC.